17 ms·

Huh? Insane? The capitol was assaulted in order to prevent the democratically elected president. An actual insurrection which maybe had some attempted assassina

Huh? Insane? The capitol was assaulted in order to prevent the democratically elected president. An actual insurrection which maybe had some attempted assassination and theft/sale of national security secrets mixed in. Seems like a pretty reasonable response.

throwoutttt 6y ago
Thank God the maga shaman didn't get his hands on the magic lecturn and legislate an election audit
hcurtiss 6y ago
If that was an actual insurrection or attempted assassination, it was the weakest effort imaginable. That doesn’t necessarily change the thrust of your comment (that enforcement is appropriate) but the breathless hyperbole around what happened has really surprised me. An actual insurrection would have looked very different. More guns and C4, fewer selfies.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  You assume that competency is a requirement for insurrection. It is not.
- api 6y ago
  Look into Mussolini and Hitler's early attempts. They looked really amateur and ridiculous too. The Munich Beer Hall Putsch was almost as much of a clown show. You even had some volkisch occult wackos who would have felt quite at home with the Q shaman.
  - tiziniano 6y ago
    Look into the burning of the Reichstag...
    - api 6y ago
      That was later. I’m talking about the early stuff.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  "More guns" is right. I watched it live and then dug through the videos, selfies, etc after and inside the Capitol, I found one guy who might have had a gun. The other weapons appear to have been convenient - a fire extinguisher, flags, etc. It looks less and less like an "insurrection" and more like jackasses doing jackass things.
  - taneq 6y ago
    This is a good point - this is the same group that is very gun rights focused and has been wandering around the streets armed with automatic weapons. It's kind of weird to see them without guns.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      I don't know what the framework was, but open carry wasn't allowed prior to the rally. This article quotes the police chief saying as much: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/march-for-trump-rally-dc-january-6-protest-pro-trump-demonstrators-event-details/65-2e019324-7861-48fa-8d78-d99b9617558b https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/march-for-t... I would also expect anyone coming from the rally had been through some security screening.
      - caseysoftware 6y ago
        Relevant data points: - Open Carry is always illegal in DC. - DC does issue concealed carry permits but doesn't honor them from other states (called reciprocity). - This was talked about far and wide in advance on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere framed as "don't bring guns to DC! You will go to jail!" and supported by flyers posted throughout DC. (You can still find pictures of them online.)
        suifbwish 6y ago
        I believe breaking into the capitol building is also illegal so I fail to see why people who are already breaking one law would care about the others
- stonecraftwolf 6y ago
  Just because you failed at crime doesn’t mean you didn’t commit a crime. Attempted murder is still a thing. And I think you should probably read more about what actually happened. The initial photos were of idiots in horns and face paint and that has colored the public perception of what happened, but the clownshow gave cover to a smaller number of organized militia types compromised of former and active duty military and law enforcement. Those people were armed, came prepared, had intelligence about the layout of the building, and received updates on the location of MOC. They were there to kill and take hostages, and they came within minutes of achieving that goal. Nothing about this was laughable, and the concern is not overblown.
  - hobs 6y ago
    Dont forget all the explosives that were removed.
    - gwright 6y ago
      My understanding was that the explosives were not at the capitol (DNC headquarters I think), but maybe I'm just out of date on additional information? Not saying that is good either, just that there were many things going on that day that aren't necessary related via any sort of coordinated operation.
  - gwright 6y ago
    I think it is reasonable to argue that there were a number of people in the crowd that had ill intent. Not sure which crime fits the facts though (sedition, attempted murder, etc.) That will depend on actual facts, which is why we have trials, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to think that everyone on the Capitol grounds had that same ill intent. More likely that the organized minority instigated the crowd and used them as cover for their shameful and ridiculous efforts. Needless to say, the predominent narrative seems to be that anyone in the crowd was an "insurrectionist". That goes too far IMHO.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    > a smaller number of organized militia types compromised of former and active duty military and law enforcement I haven't seen anything about this. Can you share a link - especially pictures or video? I'd love to learn more. Thanks.
- shakna 6y ago
  > More guns and C4, fewer selfies. It's not like there weren't homemade explosives found on the site: > Coffman, 70, told police he had mason jars filled with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline." Federal investigators believe that combination, if exploded, would have the effect of napalm "insofar as it causes the flammable liquid to better stick to objects that it hits upon detonation," according to the court record. [0] [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots...
  - jandrewrogers 6y ago
    FWIW, those aren't explosives. Flammable, yes, but definitely not explosive. Spreading gross misinformation like this is part of the problem.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      It is not part of the problem, it is part of the plan. How else are we going to get bi-partisan support for the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021
    - shakna 6y ago
      > The court documents said that those items and the explosive-filled mason jars "in close proximity to one another constitute a combination of parts" that could be used as a "destructive device." I used "explosive" because that was how it appeared in the court filings. Without knowing the precise mixture, it could result as either something to cause a conflagration, or a detonation. Calling it misinformation is somewhat disingenuous when not all the information is publicly available.
      - jandrewrogers 6y ago
        Your quote literally calls it a "destructive device", not an explosive, which is a term of art including mostly non-explosive things. The material in question is specified in the article. It is not explosive in any configuration as an incontrovertible matter of elementary chemistry. It does meet the criteria for being a destructive device in law. Calling this "misinformation" is an accurate characterization. You are not responsible for what CNN reports but it should lead you to question the credibility of that news source.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sneak 6y ago
I don't see how putting everyone in a huge radius, journalists and those otherwise uninvolved included, under investigative suspicion and location surveillance to respond to what is only charitably described as an insurrection (the group was almost entirely unarmed) is in any way reasonable. It seems like a massive overreaction. If we're truly interested in democracy and the rule of law, we'd do well to not shred our standard democratic and legal procedures (such as the presumption of innocence, and the fourth amendment's prohibition on searches without probable cause) the instant a few thousand angry, unarmed yahoos show up with pitchforks and banners and achieve precisely nothing. We shouldn't even do that if a few thousand armed, trained people show up, with the express intent of doing battle, taking control, and holding territory (which, again, to be clear, is not what happened). We absolutely should not do it when a bunch of idiot yahoos break windows and set off fire extinguishers and steal shit. Even had the building burned to the ground, universal surveillance such as this would not be a proportionate reaction.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  What is the harm that is incurred when the tower records are transferred from the operator to the government? Is it just too scary of a slope to stand on or something? To me it seems to fit under 'reasonable' for the government to issue a warrant for presence information in the locality of the capitol. Given the 3rd party doctrine that probably isn't what happened, but the objection there would be more procedural than about control over data stored on servers.
  - sneak 6y ago
    The US government has publicly admitted that they assassinate people based solely on metadata. https://www.justsecurity.org/10318/video-clip-director-nsa-cia-we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.justsecurity.org/10318/video-clip-director-nsa-c... https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base... The state collecting this information is a public hazard, especially considering the relatively recent development of the assassination of US citizens without trial.
- 6y ago
tiziniano 6y ago
Not to be a grammar nazi, but I fail to see how this sentence works "The capitol was assaulted in order to prevent the democratically elected president." On an emotional level, I can see how you see it as a threat to your illusions. Someone was trying to prevent your president from existing. It does sound scary and fits in line with the gnostic thought pervading the American left. "The world is broken, but we will fix it, and it will be not broken then." (Cue the unicorns...) Now, addressing the actual proposition (short of an argument): Where was the "actual insurrection" and where is the evidence for "attempted assassinations" and "theft/sale of national secrets". I'm not a lawyer and certainly not in your jurisdiction, but it is apparent that you possess evidence of these three things. Hence, I urge you to contact the appropriate law enforcement and share your findings.
- gibrown 6y ago
  Pretty sure you have veered into being a bit more than just a grammar nazi.
  - tiziniano 6y ago
    Still, little content to these claims including the one above.
VoodooJuJu 6y ago
>assault on the capitol; insurrection; attempted assassination I just want to point out the two problems with the rhetoric that mass-media and you are using to describe this event: 1. These words confer explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life. In using these words, you are conjuring extremely violent images within the minds of your listeners. When your listeners discover the truth of the event, that the images you've associated with the event do not match what actually happened, your listeners feel manipulated, they feel you're trying to deceive them, and you lose credibility. 2. If enough people keep parroting these particular words to describe this event, the meanings of these words become diluted. For example, prior to this event at the capitol, if you said "terrorist attack", my mind would imagine men wearing balaclavas, wielding AK's, beheading people on video, gassing villages filled with innocent families, scattering them as refugees across the globe. But now, if we accept this event at the capitol as a "terrorist attack", now I don't know if you're talking about a guy smiling and waving as he holds a podium, or if you mean a Wahabbi extremist raping a Yazidi woman after putting a bullet in her son's head. Imagine this woman recounting her rape and the murder of her family, "I experienced a horrific terrorist attack." And then there's you, in referring to some guy taking a selfie at a politician's desk, "I witnessed a horrific terrorist attack." Please, choose more precise, more honest words.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  I don't disagree with your overall point. But you're not making a very fair comparison. The guy holding the podium was not the worst part of the attack on the capitol.
  - VoodooJuJu 6y ago
    What was the worst part of the event at the capitol? What do you think would make a fair comparison?
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      > Guns, Brass Knuckles, Homemade Napalm: Read Some of the Documents From Arrests After the Capitol Riot https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/11/guns-brass-knuckles-homemade-napalm-read-some-of-the-documents-from-arrests-after-the-capitol-riot/ https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/11/guns-brass-knuckles...
defen 6y ago
Even if literally nothing had happened, the government still would have had this technical capability. I think that's what people are worried about, not the specific fact that they're using it to track down the Capitol rioters. If the FBI were evil instead of a force for good, they could use this capability to harass the "good guys".

throwoutttt 6y ago

Thank God the maga shaman didn't get his hands on the magic lecturn and legislate an election audit

hcurtiss 6y ago

If that was an actual insurrection or attempted assassination, it was the weakest effort imaginable. That doesn’t necessarily change the thrust of your comment (that enforcement is appropriate) but the breathless hyperbole around what happened has really surprised me. An actual insurrection would have looked very different. More guns and C4, fewer selfies.

Denvercoder9 6y ago
You assume that competency is a requirement for insurrection. It is not.
api 6y ago
Look into Mussolini and Hitler's early attempts. They looked really amateur and ridiculous too. The Munich Beer Hall Putsch was almost as much of a clown show. You even had some volkisch occult wackos who would have felt quite at home with the Q shaman.
- tiziniano 6y ago
  Look into the burning of the Reichstag...
  - api 6y ago
    That was later. I’m talking about the early stuff.
caseysoftware 6y ago
"More guns" is right. I watched it live and then dug through the videos, selfies, etc after and inside the Capitol, I found one guy who might have had a gun. The other weapons appear to have been convenient - a fire extinguisher, flags, etc. It looks less and less like an "insurrection" and more like jackasses doing jackass things.
- taneq 6y ago
  This is a good point - this is the same group that is very gun rights focused and has been wandering around the streets armed with automatic weapons. It's kind of weird to see them without guns.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    I don't know what the framework was, but open carry wasn't allowed prior to the rally. This article quotes the police chief saying as much: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/march-for-trump-rally-dc-january-6-protest-pro-trump-demonstrators-event-details/65-2e019324-7861-48fa-8d78-d99b9617558b https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/march-for-t... I would also expect anyone coming from the rally had been through some security screening.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      Relevant data points: - Open Carry is always illegal in DC. - DC does issue concealed carry permits but doesn't honor them from other states (called reciprocity). - This was talked about far and wide in advance on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere framed as "don't bring guns to DC! You will go to jail!" and supported by flyers posted throughout DC. (You can still find pictures of them online.)
      - suifbwish 6y ago
        I believe breaking into the capitol building is also illegal so I fail to see why people who are already breaking one law would care about the others
stonecraftwolf 6y ago
Just because you failed at crime doesn’t mean you didn’t commit a crime. Attempted murder is still a thing. And I think you should probably read more about what actually happened. The initial photos were of idiots in horns and face paint and that has colored the public perception of what happened, but the clownshow gave cover to a smaller number of organized militia types compromised of former and active duty military and law enforcement. Those people were armed, came prepared, had intelligence about the layout of the building, and received updates on the location of MOC. They were there to kill and take hostages, and they came within minutes of achieving that goal. Nothing about this was laughable, and the concern is not overblown.
- hobs 6y ago
  Dont forget all the explosives that were removed.
  - gwright 6y ago
    My understanding was that the explosives were not at the capitol (DNC headquarters I think), but maybe I'm just out of date on additional information? Not saying that is good either, just that there were many things going on that day that aren't necessary related via any sort of coordinated operation.
- gwright 6y ago
  I think it is reasonable to argue that there were a number of people in the crowd that had ill intent. Not sure which crime fits the facts though (sedition, attempted murder, etc.) That will depend on actual facts, which is why we have trials, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to think that everyone on the Capitol grounds had that same ill intent. More likely that the organized minority instigated the crowd and used them as cover for their shameful and ridiculous efforts. Needless to say, the predominent narrative seems to be that anyone in the crowd was an "insurrectionist". That goes too far IMHO.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  > a smaller number of organized militia types compromised of former and active duty military and law enforcement I haven't seen anything about this. Can you share a link - especially pictures or video? I'd love to learn more. Thanks.
shakna 6y ago
> More guns and C4, fewer selfies. It's not like there weren't homemade explosives found on the site: > Coffman, 70, told police he had mason jars filled with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline." Federal investigators believe that combination, if exploded, would have the effect of napalm "insofar as it causes the flammable liquid to better stick to objects that it hits upon detonation," according to the court record. [0] [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots...
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  FWIW, those aren't explosives. Flammable, yes, but definitely not explosive. Spreading gross misinformation like this is part of the problem.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    It is not part of the problem, it is part of the plan. How else are we going to get bi-partisan support for the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021
  - shakna 6y ago
    > The court documents said that those items and the explosive-filled mason jars "in close proximity to one another constitute a combination of parts" that could be used as a "destructive device." I used "explosive" because that was how it appeared in the court filings. Without knowing the precise mixture, it could result as either something to cause a conflagration, or a detonation. Calling it misinformation is somewhat disingenuous when not all the information is publicly available.
    - jandrewrogers 6y ago
      Your quote literally calls it a "destructive device", not an explosive, which is a term of art including mostly non-explosive things. The material in question is specified in the article. It is not explosive in any configuration as an incontrovertible matter of elementary chemistry. It does meet the criteria for being a destructive device in law. Calling this "misinformation" is an accurate characterization. You are not responsible for what CNN reports but it should lead you to question the credibility of that news source.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

I don't see how putting everyone in a huge radius, journalists and those otherwise uninvolved included, under investigative suspicion and location surveillance to respond to what is only charitably described as an insurrection (the group was almost entirely unarmed) is in any way reasonable. It seems like a massive overreaction. If we're truly interested in democracy and the rule of law, we'd do well to not shred our standard democratic and legal procedures (such as the presumption of innocence, and the fourth amendment's prohibition on searches without probable cause) the instant a few thousand angry, unarmed yahoos show up with pitchforks and banners and achieve precisely nothing. We shouldn't even do that if a few thousand armed, trained people show up, with the express intent of doing battle, taking control, and holding territory (which, again, to be clear, is not what happened). We absolutely should not do it when a bunch of idiot yahoos break windows and set off fire extinguishers and steal shit. Even had the building burned to the ground, universal surveillance such as this would not be a proportionate reaction.

maxerickson 6y ago
What is the harm that is incurred when the tower records are transferred from the operator to the government? Is it just too scary of a slope to stand on or something? To me it seems to fit under 'reasonable' for the government to issue a warrant for presence information in the locality of the capitol. Given the 3rd party doctrine that probably isn't what happened, but the objection there would be more procedural than about control over data stored on servers.
- sneak 6y ago
  The US government has publicly admitted that they assassinate people based solely on metadata. https://www.justsecurity.org/10318/video-clip-director-nsa-cia-we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.justsecurity.org/10318/video-clip-director-nsa-c... https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base... The state collecting this information is a public hazard, especially considering the relatively recent development of the assassination of US citizens without trial.
6y ago

tiziniano 6y ago

Not to be a grammar nazi, but I fail to see how this sentence works "The capitol was assaulted in order to prevent the democratically elected president." On an emotional level, I can see how you see it as a threat to your illusions. Someone was trying to prevent your president from existing. It does sound scary and fits in line with the gnostic thought pervading the American left. "The world is broken, but we will fix it, and it will be not broken then." (Cue the unicorns...) Now, addressing the actual proposition (short of an argument): Where was the "actual insurrection" and where is the evidence for "attempted assassinations" and "theft/sale of national secrets". I'm not a lawyer and certainly not in your jurisdiction, but it is apparent that you possess evidence of these three things. Hence, I urge you to contact the appropriate law enforcement and share your findings.

gibrown 6y ago
Pretty sure you have veered into being a bit more than just a grammar nazi.
- tiziniano 6y ago
  Still, little content to these claims including the one above.

VoodooJuJu 6y ago

>assault on the capitol; insurrection; attempted assassination I just want to point out the two problems with the rhetoric that mass-media and you are using to describe this event: 1. These words confer explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life. In using these words, you are conjuring extremely violent images within the minds of your listeners. When your listeners discover the truth of the event, that the images you've associated with the event do not match what actually happened, your listeners feel manipulated, they feel you're trying to deceive them, and you lose credibility. 2. If enough people keep parroting these particular words to describe this event, the meanings of these words become diluted. For example, prior to this event at the capitol, if you said "terrorist attack", my mind would imagine men wearing balaclavas, wielding AK's, beheading people on video, gassing villages filled with innocent families, scattering them as refugees across the globe. But now, if we accept this event at the capitol as a "terrorist attack", now I don't know if you're talking about a guy smiling and waving as he holds a podium, or if you mean a Wahabbi extremist raping a Yazidi woman after putting a bullet in her son's head. Imagine this woman recounting her rape and the murder of her family, "I experienced a horrific terrorist attack." And then there's you, in referring to some guy taking a selfie at a politician's desk, "I witnessed a horrific terrorist attack." Please, choose more precise, more honest words.

Thorrez 6y ago
I don't disagree with your overall point. But you're not making a very fair comparison. The guy holding the podium was not the worst part of the attack on the capitol.
- VoodooJuJu 6y ago
  What was the worst part of the event at the capitol? What do you think would make a fair comparison?
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    > Guns, Brass Knuckles, Homemade Napalm: Read Some of the Documents From Arrests After the Capitol Riot https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/11/guns-brass-knuckles-homemade-napalm-read-some-of-the-documents-from-arrests-after-the-capitol-riot/ https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/11/guns-brass-knuckles...

defen 6y ago

Even if literally nothing had happened, the government still would have had this technical capability. I think that's what people are worried about, not the specific fact that they're using it to track down the Capitol rioters. If the FBI were evil instead of a force for good, they could use this capability to harass the "good guys".