11 ms·

The global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well. ...

mmaunder 5y ago
Wonder how the Biden admin will feel if he isn’t re-elected and the next administration inherits the domestic terrorism unit.
- cronix 5y ago
  You don't need the presidency for that. You just need to be the majority party in congress because the majority party controls the committees and agenda. Congressional midterm elections are this year.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    The legislative branch (congress) isn't supposed to be law enforcement. Law enforcement is squarely executive, as is presidency.
    - cronix 5y ago
      Right, but the presidential branch doesn't do investigations, or congressional hearings, or have the subpoena power that the congressional branch does (like we're seeing in the Jan 6th committee). They have a lot of investigatory power. They can release documents and emails. They can swear in testimony. They can hold you in contempt.
      - tssva 5y ago
        So there is no presidential branch. There is an executive branch. There also isn't a congressional branch. There is a legislative branch. The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.
        cronix 5y ago
        Pedantic arguments aside, congress does all of that too. > The executive branch conducts investigations, >> Essentially, the Court held that the Constitution's text implies a power to investigate given its power to legislate. > issues subpoenas >> the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Congress's power to issue subpoenas in a 1917 case (Marshall v. Gordon), stating that "in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there [was] a power implied to deal with contempt." > certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt >> The authority of Congress to cite an individual with criminal contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the U.S. Code. > others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court >> Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-congress-process-and-penalties.html https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-...
        tssva 5y ago
        Yes, Congress does issue subpoenas and conduct investigations as stated in your original post and I didn't disagree with you on this point, but you also claimed that the "presidential branch" doesn't do these things. The main point of my reply is that the executive branch does do those things also.
- jensensbutton 5y ago
  What are you implying with this comment?
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I think he is implying it may be used on political enemies or just generally for discretionary prosecution that disproportionately targets those who fall out of favor with the powerful.
  - mmaunder 5y ago
    Administrations change and you better be ok with future executives inheriting powers that you create. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, especially domestically. Nelson Mandela is a fine example of one of the greatest humans in history who was defined by the South African government as a domestic terrorist during apartheid.
  - rglover 5y ago
    That this is essentially a low-key Stasi that can and will be used to improperly go after political dissidents under the guise of "domestic terrorism." The entire campaign/programming around "protecting our democracy" was the precursor psychological operation so the population goes along with single party rule. NBC News was running this last year (more priming): https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadvisory.png https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadviso.... It's all clever wordplay designed to manipulate the public into thinking people who disagree politically are terrorists (absent any actual proof that they have intent/motive/etc to commit acts of terror). It's the same logic that's held people from January 6th in solitary confinement without charges of insurrection (despite the media parroting/programming that it was an insurrection).
    - shrimpx 5y ago
      You're implying that democrats are doing all this PsyOps preparing to rule the country indefinitely? From where I sit, democrats are lame ducks who are set to get swept in 22 and 24.
- lkxijlewlf 5y ago
  Huh?
- mc32 5y ago
  It’s a self sustaining bureaucracy that is disconnected from any particular administration. Administrations will, of course, set a particular tone.
  - footlose_3815 5y ago
    [dead]
  - notch656a 5y ago
    The DoJ is in federal executive branch. President is top of chain-of-command of executive branch. In fact, the constitution itself [0] states the [federal] executive power is vested in the president. Disconnect is probably not an accurate word to describe the relationship between DoJ and President. [0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...
    - mc32 5y ago
      True but the president can’t fire the whole department and hire a new one. They have enough trouble when the want to fire the USAG if the other party doesn’t want to see change.
rib3ye 5y ago
[flagged]
- aaomidi 5y ago
- gruez 5y ago
  >though we did almost have an internal coup. no, we didn't. there's no plausible way the people there would have seized power.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    The fact that they got as far as they did is only going to embolden them to do it again.
    - DamnYuppie 5y ago
      It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever. Also why would you even bother doing it that way? You could use far fewer people who are coordinated and go after the politicians at their homes where there is much less security.
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        Because the entire point of it was to pressure Congress into forcing the election of Trump by interfering with the counting of electoral votes which had already taken place. After exhausting all their legel remedies, the last thing they thought they could do was scare Congress and Pence. This isn't some new information.
      - vsareto 5y ago
        Plenty of videos of people in the crowd caught saying that they were seeking the chamber and congressional members to stop the certification. Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.
sparrc 5y ago
To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that often have barely functioning or extremely corrupt governments.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that To be fair, the "global war on terror" is not even pretending to trying to tackle a problem it largely created
throw0101a 5y ago
> The global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well. Given historical evidence, there's a chance it will actually be successful, as it was done in the past. After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI went after the far-right militia movement, and clamped down on it. * https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-city-extremist-groups-wane-but-remain-threats/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-cit... * https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history-experts https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history... * https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idUKTRE63R4M420100428 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idU...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notch656a 5y ago
  Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia? How about we just clamp down on anyone doing bad things (including day-care bomber McVeigh), rather than going after people for their political beliefs. You sound like you're advocating for domestic terrorism yourself if you want people with guns to go after those of your chosen political target merely exercising 1A and 2A rights.
  - lokar 5y ago
    Every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia
    - notch656a 5y ago
      10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Most military age males are in a militia. >Every state has laws Ignoring the fact that not all states have laws that specifically ban militias in general (just certain use of them), why on earth would DoJ (federal gov) be enforcing state law? What FEDERAL law bans organizations of men, already part of militia by US Code, from fraternizing together?
dang 5y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments. I'm not saying you're wrong, but leads to tedious, dumbed down threads, and usually flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mysecretaccount 5y ago
  I disagree with the characterization of this user's comment as unsubstantive.
  - beeboop 5y ago
    Same
  - dang 5y ago
    It's a divisive topic and the comment is adding almost zero information plus a bunch of snark. That's not what we want here. (This has nothing to do with who one agrees or disagrees with on the topic.) "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- goostavos 5y ago
  Fair enough.

Wonder how the Biden admin will feel if he isn’t re-elected and the next administration inherits the domestic terrorism unit.

cronix 5y ago
You don't need the presidency for that. You just need to be the majority party in congress because the majority party controls the committees and agenda. Congressional midterm elections are this year.
- notch656a 5y ago
  The legislative branch (congress) isn't supposed to be law enforcement. Law enforcement is squarely executive, as is presidency.
  - cronix 5y ago
    Right, but the presidential branch doesn't do investigations, or congressional hearings, or have the subpoena power that the congressional branch does (like we're seeing in the Jan 6th committee). They have a lot of investigatory power. They can release documents and emails. They can swear in testimony. They can hold you in contempt.
    - tssva 5y ago
      So there is no presidential branch. There is an executive branch. There also isn't a congressional branch. There is a legislative branch. The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.
      - cronix 5y ago
        Pedantic arguments aside, congress does all of that too. > The executive branch conducts investigations, >> Essentially, the Court held that the Constitution's text implies a power to investigate given its power to legislate. > issues subpoenas >> the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Congress's power to issue subpoenas in a 1917 case (Marshall v. Gordon), stating that "in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there [was] a power implied to deal with contempt." > certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt >> The authority of Congress to cite an individual with criminal contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the U.S. Code. > others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court >> Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-congress-process-and-penalties.html https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-...
        tssva 5y ago
        Yes, Congress does issue subpoenas and conduct investigations as stated in your original post and I didn't disagree with you on this point, but you also claimed that the "presidential branch" doesn't do these things. The main point of my reply is that the executive branch does do those things also.
jensensbutton 5y ago
What are you implying with this comment?
- notch656a 5y ago
  I think he is implying it may be used on political enemies or just generally for discretionary prosecution that disproportionately targets those who fall out of favor with the powerful.
- mmaunder 5y ago
  Administrations change and you better be ok with future executives inheriting powers that you create. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, especially domestically. Nelson Mandela is a fine example of one of the greatest humans in history who was defined by the South African government as a domestic terrorist during apartheid.
- rglover 5y ago
  That this is essentially a low-key Stasi that can and will be used to improperly go after political dissidents under the guise of "domestic terrorism." The entire campaign/programming around "protecting our democracy" was the precursor psychological operation so the population goes along with single party rule. NBC News was running this last year (more priming): https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadvisory.png https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadviso.... It's all clever wordplay designed to manipulate the public into thinking people who disagree politically are terrorists (absent any actual proof that they have intent/motive/etc to commit acts of terror). It's the same logic that's held people from January 6th in solitary confinement without charges of insurrection (despite the media parroting/programming that it was an insurrection).
  - shrimpx 5y ago
    You're implying that democrats are doing all this PsyOps preparing to rule the country indefinitely? From where I sit, democrats are lame ducks who are set to get swept in 22 and 24.
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
Huh?
mc32 5y ago
It’s a self sustaining bureaucracy that is disconnected from any particular administration. Administrations will, of course, set a particular tone.
- footlose_3815 5y ago
  [dead]
- notch656a 5y ago
  The DoJ is in federal executive branch. President is top of chain-of-command of executive branch. In fact, the constitution itself [0] states the [federal] executive power is vested in the president. Disconnect is probably not an accurate word to describe the relationship between DoJ and President. [0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...
  - mc32 5y ago
    True but the president can’t fire the whole department and hire a new one. They have enough trouble when the want to fire the USAG if the other party doesn’t want to see change.

rib3ye 5y ago

[flagged]

aaomidi 5y ago
gruez 5y ago
>though we did almost have an internal coup. no, we didn't. there's no plausible way the people there would have seized power.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  The fact that they got as far as they did is only going to embolden them to do it again.
  - DamnYuppie 5y ago
    It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever. Also why would you even bother doing it that way? You could use far fewer people who are coordinated and go after the politicians at their homes where there is much less security.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Because the entire point of it was to pressure Congress into forcing the election of Trump by interfering with the counting of electoral votes which had already taken place. After exhausting all their legel remedies, the last thing they thought they could do was scare Congress and Pence. This isn't some new information.
    - vsareto 5y ago
      Plenty of videos of people in the crowd caught saying that they were seeking the chamber and congressional members to stop the certification. Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.

sparrc 5y ago

To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that often have barely functioning or extremely corrupt governments.

dmitriid 5y ago
> To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that To be fair, the "global war on terror" is not even pretending to trying to tackle a problem it largely created

throw0101a 5y ago

> The global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well. Given historical evidence, there's a chance it will actually be successful, as it was done in the past. After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI went after the far-right militia movement, and clamped down on it. * https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-city-extremist-groups-wane-but-remain-threats/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-cit... * https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history-experts https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history... * https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idUKTRE63R4M420100428 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idU...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
notch656a 5y ago
Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia? How about we just clamp down on anyone doing bad things (including day-care bomber McVeigh), rather than going after people for their political beliefs. You sound like you're advocating for domestic terrorism yourself if you want people with guns to go after those of your chosen political target merely exercising 1A and 2A rights.
- lokar 5y ago
  Every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia
  - notch656a 5y ago
    10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Most military age males are in a militia. >Every state has laws Ignoring the fact that not all states have laws that specifically ban militias in general (just certain use of them), why on earth would DoJ (federal gov) be enforcing state law? What FEDERAL law bans organizations of men, already part of militia by US Code, from fraternizing together?

dang 5y ago

Please don't post unsubstantive comments. I'm not saying you're wrong, but leads to tedious, dumbed down threads, and usually flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mysecretaccount 5y ago
I disagree with the characterization of this user's comment as unsubstantive.
- beeboop 5y ago
  Same
- dang 5y ago
  It's a divisive topic and the comment is adding almost zero information plus a bunch of snark. That's not what we want here. (This has nothing to do with who one agrees or disagrees with on the topic.) "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
goostavos 5y ago
Fair enough.