Monday Night time Owls: Critics warn of latest home terror legal guidelines towards reputable protest
"The government already has numerous instruments in place to counter right-wing extremist uprisings." The Ryan Cooper of the week wrote in a pillar On Sunday.
The problem, Cooper argued, was not a lack of law, but a lack of will from "police and security agencies made up largely of conservative Republicans rather than a few overt fascists." The introduction of new laws would only give law enforcement agencies additional weapons to use against the left, Cooper wrote.
"If you just accuse the existing agencies of breaking up domestic insurgent networks, at best they will elude, delay and drag their feet, and at worst they will completely ignore the fascists as they use new tools against Black Lives Matter and other leftists Wings protestors, "said Cooper. In fact, it is already happening – until now the charges against the fascist mob have been trespassing or other petty crimes, rather than the crime that the left-wing J20 defendants faced because they were close to the petty crimes on the day of Destruction of property in downtown DC was Trump's inauguration. "
DOMESTIC TERRORIST LAW
As the Wall Street Journal reported Last Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden "announced that his priority would be to pass a law against domestic terrorism and was asked to establish a post in the White House overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and the resources for them Combat increased. "
Biden made it his business to identify members of the Trump mob as "domestic terrorists" after launching an attack last week that he condemned as a "sweeping attack on our democratic institutions" led by the incumbent president.
Not long after the mob stormed Capitol Hill, some commentators urged Congress to begin work on a specific law against "domestic terrorism". as ProPublica explained Last week, "while federal laws provide a definition of domestic terrorism, there is no specific law prohibiting it."
The call was from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), The tweeted Saturday that "I respectfully disagree as deputy chairman of the oversight subcommittee that investigated domestic terrorist laws".
"Our problems on Wednesday weren't that there weren't enough laws, resources or intelligence," said the New York Democrat. "We had them and they weren't used. It's time to find out why."
Diala Shamas, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, repeated this point: tell The interception Sunday: "Anyone familiar with the scope of surveillance and combating of black political dissidents or Muslim communities knows that law enforcement has all the tools necessary to aggressively target those who planned and participated in the Assault on the Capitol disrupt and hold accountable. "
"Why they don't raise serious questions, but not because their hands were tied," Shamas said. "We don't need any new terrorism names."
The infamous Patriot Act of 2001, which was passed with Biden's support after the 9/11 attacks, contains a broad definition of the term "domestic terrorism" known as the ACLU warned – was "broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations" including "Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and (World Trade Organization) protesters and the environmental liberation front".
The fears of civil liberties advocates were realized when law enforcement agencies carried out the surveillance as predicted follow Animal rights activists and environmentalists as well Muslim Americans.
Warning Biden of additional draconian measures in response to last week's mob attack, new York Sarah Jones from the magazine wrote that the "state is not lacking any teeth", but "already too many are available". What is really lacking in the way law enforcement and prosecutors handle protests – or violent riots – is the lack of "discretion and any sense of proportion" when responding, argued Jones.
"The forces Biden creates today can be used tomorrow by the enemies of democracy," warned Jones. "Our civil liberties are just too fragile and the risk is far too great."
THREE OTHER ARTICLES THAT WOULD READ
Why Republicans are finally trying to wash off the Trump stink, by Jonathan Chait. Better, much, much too late than never.
Insect decline in the Anthropocene: death from a thousand cuts, by David L. Wagner, Eliza M. Grames, Matthew L. Forister, May R. Berenbaum, and David Stopak. "Terrifying global decline is tearing the tapestry of life apart, with the climate crisis being a critical concern, scientists say.
Guantánamo's unhappy birthday, by Benjamin R. Farley. Today the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, turned 19 years old. Two of the 40 prisoners held there arrived on January 11, 2002 on their first flight to the US military prison.
TOP COMMENTS • SAVED DIARIES
“You shouldn't teach the children of your immigrants everything about democracy unless you want to give them a little bit of it, it just causes trouble. I and the United States are separating our alliance immediately until the United States finds time to read a little of its own textbooks. "
~~ James Jones, From Here To Eternity (1951)
TWEET OF THE DAY
Has anyone else seen the irony in Lauren Boebert bragging about "taking her Glock to Congress" but instead of protecting someone while they are under attack, has she just tweeted Nancy Pelosi's position to the mob?
– John Collins @ (@JohnCollins_KP) January 11, 2021
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos that day in 2007– Science Friday: there is no controversy:
Ever since the terms "climate change" and "global warming" were first published, the right has sought to ridicule the entire term. Could humans affect the atmosphere? Pah! Okay, Rush Limbaugh and the Fox Airheads don't actually say Pshaw. Instead, they have said that the idea of man-made climate change is "ridiculous" and "vicious" and a "farce". (I would give you links for these, but adding a link on Limbaugh and Friends would make the difference).
Most importantly, they advanced the idea that our increasing thirst for combustible hydrocarbons could only cause a minor change in the environment, which is controversial. Sure, sure, we might have a hot year – or two or ten – but that doesn't mean people had anything to do with it. After all, we're so small and the atmosphere is just so big. How could a little old us possibly have more impact than volcanoes or cyclical change or the bad old carbon fairy or whatever the law wants to put forward this week? We changed the air? Huh, that's just controversial.
They relied on paid schills to generate pop science FUD, and like the mercenaries of ignorance who are constantly trying to create the impression that there was a scientific debate about evolution, they made smoke in hopes of humans to believe that there is a fire. They have created fake organizations dedicated to spreading misinformation (current headline "The Plants of the Earth Tell Us They Love Rising CO2!"). They even made a hero of Michael Crichton (the one man whose ego could be bigger than Bush) and Rush put together) and his report on a "conspiracy" of global warming, in which he frequently uses his poorly researched fictional book as evidence for quotes the evil environmentalist left trying to strip off your lobster.
The problem with this notion is that the people who stole the "It's just a theory" page from the Whacko creationists are lying. There is no controversy. There weren't any in scientific journals, and no, scientists did Not I think we'd only freeze a decade ago no matter how many times the Schills say they did. With each passing day the evidence is growing more convincing.