The same people complaining about the Patriot Act and cheering on Snowden for publicizing NSA PRISM are the same people cheering on govt mass triangulating civilians.
That's quite a generalization, and not really the case going off people I know. Most aren't cheering on the surveillance state. Many are mocking the people who attacked the Capitol with their phones in hand, but that's not the same as approval of the big electric cage we're in.
And some of the same people who cheered on the Patriot Act and called Snowden a traitor are now getting swept up by government surveillance, after they committed serious crimes.
Actually no. You cannot believe in curbing privacy-invading legislation and also cheer on warantless mass cell phone location tracking at the same time. You need to pick one.
Not so great: surveillance on everyone and catching criminals with it, but within a democratic framework
Disastrous: surveillance on everyone, while giving a pass to insurgents attempting to overthrow democratic governance, because if they take over the surveillance infrastructure you're doomed
yep, and in the other half I know people who made their entire careers in surveillance and cooperating with the sort of organizations implementing these things, but it was "good actually".
If the technical capability exists, it is going to be abused. And there is no better catalyst for (ab)use than attacking congresscritters' personal safety.
These latest techno-authoritarian actions are best seen as effects from having lost the battle, rather than another front. For decades, clued in people have been droning on about the insecurity of cell phones allowing them to be persistently tracked by the network, the MITM-idiocy of webapps, etc. The best time to get people to care is before there is some real tangible threat that will make them seek the comfort of authoritarianism, but yet crickets. I blame the sheer amount of money behind big tech, making tech people turn a blind eye to the faults of centralized technology while pushing shiny-but-flawed technologies to the masses.
After something happens? Well of course the power structure wants to unlock phones, track phones, censor speech, etc. At this point, buckle up - political activism on the subject is done, or at least on pause for quite some time.
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.
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.
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.
That’s what made it appear fake. Every republican protest recently has dozens of people carrying rifles. Why would it make sense for them not to do this when they are invading the capitol? It doesn’t add up. It’s almost as if they were not planning to really do anything except cause a diversion.
I agree with most of your reasoning but intrigued by the diversion bit. Any theories on what this was a distraction from? What got less/no attention as a result of this?
I'm not sure about distraction, but the whole exercise called to mind similar exercises in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ukraine, Hong Kong, etc. Those were run by CIA, so even though I don't have a good theory for why they (or parties within the organization; it's not a monolith) would do this, it does make one wonder... Keep in mind that even if a particular party staged this exercise, it might not have gone as they planned.
It’s difficult to narrow it down as there are dozens of potential answers that question. It’s possible even that whatever it was planned as a diversion for is not yet discovered.
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.
- 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.)
> why people who are already breaking one law would care about the others
Remind me not to get in your way when you're jaywalking.
Premeditating a felony firearms offense is one thing. I think the majority who entered the Capitol were probably thinking that most of the rhetoric they were hearing beforehand was hyperbole and were probably expecting to just protest outside the capital, and then got swept up in the moment and committed misdemeanor/felony breaking-and-entering.
Protests are big drinking events. For some reason people don't talk about this. Angry people go out planning to peacefully protest for George Floyd or Trump, they drink some liquor, their inhibitions go down, they decide to throw a couple bottles, break a couple windows. It's hard to miss the number of red faces in the videos of the capital riot.
Almost no civilian in the country has "automatic weapons" this is what people are saying when they mention theres a lot of hyperbole around this topic.
Slight correction: Legal automatic weapons. It is hard to estimate how many people have or could retrofit semiautomatic weapons into automatic weapons illegally. There are public plans for such modifications floating around the net, and at least some of them actually work, with some guns. And that's not counting the quasi-automatic stuff like bumpstocks or gimmicky 'trigger cranks.'
I once met somebody who wears a lightning link as a pedant around their neck. Probably it wouldn't be compatible with their rifle's receiver, but who knows.
I think the risk-to-reward ratio is pretty low for having an illegal automatic weapon. It takes a lot of trigger discipline even for average trained soldiers to not to quickly waste most of their ammo with fully automatic weapons.
Then again, just because it's not smart doesn't mean people don't do it.
It really depends on what their objectives are; what they think they might accomplish by having an automatic rifle. There are a wide array of tactical objectives, some better served by automatic weapons than others. Consider particularly the different tactical objectives terrorists and soldiers might have. Particularly, soldiers need more discipline because they're likely to be fighting people who can fight back. Having bullets come back at you would surely fray the nerves.
Point taken, but I think most people tempted to have illegal automatic weapons are the paranoid home defense crowd, not the massacring unarmed civilians crowd. They're probably imagining having to use them against SWAT and military.
Walking around with a gun in DC is an automatic felony with potentially years in jail, especially if it's in connection with a violent act which this insurrection was. DC is not a gun-friendly place. These people were stupid, but not that stupid.
To make sure I understand you: Your claim is that a bunch of people showed up to violently overthrow the government but didn't bring guns because that would be illegal?
They were deluded by their political puppet masters into thinking they were actually showing up to defend the constitution by intimidating corrupt politicians who knew they were corrupt.
They didn't bring guns because their goal wasn't to overthrow the government.
Luckily, you're not a police investigator, because you can't be more wrong. All manner of weapons were confiscated - guns, ammo, explosives, crossbows, brass knuckles, etc. These were people who came to kill.
Read your article. None of those things were found inside the Capitol.
If they didn't go into the Capitol, we're clearly talking about different groups. The unasked questions are: Why not? What were they there to do?
I did work in law enforcement in DC. One of the first things you learn is how to separate facts from conjecture from imagination. Mixing up the three isn't helpful to anyone and often taints you as an investigator.
Or protect themselves from counter-protesters? Are you saying anyone with a gun at the event had the mens rea for murder? There are probably more guns at the average baseball game.
I'm not sure about baseball, but the last time I went to a basketball game I had to walk through a metal detector, got my bag searched, and was patted down.
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.
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.
BIG red flag from this article: No weapons charges. If they were armed, they were not armed lawfully either in DC as a whole or in the Capitol specifically. Therefore, we have to ask: were they armed?
Regardless, this line is scary at first glance: "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas." but I've been trying to figure out what it means.
I worked on the Hill for years and used some of the tunnels frequently. If they mean the "tunnels" in general, they're huge and expansive so it'd take a huge amount of effort across numerous entry points in almost a dozen buildings to "seal them in."
Alternatively, if they mean one of the secure areas (think: bunkers), they're designed to be buttoned up but "turn on gas" still doesn't make sense.
Regardless, thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see how the trials play out.
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.
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]
> 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.
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.
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.
>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."
Just because it sounds extreme doesn’t mean I am using the wrong words. Guns are not required for violence or murder to occur. Just because some people there were not trying to do either doesn’t mean that didn’t happen. Why do you feel the need to defend them by focusing on selfies?
“Insurrection” is a violent attack on a government.
“Assassination” is murdering a prominent person for political reasons.
> In charging papers, the FBI said that during the Capitol riot, Caldwell received Facebook messages from unspecified senders updating him of the location of lawmakers. When he posted a one-word message, “Inside,” he received exhortations and directions describing tunnels, doors and hallways, the FBI said. Some messages, according to the FBI, included, “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down,” and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps.” Another message read: “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,” the FBI added.
> These words confer explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life.
There were pipe bombs found. A guy had a car full of molotov cocktails. People were carrying guns and wearing body armor. Five people died. Its pretty surprising it didn't go much worse
I guess what they're trying to say is that if this had been a real insurrection, the bombs, incendiary devices, and guns would have been used, and in volume.
The fact that some were found, and basically none were used (none of the deaths were a result of people being shot by the rioters) indicates the level of seriousness we're dealing with here.
This is not to say that they shouldn't face consequences: they should; what they did is seriously illegal and, more generally, bad and wrong.
But it's terribly important to remember that what happened here was crime, not war.
Insurrection is not war. Insurrection is a violent uprising against a government, which is exactly what happened. The fact that explosive devices were not used, but were present, was likely a matter of luck, not intent. Besides these things are not required for something to be an insurrection. They could have been armed with screwdrivers and hammers and it would still be an insurrection, albeit a less extreme insurrection.
As a complete aside, I was amused that that photo even existed (he looks so happy with Nancy Pelosi's podium) and also completely unsurprised that he got arrested two days later.
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.
> These words confer explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life
There were bombs planted at both Democratic and Republican party headquarters. One man was arrested with a pickup truck full of napalm.
At least some subset of the Capitol rioters absolutely intended to cause "explosions, gunfire, and mass loss of life". I think you're being dishonest pretending this was only a bunch of goons posing for instagram.
This is similar to the way people remember Columbine as a school shooting, but the two murderers actually built a large number of IEDs including propane tank bombs. If they hadn't been such incompetent bomb-builders, hundreds would have died and the event would be remembered as a bombing akin to Oklahoma City instead of mere mass-shooting.
> If enough people keep parroting these particular words to describe this event, the meanings of these words become diluted.
Agreed, though the hyperbole and shifting definitions seems intentional and effective in many cases, you see with this with terms "hate", "racism", "white supremacy", etc as well.
When I was younger these had much more specific groups and frightening meanings! Makes me feel many using these terms so loosely today may have never run in to actual people these used to describe.
(No this is not a defense of hatred/racism/white supremacy or other bad behavior).
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.
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.
Huh?
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you on overreach. But this action is completely reasonable because it's standard operating procedure for many law enforcement departments around the nation. Most of us simply do not reside in the neighborhoods where these tactics are employed. None of what we are discussing today is even Patriot Act type stuff. It's just standard law enforcement investigative technique. Worse, our law enforcement infrastructure already took the exact same actions during the BLM riots. None of the people complaining now, uttered a peep at the time.
I said all of that to say this, as a privacy activist, I learned decades ago that the best method of protecting my rights is to protect the rights of others. The issue today, is that most who complain are called out as hypocritical. With good reason. We can't go back now. Law enforcement would be accused of racism. Whatever tactics we used on others, we have to use now. And law enforcement gets to use them because people were not forward thinking enough to protest these methods when they were designed and employed during the latest stages of the drug war. Or even just a few scant weeks ago during the BLM riots.
I'd just encourage everyone to be more forward thinking on these issues. Sometimes complaining only when the issue affects you creates more problems than it solves. It makes it more difficult to get legislative changes made because certain key organizations, and people, whose cooperation we need have to double down on their positions so as not be called out as hypocritical themselves. AS a consequence, we come into headwinds trying to get the changes necessary to outlaw these practices.
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.
The state collecting this information is a public hazard, especially considering the relatively recent development of the assassination of US citizens without trial.
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".
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.
Were they reacting to their voting rights being taken away, or reacting to having been led to believe that their voting rights were taken away? I have seen no credible evidence that they were disenfranchised.
Well, we can't investigate because the ballots have already been shredded and the voting machines have already been re-imaged. Despite there being laws on the books that cover one, if not both of those cases, making it illegal to do those things.
Except, their voting rights were not taken away. They voted for a candidate that received fewer votes than his opponent. They didn't like the results. They were fed deliberate lies and baseless theories, and acted upon bad intelligence.
That seems beside the point though. Nation-states could well coopt/dupe unwitting agents to do their deeds for them. Not necessarily saying that's what happened here, just making a point.
At what point will people say enough is enough to these kinds of insane overreaches?