Sloppy use of language is a long time bugbear for me because it clouds thinking and leads to faulty reasoning, especially false analogies and rampant conflations. The most recent case in the media has been the use of the term "riot" for the insurrection and domestic terror that erupted last week Wednesday.
Then we beheld MAGA terror gangs rampaging through the Capitol, desecrating it with vandalism, theft and even bringing in weapons - including bear spray, chemical irritants, pipe bombs with timers, napalm- loaded Molotov cocktails and automatic weapons. Smashing windows, manhandling property, fouling it with assorted excretions while laughing like hyenas, stealing furniture or breaking it apart on the floor - is not tourist behavior.
As to the babbling pundits that conflate the Jan. 6th insurrection violence with the sporadic violence in Portland or Washington or Philly last summer, they fail to grasp there is a difference between violent protests and protests that have violence.
Some - like Thomas Sowell - have asked why there is revulsion at the violence in D.C. when assorted commentators (e.g. Ali Velishi) have said violence can be a necessary part of protest, As Velshi himself explained it ("Velshi", MSNBC, Jan. 17):
"For starters, the Capitol is not a liquor store. When a mob breaks the Capitol buildings windows it is not criminal mischief but an assault on democracy itself and decency. That's the point, violence must always be understood in context."
Velshi's point here is well taken, and he later referred to the violence in the anti-Apartheid movement, and the Indian independence campaign - without which no change was likely to come. Even in the U.S actual progress on the racial integration front didn't materialize until after the riots of 1967, and then (after Martin Luther King's assassination) in 1968. As Velshi put it:
"Any violence at all that fights injustice is violence with meaning behind it, born of the failure of other means and methods redress. Violence that means to spread democracy and justice and encourage fairness and the equal application of the rule of law has nothing at all in common with the wanton, anti-democratic riot of January 6th, fueled by Donald Trump and QAnon conspiracy theories of an election that was stolen."
Thus January 6th was a violent insurrection in support of a failed coup attempt - which strikes at the very core of our nation - an existential violence threatening the very constitutional fabric. This is exactly why it can't go without being punished including convicting Trump. As Velshi explained:
"To compare the underlying goals of protests about injustice - that gave sometimes become violent at their edges- to the anti-democratic seige with violent aims at its core - fueled by lies and conspiracy theories, is simply to ignore history."
Walking around in the Capitol and the House chambers and offices with plastic zip ties, generally used by crooks to bind victims, is not "rioting" or "protesting". Neither is calling for the assassination of Nancy Pelosi, or parading with Confederate flags, and setting up a real gallows to hang Mike Pence. Indeed, the very act of breaking into the building - e.g. by smashing windows and doors- places the invaders as just that, no better than felons breaking and entering a proper. But the invasion and desecration of the Capitol makes it insurrection, an act of domestic terrorism
According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
Did the Capitol invasion and desecration meet that standard? Of course it did. The "ideological goals" themselves may not have been coherent or unified around a single principle but together they translated into usurpation of our democracy: handing an election loser four more years (or more?) he didn't earn and threatening violence to all those legitimately elected - but who bested their apes in one of the most secure elections.
It follows that law enforcement needs to treat the MAGA mob's actions as what they were, not simple vanilla criminal violations, generic civil trespass or "riots", but acts of terrorism. Respect for use of language and law demands it, to avoid simplistic faux arguments like recently invoked by Thomas Sowell (Colo. Springs Gazette, Jan. 13). Essentially conflating the Black Lives Matter unrest and protests with what occurred January 6th.
Federal agencies have warned for years that right-wing and white racist groups, not Antifa - not the so-called “radical left,” and definitely not Black Lives Matter - have presented the most serious domestic threat to this country. In the wake of the January 6th insurrection that hasn't changed.
But what may be needed as former FBI special agent Frank Figliuzzi told Bill Maher Friday night, is an actual law that references domestic terrorism. So far no such law is on the books so prosecutors are forced to rely on minor crimes or misdemeanors like "criminal trespass" or petty larceny. That isn't good enough and we need a larger criminal net to take down the sort of vile traitors who were part of the Trump-sponsored insurrection.
Another atrocity brewing is the yen by some Reeptard Senators - like the demented Cuban loon Marco Rubio - to dismiss any Senate trial on the grounds that it isn't "lawful". Actually it fully is, and comports with the Constitution as a legal scholar (Prof. Keith E. Wittington) pointed out in the weekend WSJ ('Yes, The Senate Can Try Trump' p. A11). As noted therein: "Impeachment of former officials was the norm at the time of the founding."
Maybe little Marco and his fellow Reep traitors and seditionists need to process that before they next pop off about the upcoming trial being "stupid". Especially when what is really stupid would be letting a top tier insurrectionist off the hook marking a dangerous precedent.
See Also:
by Pierre Tristam | January 15, 2021 - 8:03am | permalink
Excerpt:
Like the torrent of video clips showing that last week’s terrorist attack on the capitol was more coordinated and more violent than its conspirators would want you to believe, the same conspirators are now pleading two narratives to cover their rear. One is that they were only exercising their First Amendment right to protest. The other is that the Black Lives Matter protests and riots didn’t draw the same scrutiny.
Like everything associated with Donald Trump’s mob, both narratives are factual and moral frauds that hide behind liberal rationales to perpetrate reactionary lies and justify the unconscionable.
AND:
by Mike Lofgren | January 15, 2021 - 7:35am | permalink
Excerpt:
Now that America and the world have seen what the phrase "concerned citizens" means in the context of political action, it may be necessary to learn how to decode other politically charged phrases in these fraught and fateful times. You have probably heard the following statements on more than one occasion:
"I'm a patriot!" Or "I bleed red, white and blue!" Any time someone insists on his patriotism as if he had a copyright on the concept, here's a little test you can try: pour two or three beers into them, and don't be surprised if, rather than singing The Star-Spangled Banner, they start crooning The Horst Wessel Song. Any more pilsner and they'll be complaining that the problem with Hitler was that he "didn't finish the job."
AND:
No comments:
Post a Comment