Why is the 1/6 DC riot not being considered to be terrorism?

[J842P]

I think this was insurrection.


If it's insurrection it can't be terrorism.


The difference to me is that the rioters were trying to overturn the election and the federal government. That's different than just trying to get the government to do something (such as get out of the middle east). Also terrorism is directed against the people, not the government itself. Frankly in this case I think insurrection reflects the more relevant issue. That said, when it comes down to how it's viewed by law enforcement it comes under the purview of domestic terrorism.

But they aren't doing so with terrorist means?

Yes, but unbelievably, there is no law against domestic terrorism.

That's not really true, that seems to be some ridiculous canard being propagated by the usual foreign policy Blob members.

The government has too many powers related to terrorism. We definitely don't need more.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think this was insurrection.


If it's insurrection it can't be terrorism.


The difference to me is that the rioters were trying to overturn the election and the federal government. That's different than just trying to get the government to do something (such as get out of the middle east). Also terrorism is directed against the people, not the government itself. Frankly in this case I think insurrection reflects the more relevant issue. That said, when it comes down to how it's viewed by law enforcement it comes under the purview of domestic terrorism.

But they aren't doing so with terrorist means?

What do you mean by "terrorist means"? Terrorism means trying to instill fear into the populous to the point that they desist from some activity. That's not what the goal was here. They wanted to overthrow the sitting government and re-install Trump as President. It isn't terrorist simply because it includes violence. That's way too broad a definition.

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism is in the OP and it matches perfectly.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

First they were Trump supporters. Why does the image of a jockstrap come to mind? Then they were protestors. Then they were trespassers. Then they were a mob. Then they were rioters and would-be kidnappers. Quite a few will become felons/murderers. So I think calling them terrorists is the next logical and reasonable step in the progression.

But I still favor morons, witless morons of course, followers of the witless Moron-in-Chief.

There's got to be some good jokes out there:

How many witless morons does it take to make a mob?
What do you call a witless moron with zip ties?
How many witless morons does it take to change a light bulb?
What is the difference between a witless moron and a trumpster?
What do you call a witless moron wearing buffalo horns on his head?
What is the difference between a witless, trump supporting moron and dog shit?

 

[Elixir]

What do you mean by "terrorist means"? Terrorism means trying to instill fear into the populous to the point that they desist from some activity. That's not what the goal was here. They wanted to overthrow the sitting government and re-install Trump as President. It isn't terrorist simply because it includes violence. That's way too broad a definition.

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism is in the OP and it matches perfectly.

Yes, it does. There is no argument that it is not domestic terrorism.
Again, THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOMESTIC TERRORISM. I know that sounds incredible, but this is 'Murka.
Look it up. Tell me if you find ANY statutory prohibition of or prescribed penalty for "domestic terrorism".
There are laws against "international terrorism", and not one single law against "domestic terrorism".
I wonder if Republicans are ready to vote for such a law. Probably not. But with Joe Manchin's blessing we could ram one down their slimy throats in the next 30 days. Of course it can't be applied ex post facto, so Trump's thugs have to be otherwise charged.

 

[ZiprHead]

What do you mean by "terrorist means"? Terrorism means trying to instill fear into the populous to the point that they desist from some activity. That's not what the goal was here. They wanted to overthrow the sitting government and re-install Trump as President. It isn't terrorist simply because it includes violence. That's way too broad a definition.

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism is in the OP and it matches perfectly.

Yes, it does. There is no argument that it is not domestic terrorism.
Again, THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOMESTIC TERRORISM. I know that sounds incredible, but this is 'Murka.
Look it up. Tell me if you find ANY statutory prohibition of or prescribed penalty for "domestic terrorism".
There are laws against "international terrorism", and not one single law against "domestic terrorism".
I wonder if Republicans are ready to vote for such a law. Probably not. But with Joe Manchin's blessing we could ram one down their slimy throats in the next 30 days. Of course it can't be applied ex post facto, so Trump's thugs have to be otherwise charged.

Sadly, this is true. And it is a problem I will be asking my representatives and senators to rectify. We all should be doing the same.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, it does. There is no argument that it is not domestic terrorism.
Again, THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOMESTIC TERRORISM. I know that sounds incredible, but this is 'Murka.
Look it up. Tell me if you find ANY statutory prohibition of or prescribed penalty for "domestic terrorism".
There are laws against "international terrorism", and not one single law against "domestic terrorism".
I wonder if Republicans are ready to vote for such a law. Probably not. But with Joe Manchin's blessing we could ram one down their slimy throats in the next 30 days. Of course it can't be applied ex post facto, so Trump's thugs have to be otherwise charged.

Sadly, this is true. And it is a problem I will be asking my representatives and senators to rectify. We all should be doing the same.

According to the ACLU, section 802 of the Patriot Act does make domestic terrorism a crime by expanding the definition of "terrorism" in a way that existing international terrorism laws apply.

https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

 

[J842P]

Yes, it does. There is no argument that it is not domestic terrorism.
Again, THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOMESTIC TERRORISM. I know that sounds incredible, but this is 'Murka.
Look it up. Tell me if you find ANY statutory prohibition of or prescribed penalty for "domestic terrorism".
There are laws against "international terrorism", and not one single law against "domestic terrorism".
I wonder if Republicans are ready to vote for such a law. Probably not. But with Joe Manchin's blessing we could ram one down their slimy throats in the next 30 days. Of course it can't be applied ex post facto, so Trump's thugs have to be otherwise charged.

Sadly, this is true. And it is a problem I will be asking my representatives and senators to rectify. We all should be doing the same.

According to the ACLU, section 802 of the Patriot Act does make domestic terrorism a crime by expanding the definition of "terrorism" in a way that existing international terrorism laws apply.

https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

Yes, this is a canard being repeated by the gullible. Any law against "terrorism" is equally applicable to terrorists that work domestically, indeed, people have been prosecuted as such.

What doesn't exist is the expansion of powers to federal agencies when working inside the country. This is something people should oppose. But, this is where we are at. Some authoritarian proposes even more power to the government in the name of "fighting terrorism", and now the liberals fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Elixir]

there is no law against domestic terrorism.

That's not really true

Yes, it's really true. If it's not true, please cite the statute (that refers to the definition of domestic terrorism, a definition that DOES exist).
The notion that there is a crime called "domestic terrorism" is a canard being repeated by the gullible, mostly right wingers who don't want to see right wing terrorism become any more risky to its perpetrators than it already is.

Section 802 does not create a crime called domestic terrorism, providing penalties etc.. It simply expands the scope of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism."

 

[laughing dog]

i don't know how anyone can impute intent onto a mob like that one. Some were looking for a revolution (at least I saw some interviews with that admission), some were just probably terrorists, some where just fucking jackasses venting their frustration and anger, some were swept away in mob fever, and some did nothing.

 

[Treedbear]

What do you mean by "terrorist means"? Terrorism means trying to instill fear into the populous to the point that they desist from some activity. That's not what the goal was here. They wanted to overthrow the sitting government and re-install Trump as President. It isn't terrorist simply because it includes violence. That's way too broad a definition.

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism is in the OP and it matches perfectly.

Actually I've changed my mind. You and the others are right and I was wrong. I was looking at it as though the rioters actually had a plan to take over the Capitol in a coup. But the mindless hysteria displayed in the videos make it plain their goal was to inspire the other 15 million Trump loyalists across the country to further irrational acts of rebellion. That's actually the other goal of terrorism and probably the main one. But it's also the main reason it should scare everyone. It's a stark example of why Trump is a clear and present danger.

 

[ZiprHead]

What do you mean by "terrorist means"? Terrorism means trying to instill fear into the populous to the point that they desist from some activity. That's not what the goal was here. They wanted to overthrow the sitting government and re-install Trump as President. It isn't terrorist simply because it includes violence. That's way too broad a definition.

The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism is in the OP and it matches perfectly.

Actually I've changed my mind. You and the others are right and I was wrong. I was looking at it as though the rioters actually had a plan to take over the Capitol in a coup. But the mindless hysteria displayed in the videos make it plain their goal was to inspire the other 15 million Trump loyalists across the country to further irrational acts of rebellion. That's actually the other goal of terrorism and probably the main one. But it's also the main reason it should scare everyone. It's a stark example of why Trump is a clear and present danger.

Oh, look, a Unicorn!

 

[Worldtraveller]

Why is the 12/6 DC riot not being considered to be terrorism?

According to all the terrorist training we got in the service, i have to think "Real" Terrorists would have remembered they brought bombs.

They need a new category, really. Like when they created the category of dwarf planet and moved Pluto into it?
We need a category of incompetent terrorists. Dwarforrists, terriots, fool's patriot, something.

Killed more of their own than opposition, forgot their bombs, flashed their badges, FILMED THEIR CRIMES, and returned to their home of record afterwards....

Keystone Coup. I can't think of anything else.

A coup de trump, if you will.

 

[Elixir]

Keystone Coup. I can't think of anything else.

A coup de trump, if you will.

Coup de Tot?

 

[J842P]

there is no law against domestic terrorism.

That's not really true

Yes, it's really true. If it's not true, please cite the statute (that refers to the definition of domestic terrorism, a definition that DOES exist).
The notion that there is a crime called "domestic terrorism" is a canard being repeated by the gullible, mostly right wingers who don't want to see right wing terrorism become any more risky to its perpetrators than it already is.

Section 802 does not create a crime called domestic terrorism, providing penalties etc.. It simply expands the scope of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism."

No shit, because there is no need for a separate crime called "domestic terrorism". Everything that would potentially fall under the banner of "domestic terrorism" is already a crime. So the activities that define domestic terrorism are already a crime, and the federal statutes have already expanded to provide all sorts of extra powers to the federal government to investigate what is already legally defined as domestic terrorism. What, in your mind, would be the advantage of another law against "domestic terrorism"? All these acts are already illegal, saying there "is no law against domestic terrorism" is misleading at best when all the acts that would be considered "domestic terrorism" are illegal. So there are many laws against domestic terrorism.


And it is you who is repeating right-wing talking points, straight from the mouths of the right-wingers who passed the various terrorism statutes in the early 2000's and supported things like the Patriot Act.

All of these things are things a left-winger would oppose, but you confusing anything that doesn't blindly follow a "TRUMP IS BAD" pseudo-reasoning as "right wing," because as far as I can tell, that's the only thing you care about.

 

[jab]

Keystone Coup. I can't think of anything else.

A coup de trump, if you will.

Coup de Tot?

an orange Coup Devil