Um, just to be clear, setting fire to a police precinct is already quite correctly defined as domestic terrorism. It is a retaliatory act of violence whose aim is to terrorize.

Retaliatory violence should be unacceptable and unjustifiable, no matter who does it.

Violence in response to violence is an understandable expression of empowerment, in the face of the longstanding and very real trauma that Black people have experienced due to police brutality. But if violence justifies violence, where does it end? Both sides will continue to use violence to settle scores from the previous violence, ad infinitum, with both claiming a moral high ground that they actually already surrendered, as soon as they committed to perpetuating a never-ending cycle of terrorism.

There should not be loopholes in laws that say "retaliatory violence is okay if you're really, really traumatized and the target really, really deserves it."

On the matter of "red flag laws," I can imagine the administration of them by law enforcement being perverted to target minorities, just as other laws have been repeatedly been enforced unequally, and it's appropriate to be concerned about that, regardless of whether Biden's motives are good or bad. But I also don't think it's helpful to assume bad fides.

Almost all laws can be enforced unequally, and I don't know that red-flag laws are particularly susceptible. Are they? The laws that are most susceptible are the drug laws, and Biden is pretty good on that issue. He appears to favor legalization and expungement of criminal records for those who were convicted of minor drug offenses. His new Commerce secretary agrees.

At any rate, I still don't see an issue in red-flag laws that may or may not be passed in the future that is of "incomparably more importance" than what Trump can do during the last ten days of his presidency now that he is in full meltdown territory.

Not at the federal level. The question is whether or not we should be worried about a proposal to expand the federal government's power to surveil and imprison people in the name of preventing domestic terrorism. If you are unhappy with the downstream effects of the Patriot Act (a law focused, in conception and public justification, on preventing international terrorism), I just do not see how you can fail to be extremely concerned about a proposed domestic counterpart.

This is so even if the first floated specific laws are red flag gun laws, which seem oh so reasonable. (Of course, then one remembers that gun control laws are already unequally enforced and used as a way to further police and control the black community. Much of our existing gun control legislation, for instance, was a direct response to the Black Panthers arming themselves in self-defense. So, yeah, I'm worried about unequal enforcement of red flag laws.) Beyond that, we of course do not know what might go into such a law, since it is not yet written, so my worries must naturally be pitched at a general level.

I appear to have given you the impression that I think burning a police precinct should not be illegal. But I have not said that (or implied that) and do not think that. I do think it is justified, a view that I think is beyond serious doubt. Successful protest against an unjust state will require illegal and sometimes violent acts. I understand that you disagree, at least as concerns violence. We don't need to argue about it; it's a side issue. I just wanted to clarify, since I was misunderstood.

The real point is this: I worry about giving the federal government the ability to (for example) associate such acts with BLM in general, deeming it a domestic terrorist movement and cracking down on it. We've already seen how evil the response to this summer's protests was without such laws at the federal level. Should we then make it worse? Again, we must remember that, even if you trust the Democrats on this matter (I think this is unwise, personally, but let's suppose), control of the government will flip back to the Republicans eventually. Do you trust them with such powers?

Anyone who thinks the laws won't immediately be applied to BLM or the intentionally amorphous Antifa is being willfully naive.

There are already laws in place to deal with white supremacist militias. They're just never applied to them because those people are white (and a variety of other reasons having to do the with composition of the law enforcement agencies).

I agree that this is a side issue, but just for pedantry's sake:

I think it is defined at the federal level, under these bits of federal law (bolding mine):

There's a ton of State law in California regarding the property of more local government jurisdictions, any of which might be "a government" under federal law. IANAL, but I think attackers of state, county, or city property can be prosecuted under current federal law.

(The surveillance issue is, of course, a somewhat different matter, but I wanted to pursue this particular rabbit hole to the end because Trump followers are now calling for armed incursions on state, county, and city government property.)

Andrew, I don't trust any party to do the right thing. Power corrupts, and people change (and don't change) in disturbing ways where power is concerned. We probably only disagree about whether our suspicion of those in positions of power should be set at 8 or 11 on a scale of 10.

The Democrats will inevitably misuse their power by going too far in some areas and not far enough in others. Not necessarily because they are Democrats (although the Democratic Party does seem to have a particular talent for both of those failings, and for being blind to unintended consequences--probably due to their runaway moral superiority complex), but because they are human, and all humans and the institutions they belong to are flawed.

I consider myself an authority on runaway moral superiority complexes, having a doozy of one myself, as all here have witnessed on repeated occasions, including, of course, this one.

~~~


This just in, by Matthew Lee of the Associated Press:

US diplomats in extraordinary protest against Trump for riot

There's nothing in Trump's words or actions that expresses a belief in, a calling for, or condoning of resorting to such disturbing acts of violence, to any violence, nor does he have any background of anything toward a violent nature (controversially and vehemently standing up for what he believes in is not "inciting violence"). Nor is there a reason he would support something that would hurt his cause and the reputation of his supporters so badly, especially if he is thinking of running for president again later on.

I saw the tweet with the video in which he said they are supposed to be the party of "law and order", demanding an end to violence and asking people to go home. It was removed shortly after it was posted and his account suspended permanently. Why? The left and the media are now trying to use this as a deathblow to their political opponent and a means of justifying more undue, undemocratic extents of censorship and silencing of the right in order to control the message as much as possible.
.

I wonder if you are laughing as you write this, knowing that you are having us on? Anyway, well before this happened, even as he was running in 2016, Trump frequently pumped up his crowds with calls for violence. This video collects just a few examples.*

There are many Republicans now who agree that Trump incited violence at the Capitol, and there is literally no one who can claim that Trump has said a single word in public about the Capitol police officer who was literally beaten to death with an American flag. Nor has he expressed his condolences to the officer's family. Nor has he flown the White House flag at half mast as the rest of the federal government has done. (Imagine if a mob of African Americans had beaten an officer to death. Do you honestly think Trump wouldn't be loudly broadcasting his condemnation?).

But how can you possibly overlook the fact that even as the Capitol siege was taking place, and even as Trump told the thugs to go home, he also told them that he loved them very much and they were true "patriots"?

*The video claims to show "all" examples of Trump calling for violence, but it leaves out quite a few that I can recall.

Only commenting on this thread because that is one of the dumbest things Kevin has ever written and Kevin has written some dumbass shit.

One of the Second Amendment people should take care of Kevin.

The rest of this thread should be us telling Kevin what we would like to see happen to him while using Trump's words. The best part is that Kevin would not be able to say they are threats, because Kevin himself said that there is nothing violent about Trump's words. I'll start:

Knock the crap out of Kevin Rainbow.

I'm going to shoot Kevin Rainbow on Fifth Avenue. I'd get away with it.

I'd like to punch Kevin Rainbow in the face.

We should hit Kevin Rainbow. That's what we need more of.

And my favorite:

Grab Kevin by his bussy.