Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Unread 01-10-2021, 10:10 AM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Novick View Post
Or do you think that BLM activists setting fire to a police precinct isn't going to become "domestic terrorism"? Do you think a tightly written law will prevent that? Do you trust the Biden administration to make sure any new laws are sufficiently tight to avoid that?
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.

Last edited by Julie Steiner; 01-10-2021 at 10:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Unread 01-10-2021, 10:31 AM
Roger Slater Roger Slater is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 16,475
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Unread 01-10-2021, 10:59 AM
Aaron Novick Aaron Novick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Steiner View Post
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.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Unread 01-10-2021, 11:42 AM
Andrew Szilvasy Andrew Szilvasy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,044
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Unread 01-10-2021, 01:32 PM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Steiner View Post
Um, just to be clear, setting fire to a police precinct is already quite correctly defined as domestic terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Novick View Post
Not at the federal level.
I think it is defined at the federal level, under these bits of federal law (bolding mine):

Quote:
18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—

[...]
(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
[...]
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.

Last edited by Julie Steiner; 01-10-2021 at 02:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Unread 01-10-2021, 02:03 PM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

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

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a highly unusual move, American diplomats have drafted two cables condemning President Donald Trump’s incitement of the deadly assault on the Capitol and calling for administration officials to possibly support invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Using what is known as the State Department’s “dissent channel,” career foreign and civil service officers said they fear last Wednesday’s siege may badly undermine U.S. credibility to promote and defend democratic values abroad.

“Failing to publicly hold the president to account would further damage our democracy and our ability to effectively accomplish our foreign policy goals abroad,” according to the second of the two cables, which were circulated among diplomats late last week and then sent to State Department leadership.

The cable called on Pompeo to support any lawful effort by Vice President Mike Pence and other Cabinet members to protect the country including through “the possible implementation of the procedures provided for in Article 4 of the 25th Amendment, if appropriate.” The amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare a president unfit for office, and the vice president then becomes acting president.

The cables were an extraordinary protest against a sitting U.S. president by American diplomats, who have long complained that the Trump administration has ignored and diminished their role and expertise. The dissent channel is normally used to oppose specific foreign policy decisions. The two most recent cables appear to be unprecedented in their scope and characterization of the president as a danger to the country.

The cables also reflect anger at the response to the riot by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a loyal Trump ally.

Pompeo has condemned the violence at the Capitol but has pointedly not addressed the role Trump played in encouraging his supporters who stormed the building. Nor has Pompeo addressed the aftermath or acknowledged that American diplomats overseas may now face new difficulty in promoting democracy.

Trump himself has railed about what he sees as disloyalty at the State Department. He once referred to it publicly — and in front of Pompeo and reporters — as “the deep State Department,” a reference to what Trump and his supporters believe is a cabal of entrenched bureaucrats intent on subverting his policies.

It was not immediately clear how many diplomats signed the cables, both of which were viewed by The Associated Press.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“It is essential that the Department of State explicitly denounce President Trump’s role in this violent attack on the U.S. government,” said the first of the two cables, which added that the president’s own comments should not be used “as he is not a credible voice on this matter.”

“Just as we routinely denounce foreign leaders who use violence and intimidation to interfere in peaceful democratic processes and override the will of their voters, the department’s public statements about this episode should also mention President Trump by name. It is critical that we communicate to the world that in our system, no one -- not even the president -- is above the law or immune from public criticism.”

Last edited by Julie Steiner; 01-10-2021 at 02:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Unread 01-10-2021, 04:01 PM
Kevin Rainbow's Avatar
Kevin Rainbow Kevin Rainbow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Regina, SK; Canada
Posts: 392
Default

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.
.

Last edited by Kevin Rainbow; 01-10-2021 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Unread 01-10-2021, 04:31 PM
Roger Slater Roger Slater is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 16,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Rainbow View Post
nor does he have any background of anything toward a violent nature
.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Unread 01-10-2021, 04:34 PM
Orwn Acra Orwn Acra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,336
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Unread 01-10-2021, 04:50 PM
Orwn Acra Orwn Acra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,336
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,839
Total Posts: 270,791
There are 2999 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online