Capitol Riot

Don't Let the Capitol Riot Become an Excuse for Expanding Government Power

The federal government should prosecute those people who committed acts of vandalism or violence. However, we should be leery about giving the feds additional powers.

|

Many of my fellow libertarians were rightly in a tizzy after former CIA director John Brennan, commenting on the right-wing insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, noted that the Biden administration is "now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we've seen overseas."

In particular, they were dismayed by his description of an "unholy alliance…of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists—even libertarians." Brennan's former deputy chief of staff clarified the "even libertarians" comments to Politifact—noting that, "many self-identified libertarians acknowledged their participation in the disgraceful events of 6 January."

The big concern isn't the cheap swipe at libertarians, some of whom probably deserve it. Instead, the fear is that Brennan's words provide a template for the "mission creep" that accompanies every government effort to battle some growing threat.

Let's dispense with the obvious. The attack on the Capitol was an outrage. The federal government should prosecute those people who committed acts of vandalism or violence. Congress and voters have every right to inflict a political price on elected officials who fanned the flames of the insurgents. Homegrown radicalism is indeed a serious problem.

However, we should be leery about giving the feds additional powers. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels," wrote Baltimore's famed journalist H.L. Mencken. "For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Or as former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), who was the first member of Congress from the Libertarian Party, tweeted in opposition to a new domestic-terrorism bill: "There are too many federal criminal laws already. Terrorists can be charged under multiple statutes. Laws passed in the heat of the moment, like the Patriot Act, are routinely applied nefariously against law-abiding Americans." Read that last sentence aloud for effect.

On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a fertilizer bomb in a van at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people in the nation's deadliest terror incident before 9/11. That date marked the second anniversary of the federal siege of the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas—an event that radicalized McVeigh and his accomplices.

At the time, a militia movement was gaining steam. The Oklahoma City atrocity spurred Congress to pass the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As is often the case with these "in the heat of the moment" proposals, this measure passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress. President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

The law meant to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes," but mainly gutted the right to habeas corpus. Scholars call that constitutional protection the "Great Writ of Liberty" because it provides a process for wrongly imprisoned people to challenge their detention in court.

Fast forward to Oct. 26, 2001, when President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act—a bipartisan effort to protect the country after the September 11 attacks. Critics have penned volumes on the law's unintended consequences, but this ACLU summary is succinct: "It gives sweeping new powers of detention and surveillance to the executive branch." It deprives "the courts of meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that the law enforcement powers are not being abused."

Now here we go again. The 17-page Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 would "authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the federal government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism."

What could go wrong with giving the feds more open-ended powers? "What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are talking about?" asked former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) on a recent TV news show. She's right. If you give law-enforcement agencies an inch, they'll take a yard. In building a profile of extremists, she fears that the feds will zero in on evangelicals—or maybe even libertarians.

Of course, our state government is getting in on the action. State Sens. Henry Stern, (D–Los Angeles) and Tom Umberg (D–Santa Ana) have introduced a bill that would create state investigative teams to "assess potential threats" from right-wing agitators. Such groups definitely are troublesome, but how will the state define these terms? Will it surveil law-abiding people in the process?

You'd think Americans have learned enough from the unintended consequences of those 1996 and 2001 laws to rush down this path again. One needn't be a member of a wing-nut group—or even a libertarian—to understand how the government might misuse its new powers.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: How To Fix the Internet

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’d think Americans have learned enough from the unintended consequences of those 1996 and 2001 laws to rush down this path again.

    You’d think Americans have learned enough from the unintended consequences of electing turd sandwiches over giant douches, too, but here we are again.

    1. I keep saying, every election, every ballot, every office:

      “None of the Above”

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page……..MORE READ

        1. I am making 10 Dollars at home own laptop .Just do work online 2 to 4 hour praporly . so i make my family happy and u can do Check it out what i do >>>>>>> USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

    2. You would think the American people would have grown tired of this by now.

      1. Gathering intelligence on domestic terrorists is done already. Anyone who thinks this is an overreach is gullible enough to post their own incriminating videos on FB and Twitter. Assuming data on domestic terrorists will be misused is simple scare tactics hysteria as Joe Average as a law abiding citizen has nothing to fear.

        1. The Democrats disqualification goes far beyond the psychiatric restrictions that federal law currently imposes on gun ownership, which are already overly broad but ASwe apply only to people who have undergone court-ordered treatment…READ MORE

          1. Trump Lawyers Argue,House Democrats are proposing to limit the next round of Covid-19 relief payments to households earning less than $200,000,QFyl after criticism that President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package would benefit the rich……READ MORE COMMENT

    3. [ USA PART TIME JOB] This is easy and simple USA part time job. Its amazing and earns many dollars are awesome.visit here for full detail…………. USA TOP ONLINE JOB.

    4. The federal government should prosecute those people who committed acts of vandalism or violence. However, we should be leery about giving the feds additional powers………….MORE DETAIL.

  2. The Capitol riot really should just be seen as an excuse. The things the Democrats have been using the Capitol riot as an excuse to do are things they’ve been promising and threatening to do since long before the Capitol riot.

    The CEO of Parler was fired yesterday for wanting to crack down on QAnon, among others. The Democrats have wanted to purge conservatives from social media for a very long time, and the chilling effect we’re seeing now is precisely what they wanted.

    1. The Democrats have wanted to purge conservatives from social media for a very long time

      Might as well quit kidding ourselves.

      1. Yeah, but they’ve been openly threatening to break the Big Tech companies apart if they don’t crack down on conservative speech.

        They’ve wanted to do a lot of things in the past. The difference now isn’t the Capitol riot, anyway. The difference is that they now control the White House and the senate.

        I think a lot of people–journalists included–are skirting the issue because of their own complicity in Trump’s loss. They didn’t realize that Trump losing would mean a war on speech, but they sure as hell should have. Like I said, Democrat politicians have been publicly threatening to break up Big Tech companies unless they crack down on conservative speech. Now that there aren’t any Republicans to answer to in the White House or the Senate, what should we expect?

        1. “He’s just pandering to the Left; he doesn’t mean it.”
          “He’ll pivot back to the center”
          “He was just playing to his base, don’t worry.”

          The reason we have Biden is because many of the people that voted for him naively assumed the insane shit he was saying, with the progressives convulsing at his back, was just bluster. They did not take him at his word. Now what? Who is to blame? Biden did not conceal his intentions. The Democrats did not conceal their intentions.

          I have never in my life seen such political naivety on full display. And, rather than admitting that they were wrong, the wishful thinkers are anchoring their ships to pure denial. They are simply pretending it isn’t happening. They are pretending everything is normal, when in truth the country is completely unrecognizable.

          1. Naively?. Perhaps you should read/reread the comment sections of various “news outlets”…including this site. Nobody was hailing Biden as the coming savior…no body was touting Biden’s street cred…except the MSM. Nope, anything to get rid of Trump…simplicity itself.

            1. What we didn’t see here at Reason was any of the authors mentioning what would happen after a Biden win, or how much more likely/easy it would all be after the Dems won both of the Georgia runoffs.

              Saw plenty of commenters talking about it. But no authors.

              Foreseeable consequences and all that…

              1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible Amu economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… Visit Here

            2. If you want to see evidence, in their own words, of the conspiracy to distort the democratic process, in ways never imagined, and in ways that should make everyone afraid, read this long article;
              https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

      2. Conservative does not mean what it used to. That decline started some time ago and is reaching its apex now.

        The Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits even as they are pending are going to throw some cold water on the fire for now at least. More than anything the government may do. Lot of money involved and those damages are real whatever the merits of the case.

        This forum is an experiment is creating an online community for discussion of libertarian perspectives and issues. How many here think it is going well?

        1. “This forum is an experiment is creating an online community for discussion of libertarian perspectives and issues. How many here think it is going well?”

          It’s a shit-show, for sure. However, I honestly can’t think of any other forum (virtual or otherwise) that contains a higher level of libertarian thought, discussion, and debate than the Reason comments board.

          There’s most definitely a lot of shit to wade through, but there’s always trade-offs to everything. I really hope that Reason keeps these boards free and open.

        2. It’s pretty meh. But the mainly because we are inevitably starting from articles that are a poor excuse for libertarian, and are more often than not representative or supportive of the establishment leftist narrative.

          To be sure there are articles that are exceptions, but they typically are of a somewhat esoteric nature, and rarely if ever run blatantly afoul of anything both topical and detrimental to that establishment leftist narrative.

          I mean, in all those articles about egregious and excessive police force did the authors deem to note that they are happening in places that have been politically dominated for decades by a single party and their police union cronies. Hell Suderman even wrote a recent article trying to pin the blame on the other party.

          1. “To be sure ….”

            LOL

        3. The Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits are going nowhere.
          Firstly, they will never be able to prove any damage, let alone in the billions, because none of these systems have been abandoned in states where they are used, and no one has said they wouldn’t consider using them, because the “official narrative” is that they are completely honest.
          Secondly, they will be argued to be “public figures” and their threshold for proving the harm, will be that much more elevated.
          Also, these actions fall under SLAPP laws, and the effort may backfire.

  3. Stay at home safe and sound avoiding corona virus but do not sit idol work online and make full use of this hostage period and raise extra money to over come daily financial difficulties. For more detail visit…. Click For More Info.

  4. If your leader isn’t popular with the news media middle-school mean girls crowd, Greenhut won’t be there to help you when you need it.

    The Greenhuts of the world are about offering mild complaints when it doesn’t matter. When it’s something that actually matters, they choose the in crowd.

    1. Well said. Notice that Greenhut had to work in what a problem those “right-wing extremists” are.

      1. He’s just following the Standard Reason Template.

      2. And “Congress and voters have every right to inflict a political price on elected officials who fanned the flames of the insurgents.”
        We’re talking about a guy in a clown suit and a broken window here. Not one armed “insurgent” to be found. This hyperbolic bullshit appears on Reason every fucking day.

  5. I agree that we must avoid an over reaction that commonly follows incidents like that of January 6, 2021 or September 11, 2001. That said I would also like to see more balance in the approach to terrorism that addresses problems without regards to whether it is fomented within or outside the country. The best approach is to focus first charging and prosecuting on crimes without focusing on the motive behind that crime. Injuring people and damaging property should be addressed directly with less attention to the cause. There is room to look at motive when sentencing individuals.

    I also suggest that addressing homegrown and foreign terror would benefit from robust programs to address misinformation. I would not suggest censorship but rather counter programming. I think this approach would yield more effective results than more questionable surveillance of individuals and groups.

    1. “I would not suggest censorship but rather counter programming.”

      Does a bullet to the head qualify, you mendacious authoritarian fuck?

    2. “addressing homegrown and foreign terror would benefit from robust programs to address misinformation. I would not suggest censorship but rather counter programming.”

      Yes, O’Brien, best we quell those Winston Smiths before they become a problem.

    3. The Fairness Doctrine didn’t work so well in practice.

      1. He’s just following the Standard Reason Template.

        https://www.daarr.net/

      2. You don’t need a fairness doctrine, you just need to stop corporatism and politically directed collusion.

    4. In counterterrorism it is generally best to leave the network up and exploit it.

      I sometimes get the impression that there are fifth columns here on an individual basis.

    5. Uh…the MSM is counter programing to the truth.

    6. I also suggest that addressing homegrown and foreign terror would benefit from robust programs to address misinformation.

      OK, go let BLM and radical Islam know that it’s all just a misunderstanding and they’ve just been wrongly informed. When can we expect the bountiful yield of effective results your approach will provide? Will it take the length of one Trump Presidency or are you a better negotiator than even that hack?

    7. “Counter programming”? Propaganda broadcast by state-run media?

      1. No, mandatory anti-white-nationalism training coming soon to a corporation near you. Preferably done in small groups where you are encouraged to share your feelings so anyone who would otherwise just shut up is forced to out themselves.

    8. I would not suggest censorship but rather counter programming.

      I’d happily invite you to come try that out. Make sure to ignore the “NO TRESPASSING” signs, please. It’ll make it a lot easier for my attorney afterwards.

  6. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job But a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  7. So could the Minneapolis riot be used as excuse? How about the St. Louis, Portland, Seattle, Louisville, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. riots? Maybe the billions of dollars in property damage and 30 or so lives lost?

    Or was it just “mostly peaceful protest”?

    1. 30 + deaths and about $2B in damage. Versus the staged clown show on Jan 6 one death attributable to the actual riot, Ashli Babbitt a protestor.

      Rioting is already against the existing laws. Just enforce them.

      1. Useful riots = Mostly peaceful protest

        Unhelpful protest = Riot

        These people read Orwell as an instruction manual. They watched >Man in the High Tower and thought “doesn’t seem so bad.”

        1. Man in the High Castle

          I’m batting a thousand today.

          1. Men from the Ivory Tower would be literal.

      2. Thanks Captain Obvious…inane…look it up.

    2. ^Exactly. I find it interesting that media narratives are so strong; no one immediately noticed, “WHERE’D all the De-fund the Police lefty crowd disappear too?”

      It was a 180-flip of principle in a matter of months.

      Unarmed Babbitt was gunned down for getting pushed through a window. Yet Brooks fist fighting and wrestling with (2) officers and then stealing their taser-gun and running while shooting it at the officers is reason to “De-Fund the Police”…

      Democrats are entirely GANGSTER principled about everything! It’s identity politics gone mad. They’re already in WAR mode.

      1. And the ‘enemy’ is the enemy no matter what the ‘enemy’ does.

        They’ve defined the enemy.
        1) It’s not about policy or principle; It’s about Party affiliation.
        2) It’s not about people it’s about Color of Skin and Sex.
        3) It’s not about Value to society it’s about Wealth-Class and the Power to Steal.

        They’ve all been radicalized and PROJECTION of their own radicalization is all they have to carrying water.

      2. Pretty sure Sullum will cover the Ashli Babbitt story any day now.

  8. The Capitol riot was a very light version of your typical mostly peaceful BLM/ANTIFA riots which occurred daily and still are occurring .

    I’m all against violence and rioting but if you can’t get worked up at all and actually support one but go nuts over the other you have zero credibility.

    1. We all agree that there should never have been a riot inside the national Capitol building. The riot inside the Wisconsin state capitol building was ‘democracy in action’ according to a Speaker of the House. State legislators cowering in fear is not nearly the same as national legislators cowering in fear.
      Why not look at all people willing to use violence to achieve their goals?

      1. Nah. Just pick the goals you agree with and then excuse any related violence.

      2. Yea violence is violence. Ranking victims,. state , national and private citizens is BS. We are all equal under the law.

        1. “We are all equal under the law.”

          That’s cute. I didn’t think people still believed in quaint notions like equality under the law, mens rea, innocent until proven guilty…

          1. Not sure they do which is a problem. 14A reinforces this cute idea.

      3. “We all agree that there should never have been a riot inside the national Capitol building.”

        What better place to protest?

  9. And…Smartmatic jumps in with a 2.7 billion lawsuit.

    This is going to be interesting.

    1. I don’t like this. While I’m sure they have plenty of legal standing, it seems like this could have a pretty chilling effect on a free press.

      I will say that it is ironic that many right-leaning people have been advocating for opening up libel laws over the last five years or so.

      1. Wonder if discovery will force them to open up their SW to audit? Could be interesting

        1. Going after the lawsuit basically proves they have nothing to hide. Discovery will be used by defense to hold things up as long as possible

          1. “Going after the lawsuit basically proves they have nothing to hide…”

            That’s cute.

            1. Goebbels is echospinner’s idol.

            2. Really. Why would a company who trades on reputation open to discovery if there was something there. Fox has massive assets and they will send the sharks in to tear into everything they can get.

              1. This is tort law no?

                Meaning that by suing for $2.7 billion they are claiming they can demonstrate $2.7 billion in actual damages.

                Now tell me about their reputation?

                1. Further I would like to hear thoughts from commenters on how they think the Reason authors/editors would react if Raytheon or McDonnell Douglas went after their political detractors with the same sort of legalistic vigor?

                  1. Criticizing them tending to threaten their government contracts.

                    Which is the only ‘damages that Dominion/Smartmatic can legitimately claim.

                    Unlike Raytheon or M-D.

                    1. Libertarians don’t generally have a problem with civil suits to settle disputes. It would be the preferred non violent way actually.

                      Let’s say a major news network went on the air with a made up story about Raytheon being secretly run by a cabal of antisemites who are funding neo Nazi groups here and abroad with the intention of taking over the country. You knew it was false but your ratings went through the roof.

                      Israel cancels its contracts. American Jews are furious. Congress is considering canceling contracts and banning sales.

                      I would say they have a case.

                      You use the term ‘detractors’ loosely but the suit is being brought against a major news outlet and two major public attorneys at least one of whom represented the president and the other connected to that team. They spoke publicly about the supposed conspiracy and claimed they had evidence. They are not you and I just having a discussion over a couple of beers.

                    2. “Let’s say a major news network went on the air with a made up story about…”

                      Wow, a question begging strawman. That’s a twofer!

                      How about instead of dealing in convenient constructed fiction you do a simple web search and find all the actual publications, e.g. Mother Jones, Ramparts, Jacobin, Rolling Stone, etc. who have offered wild (and not so wild) theories about the corruption and revolving door nature of the military industrial complex.

                      Because surely not all of it was provable, and could have harmed government contracts (or even private side business, and therefore would be actionable in civil courts.

                      You honestly think libertarians would not have a problem if the defense industry used tort law to go after it’s critics???

                  2. Further I would like to hear thoughts from commenters on how they think the Reason authors/editors would react if Raytheon or McDonnell Douglas went after their political detractors with the same sort of legalistic vigor?

                    “To be sure”

                    1. YEs, I suspect their libertarian principles would prove rather selective.

                2. I saw that the dominion suit was asking for some of that in punitive damages. Perhaps you know more than I do but what they are asking for likely has little to do with the outcome.

                  I saw that the suit is claiming current and future loss of income, and expenses for personal and cyber security due to threats and cyberattacks. They may not get all that if they win but they will come up with numbers to add it up. Reputation for them is more of an inside thing in their relationships with government entities. This could sink a company like that.

                  I don’t think the number means all that much. It may just be leverage.

                  It may just get settled anyway. Fox also trades on reputation as a reliable news service. That is a reputation with the general public. A judgement against them for lying would not be good.

                  1. “I saw that the dominion suit was asking for some of that in punitive damages. ”

                    Punitive damages are a multiple of actual damages.

                    So divide the number by two or three and you still end up with a number that they simply cannot demonstrate.

                    Their entire business is deals with government. Using the courts to defend that business is of no concern to you???

              2. “…Why would a company who trades on reputation open to discovery if there was something there…”

                No other company trades on rep and no other company ever lost a lawsuit as a result of discovery, right?

                1. Heh. Wait and see.

                2. Besides Fox is going to do the obvious thing. They are going to argue that they were just a news outlet reporting the news. Any opinions expressed were just opinions. They don’t need to prove anything.

                  The plaintiff needs to show that they knew they were lying. That is a tougher case.

                  1. You speak about the “good ol days” justice system. That system is gone….. As-if the cover-up of the recent election fraud wasn’t proof enough instead of pushing for a clear and persistent election investigation and further authenticity.

                    80% of American’s see the fraud yet not a single politicians will talk about election authenticity measures because the Mob-Squad will put them up on the witch-hunt trial “smear” board. That’s the “new” justice system we live UNDER.

                    1. It is a civil suit not a criminal case or government inquiry.

                    2. It’s a SLAPP.

              3. Soros is bankrolling their legal team. I think that they feel pretty bulletproof.

                1. C’mon mother. Nobody has to bankroll this. The law firms are salivating to get a piece of this kind of action.

                  If they win something this big they are rich for life. Lawyers wait their whole lives for a shot at something like this. You know they get a big cut of the money right?

                  1. I’m sure they are, but Soros really is bankrolling this none the less.

          2. Yeah. Funny stuff.

        2. …the software after the last block update….or before…just sayin…

      2. I think they are going for deep pockets with Fox. They really did suffer massive damage.

        1. “They really did suffer massive damage.”

          You have absolutely no basis for making this claim. That is obvious.

  10. “unholy alliance…of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists—even libertarians.”

    But enough about the Democrats…

  11. This is an engineered series of events. Someone read their European history and said I now know how to do it. Find some useful idiots, infiltrate a few operatives and do something eye popping. The Nazis produced the the Reichstag fire and now the deep state and the Dems have the “capital non-riot” invasion by unarmed people.

    1. It’s stupid-talk like that the left wants to go after, which will have the unintended consequence of fueling more stupid-talk, not less.

      1. I’m not ready to accept his assertions. Because we have almost no evidence of what actually went on that day.

        Mainly because the authorities who usually release that information within days are refusing to provide it weeks later.

        That you think the left is limiting themselves to what you consider ‘stupid-talk’ only confirms your like-mindedness and you acceptance of that like-mindedness.

        You are just too stupid to recognize the admission.

        1. That you think the left is limiting themselves to what you consider ‘stupid-talk’ only confirms your like-mindedness and you acceptance of that like-mindedness.

          Set the straw man up…

          You are just too stupid to recognize the admission.

          Knock it down!

          1. You really don’t understand what a strawman is, do you?

            1. Most of the left-leaning here try to talk big-words they see while entirely ignoring their meaning…. Of course if I spent my days listening to lefty-rag media I wouldn’t know that words actually had meanings either. They change by the second.

            2. He fucked up Poe’s Law earlier today.

        2. My point was that trying to suppress stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit will only encourage more stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit. I said nothing about the left limiting itself to that.

          Try arguing against what I actually say for a change.

          1. And his point was that your framing of it as “stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit” reveals your bias.

            “I said nothing about the left limiting itself to that.”

            “It’s stupid-talk like that the left wants to go after ….”

            What the fuck is wrong with you?

            1. Comparing a bunch of Trump yahoos storming the Capital to the Reichstag fire, and saying it was orchestrated by Democrat infiltrators, is indeed stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit.

              1. John Sullivan is not a conspiracy theory.

                1. Ah, well that proves it, then.

                  1. Inconvenient facts are always dismissed as conspiracy theories.

                    1. Not inconvenient, just completely unpersuasive. If you think Sullivan’s presence at the capitol is evidence that the riot was orchestrated by Democrats/Antifa, you’re a gullible moron. That’s all I meant.

                    2. Why was he there?

          2. “My point was that trying to suppress stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit will only encourage more stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit.”

            Thanks for the clarification. I can see that reading of your sentence now.

            Sorry, my bad.

            1. But, please do consider that while we are all fish swimming in an ocean of ‘stupid-ass conspiracy bullshit’ only some of it gets presented as such.

              1. Common sense isn’t very common.

                1. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

                  1. He really does think he is clever.

      2. Yea maybe that’s why the very first amendment was free speech.

        1. ^THIS is actually REALLY IMPORTANT….

          Amendment I
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          My biggest *fear* of the witch-hunting going on is it’s to cancel the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

      3. Technically…Max S. accurately explains what the Nazis did…there is evidence, documented, that the similarities are too numerous to ignore…unless you are in the ruling party….that is…

    2. The “non riot” is a bigger problem for the republicans than the democrats. The one thing I cannot forgive from Trump and Trumpists is the destruction of the Republican Party.

      1. ^Pointing blame EVERYWHERE but where it actually belongs.

        The patriots where there BEFORE Trump and they’ll be there long AFTER Trump is gone. The people who supported Trump didn’t do it because he had nice hair or talked of roses and unicorns; It was because he represented what TRUE Republicanism is all about better than any Republican in the last Century!!!

        You just assume Republicans are a ‘cult’ because that’s how you view the political environment which is exactly how almost ALL those on the left view everything. It’s the COLOR of SKIN, THE SEX, the WEALTH-CLASS, it’s all about [WE] mob ‘identity’ politics and NOTHING to do about Individual People.

      2. All of the lefty weeping and gnashing of teeth over the destruction of the GOP is illuminating. Before Trump the GOP sucked. Remember the Bushes? Trump turned the country club stupid party into a real threat to the status quo. But rest easy little Echo. McConnell and the neocons are back in power. Stupid again.

  12. Elections have consequences Greenhut.

    You chose poorly.

  13. And before we rush to debate what should or should not be done about the ‘riot,’ lets get teh facts about it first.

    How many Capitol Police officers were injured in the riot?
    What were their injuries? What is their condition now?
    Did Capitol Police confiscate any firearms from rioters? If so, how many and what types?
    What is the status of the investigation into the killing of Officer Sicknick?
    Is there an autopsy report for Officer Sicknick? If so, will it be released to the public, or will its key findings be released to the public?
    What is the status of the investigation into the shooting of Ashli Babbitt? Has it been ruled a justifiable shooting?
    Who was the officer who shot Ms. Babbitt?
    Did any other officers discharge firearms during the rioting? If so, under what circumstances?
    Did any rioters discharge any firearms during the rioting? If so, under what circumstances?

    Seems like a rather pertinent set of fact, wouldn’t you agree Greenhut?

    1. Behold I am become TypoMan

      1. Don’t worry about it. Read a sarcasmic post and you’ll feel like Samuel Johnson.

    2. Sicknick was not killed by blunt trauma to the head (fire extinguisher) as originally claimed. He died of a stroke. They are trying to cover this up.

      Ashli’s shooting has been ruled justified. I’ve seen nothing further than just that statement. This needs investigated . Unarmed woman with about ten armed officers there to great her as she goes through the window., No attempt at non-deadly force.

      The officer has not been identified.

      This whole thing is smells like day old sardines on a hot summer day.

      Other questions:
      Explain why one set of police just let a whole bunch of people in with one guy guiding directly to the senate chambers?
      Explain why another set of police went on the attack firing tear gas, spraying mace and bashing people with the fence? Why didn’t they just hold the line?
      Explain why three busses of unidentified protesters were escorted by Capital Police right up to the Capital door?

      1. Does anyone really doubt that, if the facts and figures of that day were truly terrible, that the Feds would not have released them already?

        This is a dog that didn’t bark.

        1. They’re going to make it bark. Watch them try to turn Sicknick into their own Horst Wessel even though he was a Trump fan IRL.

    3. According to libertarian magazine Reason, it was a violent insurrection and anyone even peripherally connected to it needs to be punished.
      ” Let’s dispense with the obvious. The attack on the Capitol was an outrage. The federal government should prosecute those people who committed acts of vandalism or violence. Congress and voters have every right to inflict a political price on elected officials who fanned the flames of the insurgents. Homegrown radicalism is indeed a serious problem.”
      If uncomfortable facts are outside of normal parameters libertarians are advised to STFU.

  14. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page===============? More Info

  15. “Let’s dispense with the obvious. The attack on the Capitol was an outrage. The federal government should prosecute those people who committed acts of vandalism or violence. Congress and voters have every right to inflict a political price on elected officials who fanned the flames of the insurgents. Homegrown radicalism is indeed a serious problem.”

    These things are “obvious”?

    Was is just this “attack” or any loud and threatening protest? Should unhappy citizens just write stern letters (or tweets)?

    Prosecution? For anyone who trespasses or breaks things? How about for anyone who ignores a “lawful order”? And again, in every context or just this one?

    Inflicting a political price? How far down the road to ideological purism and state control of dissension do you want to go?

    The ginormous problem of home-grown (right wing) radicalism? Because we have dozens of bombings and assassinations every day? Dude, you really need to get out more (or read some history) to know when a problem is actually significant.

    Some of us think that it is far better for a government to be afraid of the people that for the people to be afraid of the government.

    1. Remember how many times Greenhut told us the riots, and the attack on the Federal building in Portland were ‘outrages’ and that the perps should be prosecuted and the elected officials who fanned the flames should be made to pay a political price?

      Do you want me to post the quotes Greenhut?

      Should Nancy Pelosi be made to pay?
      What about the rest of them?

      You need to answer this or your entire argument is nothing other than convenient lie.

  16. Well, the 25,000 troops and fortifications in DC, censorship of even mild dissent, drumming up of the “white supremacist” boogeyman, promises of re-education camps, and declared war on Americans who don’t worship our ruling elite certainly convinces me that the election was legitimate…

    1. This occurred to me about a week ago, if the ruling party effectively institutes martial law in the capitol, putting up fences and staffing it with military forces, military forces that it has purged of dissenters, and then grants it statehood we’re pretty solidly in hard/military coup territory, right?

      1. Technically, if DC becomes a state the troops have gotta go …it’s that old 3A thing…staying a federal enclave dispenses with that little detail….of course, the troops could be relieved of duty, discharged from the NG and immediately become DC state troopers…problem solved.

        1. Does/would the State of DC be unable to deploy its own National Guard?

        2. Technically, if DC becomes a state; The entire Constitution because volatile because the wording become contradictory.

    2. +10000000000000000

  17. Reports are saying that Bank of America searched it’s own records to identify customers who used their cards/accounts in the DC area on or around that date and then ‘volunteered’ all the information to the Feds.

    And it’s crickets from the ‘libertarians’ at Reason.

    1. Seditionists have waived all entitlement to privacy, confidentiality, and a livelihood. Even if they are not seditionists, they may harbor seditionist views. Even if they do not harbor seditionist views, they may harbor views that lead to seditionist views. Do we really need to wait until the problem metastasizes? Nip it in the bud. The risks of allowing dangerous ideas to proliferate are too great.

      1. I’m beginning to suspect the problem with the authors/editors here is a variant of Stockholm syndrome.

        They been captive to the journolist crowd too long.

        1. They are doing what they must to survive, which includes ingratiating themselves with the people that can have their publication and their jobs purged in the blink of an eye.

          1. Yes, objectively that is what they are doing.

            My question is: Do they really understand why they are doing it?

            1. They do.

              They don’t care.

          2. people who bow their heads to authoritarians for personal gain are often the first to lose their heads.

            1. If there is a silver lining…

    2. Ya can’t jail a business…and the Patriot Act is in play here…sort of…if you “label” those ratted out by BofA as “foreign” terrorists enablers…read the law, it’s in there.

    3. So now just being in DC even if for other reasons is reason for suspicion. could you imagine being contacted by the FBI just for filling your car up with gas while passing thru DC.
      Also i now hate Bank of America.

      1. Pretty much everybody that comes to DC wants to rape AOC so we can’t be too careful.

        1. Sandy Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and many of the other whiners can now join David Hoff in the victim category of “survivors of events, at which they weren’t present”.

  18. Steven, buddy, you lost me when you called them “insurrectionists”, implying they were an insurrection. It was a one-off riot. I doubt very many expected to even get inside like they did.

    You want insurrection? Look to the Antifa/BLM riots going back to Sprint 2020. Look at the autonomous zones which were supported by secessionist mayors, who withdrew police and gave city resources to enforce the autonomous zones.

    Words have meaning, Steven. When you misuse them, you fail to use the tools of your trade. Nobody likes a poor craftsman. I knew a so-called handyman who liked to leave his tools out overnight, even power tools, and they rusted all the time. Don’t be that guy, Steven. Don’t let yoru words get rusty and useless.

    1. Greenhut is just following Shop Rules.

    2. I’ve heard the excuse well they are bad insurrectionists. These idiots never back down no matter how much evidence is presented. At some point its not an insurrection so give it up.

      They weren’t armed, seems like a basic requirement. They weren’t organized. Maybe a few instigators were but otherwise it was just folks wandering around with Viking man posing for pictures.

      They left the place virtually unharmed. Congress critters were back in there in a few hours finishing their business.

      It was a one off. Unlike BLM/ANTIFA riot’s which are an actual insurrection movement.

      Looks like a staged event. A few Capitol Police some well placed instigators and a bunch of useful idiots going on a Capitol tour.

      And the pipe bombs? Yea sure thing, I like my planted bombs to be duds. They always are. The neighbor kid made pipe bombs when I was growing up. They’re easy and they definitely were not duds.

      1. Skepticism of authority is a one way street here at Reason.

      2. “Congress critters were back in there in a few hours finishing their business.”
        Ever seen that happen, before, at the scene of a police shooting?
        Ashli Babbitt was gunned-down, yet no real investigation was conducted. Something that would have, normally shut down the building, until the investigation was complete.
        Yet they were back, within hours, undeterred from cementing the “victory” of Zhou Bai-din, before someone, in a position to matter, might have realized what a sham the election was.

  19. It’s spelled “protest”, just so ya know.
    And BTW, the cop was not “killed during the (protest)”, he died of a stroke the day after.

    1. You are correct. My question above about the death of Sicknick presumes facts not in evidence.

      We do not know the exact nature of his death, and mainly because the authorities have declined to provide us that information.

      1. While, if it were caused by the protest, they have every incentive to do so.
        Further, the last substantive news story on the pipe bombs admitted there was yet no information on what they were filled with, if anything.

        1. According to CNN: Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick

          Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amid the siege but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries, law enforcement officials familiar with the matter said.

          To date, little information has been shared publicly about the circumstances of the death of the 13-year veteran of the police force, including any findings from an autopsy that was conducted by DC’s medical examiner.

          Either Federal Investigators are less effective than the Chicago Police Department was at apprehending Jussie Smollett’s attackers or there is no case and they’re doing their darnedest to avoid that conclusion.

          1. Really amazing how quickly the media rushed to declare his death a murder, isn’t it?

            Well, not really.

            But, don’t call them fake news. And don’t criticize Reason for failing to note the problem, or the dangers it continues to pose.

          2. “…Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amid the siege but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his *fatal injuries*, law enforcement officials familiar with the matter said…”

            Note the forgone assumption that there WERE “fatal injuries”, in spite of the clear admission that no one has seen any such thing.
            ‘We’re lying, and we’re going to admit to lying and you’re going to believe the lie anyhow!’

            1. Yes the concept that people have strokes without a blow to the head seems to have escaped them.

            2. The ‘have yet’ is laughable. Like the guy was pummeled for weeks on end by 100,000 fists and they’re still looking for the one that killed him. We’re coming up on a month, if 10 people haven’t watched the video 50X at this point, they aren’t trying and if 10 people have watched the videos 50X and they haven’t found the fist/blow/person, it’s not there.

              It’s really getting into magic bullet territory.

              1. It may be getting to magic bullet territory, but it has managed to distract from the real murder, of Ashli Babbitt, by a Capitol police officer.

        2. …nor that they were “placed” the day before the rally…err, I mean mostly peaceful protest…err, riot…ect…

    2. There were two cops killed and one of them was with a fire extinguisher. Probably used by one of the alt-right trash who regularly post in the Reason comments section.

  20. It won’t really matter at this point. The political damage has been done. People will not forget the images of what went on that day.

    The charges about the election even the most wild obviously false ones have already caused irreparable loss of faith in government and the election system.

    You can’t take these things back now. No investigation, news article or political statement will undo it in the minds of the public.

    1. “The charges about the election even the most wild obviously false ones have already caused irreparable loss of faith in government and the election system.”

      Yep, the charges regarding the 2016 election made it clear the government could not be trusted, and the continued lying by the press (see just above you) only re-enforce the fact that the government is not to be trusted.

      1. Well, medically speaking, a spontaneous brain clot is a form of fatal injury, just a self inflicted one.

        But yeah, in lay terms that is some serious question begging. Those narratives do not write themselves you know.

        1. Meant as a reply to Sevo, slightly above.

        2. Blunt trauma resulting in hemorrhagic or non hemorrhagic stroke. Sure that is a known thing. Traumatic vascular injury is not at all uncommon. It is one of the things you look out for after a head or neck injury.

          If you are still skeptical Sevo here is an article about it.

          https://www.insideradiology.com.au/traumatic-vascular-injury-hp/

          1. So because something *could* happen, it did happen here? Even though the search through all the vids and stills don’t show anything like that?

            1. I don’t have the medical record Sevo.

              1. Nor do you have one bit of evidence he suffered anything like that, but keep plugging away at it anyhow. TDS does that to people.

                1. Because that was what was reported. That is all I know. I have no reason to doubt it. You are the one who misunderstood “stroke”. I gave you an article to explain it. You think you could see it on some video. Go ahead and think what you want. What do I care?

              2. You do not have the autopsy report because they have not released the autopsy report.

                Any thoughts why?

            2. How are your vids going to show you an intracranial closed head injury? This is something I know about Sevo.

              1. No, but an autopsy will, and the fact that those results haven’t been released is telling, especially when it would prove the death was a result of the events, of the day before he died.
                There are none so blinded by TDS, as those who will not see.

      2. Like a snowball rolling downhill. 2016 and now it is an avalanche. Unlike nature however this is deliberate and could have been avoided.

        There has never been anything like Trump. I have never seen a president lose an election and act this way.

        1. “Like a snowball rolling downhill. 2016 and now it is an avalanche. Unlike nature however this is deliberate and could have been avoided.”

          Yes, the FBI could have NOT used false claims to pull that warrant on Trump.
          We could have avoided 3 years of a fishing expedition in the hopes of finding that Trump didn’t pay a parking ticket.
          CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS and others could have had the decency to tell the truth at least once a week, rather than scream the latest rumor about what Trump said to someone.
          But none of that happened, did it?

          1. When did I say it didn’t.

            1. Perhaps we can draw some inference from this?

              “There has never been anything like Trump. I have never seen a president lose an election and act this way.”

              1. You seem to come up with your own inferences like a head injury cannot result in a stroke.

        2. Seriously?
          HiLIARy Clinton has been going on about her loss as being stolen from her, ever since.
          She may not have gone to court about it, because she had the 0blama administration sycophants do that for her, but to claim what Trump, or his supporters, did was unprecedented is sophistry.

      3. “Yep, the charges regarding the 2016 election …”

        Charges that were sustained through multiple false statements to the FISA courts. Including at least one episode of manufacturing/altering evidence.

        Yet Reason has no problem with this.

  21. We don’t “let” the government do anything it does it all on its own.

    We can be leery but ultimately we live in a police state totalitarian dictatorship while democrats rule.

    1. I pretty much think we have been doing that for a long time. If democrats rule it is because the republicans don’t have their act together.

      1. Greene does; She just filed Impeachment papers on Biden for the Hunter scandal. But; due to the fraud-ed election – it won’t go anywhere even though it’s got/had verifiable proof for 2-years now.

  22. From an innocent person destroyed after 9/11. Focus your time and energy on Judicial Branch “pro se lawsuits” or hire an ACLU attorney. The two political branches will do nothing to correct mistakes. In 2041, nothing will happen without Judicial Branch intervention. Focus on constitutional court cases and allowing non-financial appeals court cases to be free for pro se plaintiffs. The strategy of the two political branches is to ignore the innocent Americans harmed and grab more power.

  23. I am disappointed that congress is wasting time on this impeachment.

    There is work to be done and this is just a sideshow.

    This whole election and what happened is a fiasco and they are just rubbing salt into the wound.

    1. “There is work to be done and this is just a sideshow.”

      Indeed. they could work on revising or eliminating the FISA courts so there are no more blatant abuses like those that we know happened to Trump and his supporters.

  24. As a black man, I’m frequently treated like ISIS by US cops. In my 30 years outside of the USA I have ZERO bad cop experiences in total. Across the USA I’m routinely stalked and threatened by the police. The USA leads the entire world in per capita imprisonment, due to this heavy surveillance of black people. Meanwhile, Trump can brag about grabbing pussies, and not a cop lifts a finger to address the fact that more women than Cosby victims confirm Trump’s repeated boasts of sex felonies. We should absolutely treat Americans like ISIS if they act like ISIS. This article is right-wing garbage.

  25. The neocons who made disasters of the Bushes presidencies are on Biden’s side now. Super.

  26. The Capital Riot feels like the Reichstag Fire that happened at the beginning of Nazi Germany. Some idiot set a fire in what was effectively the German capitol building and the Nazis capitalized on that to put into effect decrees that helped them lock down the German state.

    Now, I don’t think this is exactly the same thing. And there is more than a little evidence that the Nazis themselves might have had something to do with the Fire, but in the end, like the Capitol Riot, it was a highly symbolic event that really had no chance of doing anything important to the government, and that symbolism was used to amplify the situation into looking like some sort of coup.

    The fact is the Capitol Rioters were definitely insurrectionists, but unorganized ones without any plan or goals. It would be folly to treat them as actual revolutionists with organization or a plan and clamp down on everyone’s freedoms.

  27. This is deeper, wider, and much more pervasive that a few whack jobs attacking Congress. The Trump administration cut all funding for terrorism monitoring of white nationalist / far right extremists, and boosted it for all other monitoring. Trump famously told the Proud Boys to “Stand by and stand down.” They stood by until they coordinated a deadly attack on a democratically elected government. DOJ is increasingly releasing information about pre-attack coordination with the Proud Boys. Trump’s toady henchman (and pardon beneficiary) Roger Stone was coordinating with with Proud Boys before their alt-right terrorist attack.

    It’s going to go far further than prosecuting the terrorists in the Capitol. It can and will go to prosecuting everyone who aided and abetted them.

  28. Assumir que os dados sobre terroristas domésticos serão mal utilizados é uma simples histeria de táticas de medo, já que Joe Average, como um cidadão cumpridor da lei, não tem nada a temer.

Please to post comments