As attorney general, Garland vows to tackle domestic extremism - CSMonitor.com

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  thomas  •  one month ago  •  94 comments

By:   The Christian Science Monitor's Christa Case Bryant

As attorney general, Garland vows to tackle domestic extremism - CSMonitor.com
Merrick Garland's widely praised handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation may inform how he will approach the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Lets see how this goes.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


256

Drew Angerer/Reuters

Merrick Garland testifies during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington on Feb. 22, 2021.

Why We Wrote This


Merrick Garland's handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation was a turning point in his career - and may offer clues as to how he'll proceed as his department begins investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

March 10, 2021

  • By Christa Case Bryant, Staff writer@christacbryant

After Merrick Garland won widespread praise for his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation in 1995, his nomination to become a U.S. circuit judge in Washington, D.C., languished for 18 months before the Senate confirmed him. When President Barack Obama later nominated him to the Supreme Court, the Republican-led Senate refused to hold a confirmation hearing.

On Tuesday, Judge Garland was confirmed in a 70-30 vote to a job that he described in a Feb. 22 hearing as "the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back [the United States]."

In confirmation hearings, Democrats presented the new attorney general as a brilliant and fair advocate for justice. Judge Garland was seen as a more centrist choice, but some Republicans nevertheless expressed concern that Attorney General Garland's Department of Justice may try to usher in sweeping reforms to policing and voting.

Still, amid fears of a resurgence in domestic extremism, his experience in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation suggests he will pursue the Jan. 6 investigation in a serious way that has a chance of winning bipartisan approval.

"The work that he did after the bombing in 1995 for Oklahoma, Oklahomans have never forgotten," says GOP Sen. James Lankford, who represents the state and voted to confirm. "He was very engaged. He was very good."

Washington

If the United States had not taken in Merrick Garland's grandmother when she fled anti-Semitism in Europe, it's not just that he would be living in Belarus. He wouldn't be living at all, he says.

"My grandparents knew that they owed their lives to the willingness of America to take them in. And the same is true for me," Judge Garland told University of New Hampshire (UNH) law school students in a talk last fall. "The reason that I and my siblings and my parents try to do as much public service and as much community service as we could was to pay the country back for the sanctuary that it provided to my family."

When the Harvard-trained lawyer got a call back in 1989 asking him to quit his private practice and come work for the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., Mr. Garland said yes, leaving his law firm office for a windowless cubbyholestudded with stale cigarette butts.

It wasn't the last time his commitment to public service would be tested. After Mr. Garland won widespread praise for his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation in 1995, his nomination to become a U.S. circuit judge in Washington, D.C., languished for 18 months before the Senate confirmed him. President Barack Obama thrice considered nominating him for a Supreme Court appointment; when Mr. Obama finally did, the Republican-led Senate refused to hold a confirmation hearing before the 2016 election, which ushered in President Donald Trump and a trio of conservative justices.

On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed him 70-30 to a job that he described in a Feb. 22 hearing as "the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back [the United States]."

Four decades earlier, fresh off a Harvard Law School education that he financed in part by selling his prized collection of Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Fantastic Four comic books for $1,000, there was no guarantee he would rise to such an influential position.

"I was sent to Oklahoma City"


In 1979, the young lawyer landed a job "in the room where it happens," as the saying goes. He was the special assistant to the attorney general of the United States in the post-Watergate era, amid the development of a set of norms intended to protect the independence of the department. "But you don't actually get to do anything about what happened, except give peanut gallery advice," he told UNH students in his talk, a Zoom event moderated by one of his former clerks, Maggie Goodlander, an adjunct professor of constitutional law at UNH's Franklin Pierce School of Law.

Fast-forward to April 19, 1995, and he was once again in the room, but this time he was no longer relegated to the peanut gallery. As top deputy to the deputy attorney general of the United States, he got an email that a gas explosion had occurred at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which housed numerous agencies as well as a day-care center.

Ten minutes later came the update: It was a bomb, not a gas explosion. Images starting coming through on CNN that reminded him of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American military personnel. The U.S. attorney general in Oklahoma City had just become a federal judge, and the acting attorney general was a civil attorney.

"I was in the room … when the acting U.S. attorney called Attorney General [Janet] Reno and said, 'You have to send somebody,'" he told the UNH students. "I had a lot of experience filing crime cases - I was the only one in the room who did - and I was sent to Oklahoma City."

By the time Mr. Garland arrived, the FBI had a strong lead on Timothy McVeigh. Mr. Garland, the top DOJ official deployed to Oklahoma City, was taken to an Air Force base where Mr. McVeigh was brought for his first presentment.

Mr. Garland, determined to squelch any conspiracy theories, demanded that the press be allowed into the briefing room on the base. The FBI backed him up, and the Air Force eventually relented. Mr. McVeigh, a 26-year-old Gulf War veteran angered by the government's 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas, that left 76 dead, was charged with the bombing of the building.

1117183_4_0310%20oklhoma%20bombing_standard.jpg?alias=standard_900x600

AP/File The north side of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is shown after a bomb that killed 168 people and injured hundreds on April 19, 1995. When Merrick Garland, who was at the time the principal deputy to the deputy attorney general, was first taken to the site, he recalls it looking like a "battleground." He later won widespread praise for his handling of the investigation.

When Mr. Garland was taken to the bomb site, he recalls it looking like a "battleground," with National Guard troops stationed around it. People were worried it could be the beginning of a larger spate of domestic terrorism.

Mr. Garland insisted on doing everything "by the book," requiring a subpoena even when people offered to hand over evidence, and requiring a second warrant to search a car for a second time, the Los Angeles Times reported. Donna Bucella, former director of the executive office for United States attorneys, who was on the ground with him in Oklahoma City, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that he also made sure the applications for wiretaps, search warrants, and other investigative tools were reviewed and approved by each federal district where the evidence was sought, as well as by the FBI & DOJ. He welcomed and listened to diverse opinions, she added.

Indeed, many Republicans, and even the lawyers for Mr. McVeigh and his co-conspirator Terry Nichols, praised his work.

Mr. McVeigh was convicted along with Mr. Nichols and was executed in 2001. Mr. Nichols was given a life sentence without parole. Some 168 people were killed in the bombing, and Mr. Garland spent significant time meeting with survivors.

"The work that he did after the bombing in 1995 for Oklahoma, Oklahomans have never forgotten," says GOP Sen. James Lankford, who represents the state and voted to confirm Mr. Garland. "He was very engaged. He was very good."

Don Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general during George W. Bush's presidency, described Mr. Garland in a letter supporting his 1997 confirmation as someone "driven more by a sense of public service than of personal aggrandizement."

"My own service in the Justice Department during the last two Republican Administrations convinced me that government suffers greatly from a shortage of people combining such exceptional abilities with a primary drive to serve interests beyond their own," Mr. Ayer wrote, urging the Senate to seize the opportunity to add him to the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed 76-23 amid GOP opposition to adding another judge to the circuit at that time.

Policing and voting reforms


In this round of confirmation hearings, Democrats presented Judge Garland as a brilliant and fair advocate for justice, and particularly well suited to the task of investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"He is personally driven to root out hate - and to, especially, stop its most violent manifestation in the terrorism of our fellow Americans," says Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Garland, who showed no public bitterness over the GOP's thwarting of his Supreme Court nomination nearly five years ago, also won support from some Republican senators before his confirmation Tuesday as attorney general- including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who praised him for also recognizing the persistent threat of foreign terrorism.

But not all were convinced he'd be the right person to take the helm of the Justice Department as a major investigation into domestic extremism gets underway.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee and one of a handful of senators who on Jan. 6 objected to the Electoral College results from two battleground states that President Donald Trump lost in 2020, said he was disappointed that Judge Garland did not characterize left-wing assaults on the federal courthouse in Portland and the violence directed against numerous law enforcement officers as domestic terrorism.

Though the new attorney general was seen as a more centrist choice than some progressives were hoping for, some Republicans worried the Biden administration will use the Department of Justice to usher in sweeping reforms to policing and voting that Democrats say are necessary to combat systemic racism and voter suppression. They point in particular to how his more liberal deputies could steer the department, including civil rights lawyer Vanita Gupta, Mr. Biden's nominee for the No. 3 slot at the DOJ who faced a tough grilling from GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee March 9.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, another GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, pressed Mr. Garland on how exactly he would define systemic racism. The judge responded that it signified discrimination and widespread disparate treatment of communities of color caused by a combination of historic impact, unconscious bias, and sometimes conscious bias.

"I'm thinking it through in terms of whether he has what it takes to run the Justice Department in a fair and equitable manner - and that means fair to all Americans," says Senator Kennedy. "What worries me about many - not all, but many - of my Democratic friends is they just don't seem to care about average middle-class Americans unless they're part of a specific minority that they deem worthy. And I think we're all worthy in America."

Still, amid fears of a resurgence in domestic extremism, Mr. Garland's widely praised handling of the Oklahoma City bombing as well as his role in bringing the elusive Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, to justice the following year, suggests he will pursue the Jan. 6 investigation in a serious way that has a chance of winning bipartisan approval.

Prosecutors have so far charged more than 300 individuals in the attack, including Justice Department indictments against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Judge Garland has pledged to make the investigation his top priority upon taking office.

"If anything was necessary to refocus our attention on white supremacists, that was the attack on the Capitol," he told Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the hearings. "I expect to put all departmental resources necessary to combat this problem into this area, to make sure both our agents and our prosecutors have the numbers and the resources to accomplish that mission."

Jamie Gorelick, who was Judge Garland's boss and the No. 2 official at the DOJ when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, says in an interview that his collaborative approach enabled him to coordinate many different agencies in the wake of the bombing - an approach she says will be needed in the Jan. 6 investigation as well.

In addition to possessing a passion for justice and ensuring the nation's security, she identifies another reason for Judge Garland's determination when it comes to investigating such cases.

"He saw domestic terrorism up close, and he knows how divisive and terrifying it can be - and therefore that it must be addressed," she says.

Mark Sappenfield Editor


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
1  seeder  Thomas    one month ago

An interesting section from the article: 

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, another GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, pressed Mr. Garland on how exactly he would define systemic racism. The judge responded that it signified discrimination and widespread disparate treatment of communities of color caused by a combination of historic impact, unconscious bias, and sometimes conscious bias. "I'm thinking it through in terms of whether he has what it takes to run the Justice Department in a fair and equitable manner - and that means fair to all Americans," says Senator Kennedy. "What worries me about many - not all, but many - of my Democratic friends is they just don't seem to care about average middle-class Americans unless they're part of a specific minority that they deem worthy. And I think we're all worthy in America."

Really, the italicized seems a bit disingenuous to me. Kind of like the  "...some, I am sure are good people..." sandwiched in between rapists and murderers and drug runners of DJT. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @1    one month ago

The repukes are guilty of projection.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.2  Kavika   replied to  Thomas @1    one month ago

This is the same Kennedy that said this about the nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland. 

Kennedy called Haaland a “a neo-socialist, left-of-Lenin whack job” Wednesday in remarks to reporters.

Another nut job from the right.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Thomas @1    one month ago

an AG with a successful history of prosecuting right wing domestic terrorists is exactly what is needed.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.4  gooseisgone  replied to  Thomas @1    one month ago
The judge responded that it signified discrimination and widespread disparate treatment of communities of color caused by a combination of historic impact, unconscious bias, and sometimes conscious bias.

Let me decode this for you, I will pursue and jail anyone who disagrees with Democrats and look the other way when Democrat Domestic Terrorist commit crime.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
1.4.1  seeder  Thomas  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4    one month ago

I really do not think that your attempt at translation is what he intended to say at all. Read it again without your, "Anything the Democrats do, they do to destroy R's and promote D's," filters on.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.4.2  gooseisgone  replied to  Thomas @1.4.1    one month ago
I really do not think that your attempt at translation is what he intended to say at all.

Thomas, its already happening. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
1.4.3  seeder  Thomas  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.2    one month ago

Where? Links?

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
1.4.5  seeder  Thomas  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.4    one month ago

Sounds like a bunch of people who got caught.

 
 
 
Dig
Senior Guide
1.4.6  Dig  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.4    one month ago

What the hell? You think investigating and arresting traitors who attacked and ransacked the U.S. Capitol with the aim of overturning the election is partisan bias?

A Confederate flag in the U.S. Capitol (something that didn't even happen during the Civil War)? A gallows constructed outside with accompanying chants of "Hang Mike Pence" inside? Camp Auschwitz, 6MWE, and MAGA Civil War shirts in the crowd? National Socialist Club stickers? Proud Boys and Oath Keepers stuff? Over 140 Capitol police injured and one killed? The list goes on and on.

You think prosecuting violent insurrectionists for the treasonous act of attacking Congress while they were trying to carry out a constitutionally-mandated duty is DISCRIMINATION?

Now, that's some ridiculous shit.

How 'patriotic' of you.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
2  FLYNAVY1    one month ago

I wonder if the 30 republicans that voted against Garland did so because they are worried about their offices having ties to white nationalist, and  other fascist groups being unearthed?

Let's let Mr. Garland get to work in fumigating the remaining stench in the DOJ now that Sessions and Barr have been evicted.  

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
3  devangelical    one month ago

I hope he's holding a 5 year grudge against moscow mitch and miss lindsey, and fully exercises it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3    one month ago

Yeah, because we all want an adult who just can't get over something in charge, seeking revenge.

Brilliant!

/s

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago
because we all want an adult who just can't get over something in charge, seeking revenge

yeah, you're right, 4+ years has probably been enough...

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
3.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago

You mistake justice for revenge. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
4  Greg Jones    one month ago

"What worries me about many - not all, but many - of my Democratic friends is they just don't seem to care about average middle-class Americans unless they're part of a specific minority that they deem worthy. And I think we're all worthy in America."

It's abundantly clear that the Democrat party, in general, has not cared about the hard working average American citizen for some time now. Instead, it's been taken over by radical leftist hardliners that pander to select special interest groups it deems worthy...seeking political advantage

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
4.1  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago

You seem to believe the projections from the right as to what the Democratic party and the generalized left believes. You say that it is abundantly clear, but it is not abundantly clear to me. 

The "radical, leftist hardliners" that you reference, who are they that wield so much power?

Pandering to special interest groups seems to be the way of divide and conquer politics these days in which all groups are special interest groups assembled at election time to try and achieve a majority of votes. Both major parties have their base voters who need to be pandered to. This is the particular dog whistle that Senator Kennedy was using, IMO. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago
It's abundantly clear that the Democrat party, in general, has not cared about the hard working average American citizen for some time now.

What exactly have the Republicans done for the "hard working average American citizen", in the last 30 - 50 years?

  • Try to take away their healthcare?
  • Try to take away social security?
  • Try to eliminate the post office and all their jobs?
  • Try to push a national religion?
  • Try to FORCE them to say "Merry Christmas"?
  • Try to eliminate minimum wage, or at least prevent it from keeping up with inflation?
  • Try to force women to have babies they don't want?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    one month ago
"What exactly have the Republicans done for the "hard working average American citizen", in the last 30 - 50 years?"

NOT ONE GODDAMNED THING. . . NOTHING.

In the case of the now gqp - what have you done for me, ever?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    one month ago
NOT ONE GODDAMNED THING. . . NOTHING.

24 hours and not one of the GOP apologists on NT has been able to offer one up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.2    one month ago

Inanity doesn't deserve a response.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    one month ago
Inanity doesn't deserve a response.

You should talk to Greg about that then.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.4    one month ago

ok. I will try to talk him out of replying to inane posts.

jrSmiley_124_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
4.3  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago
Democratic friends

I seriously doubt that you have any.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
4.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago
It's abundantly clear that the Democrat party, in general, has not cared about the hard working average American citizen for some time now.

You are aware that not one republican voted for the covid relief package, right? The package that went to helping middle class Americans?

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
4.5  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago
And I think we're all worthy in America.

Except for the fact that you trash all who are free thinkers.

Far right wing fascists are not worthy of consideration. Y'all suck black water.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
5  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

If he can manage to officially label certain groups as domestic terrorists and take the necessary steps to remove them from society, then I will be impressed.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5    one month ago
If he can manage to officially label certain groups as domestic terrorists and take the necessary steps to remove them from society, then I will be impressed.

The problem with labeling any domestic group Terrorists is that they will counter that their free speech rights are being taken away. The government needs to show that the groups did indeed abrogate the rights of other individuals. That seems like a pretty fine line to walk. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
5.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Thomas @5.1    one month ago

Not really that 'fine of a line' to walk.  

After all, since when have Nazis, Ku Kluxers and puppets of Putin ever defended the rights of other individuals?

Hell, remember when the ACLU defended and won Limbaugh's case about the Viagra thing and medical privacy?  Now there is an instance when an organization defended an individual who spent a career denigrating the organization that saved his worthless arse.  *************Can never say that about the Nazis and the rest of the right wing, right?

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.2  seeder  Thomas  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    one month ago

Well, can you think of a way, without violating the CotUS and the rights affirmed therein, to label any group that exists inside the US as a terrorist group?

As a society we tend to put the emphasis on actions and not words. When, exactly, do words become threats or an instigation to violence? To put down on paper, "Here. This is where we draw the line," has historically been virtually impossible before the fact. I don't know as if it is possible. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
5.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Thomas @5.1.2    one month ago

What ever.  The MAGA bots beating the police officer with a Blue Line Flag while others screamed to, "Kill him with his own gun"----------.

Sorry, at least I would hope that America would be a safe haven from fascists'.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.4  seeder  Thomas  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.3    one month ago

Those are actions, not speech. Criminal actions can be dealt with. Criminal words? What are those? 

Don't get me wrong, I am as much for catching the people who participated in the insurrection at the capitol as anyone. But even they can say, "Hey! You are limiting my freedom of expression!"

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
5.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Thomas @5.1.4    one month ago

Charles Manson did nothing.  But he did.  And people were murdered.  Lie speech is not free speech, it is lie speech.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.6  seeder  Thomas  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.5    one month ago

Unless someone is demonstrably harmed by the words that one utters, it is allowable to utter them. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
5.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Thomas @5.1    one month ago

These domestic terrorist's free speech rights end when it puts other people in physical danger.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @5.1.4    one month ago

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.9  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.8    one month ago

I don't believe that I have ever said that freedom of speech was equivalent to freedom from consequences. 

I did say that I do not think that it is possible to classify a domestic group as terrorist. The KKK hasn't been exactly warm and welcoming to certain segments of society, yet they exist and are not defined as terrorists. I think that we need to have the discussion in this country over just what constitutes hate speech and how is that speech controlled. The libel, slander and defamation laws might be a good place to start, as they are areas where speech has been recognized to have consequences. .

We cannot just hope it goes away. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.10  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.7    one month ago

Please see my comment below at  5.1.9

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @5.1.9    one month ago

I don't believe we should mollycoddle terrorists and I cannot believe that the KKK aren't considered/defined domestic terrorists.  

It sounds like you're excusing them.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.12  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    one month ago
It sounds like you're excusing them.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I condemn the violent insurrectionist attack on the capitol and think that the perpetrators should be dealt with in a manner that recognizes not only the severity of there actions but the sanctity of the Capitol building as the seat of democracy in America.

We have rights and laws in this country and we follow those laws to protect those rights. That is the way it works. You have rights. Accused criminals have rights. The KKK has rights. Everyone, no matter their affiliation with any group has rights as long as they are in this country. Period. If one person has rights then we all have to have those same rights.

Trump wanted us to think that people in custody should be "roughed up" because he was an asshole who would be king. We don't all, I am assuming, want to become like Trump, do we?  So we cannot just set aside some of the laws sometimes and some of the rights sometimes like he would have us do, because that is the way of the tyrant. He wanted it his way, all the time, no matter the laws he had to ignore or change, no matter the rights that he had to squash. Fuck the Law and Order bullshit he spewed. That was just for people who were not paying attention to what he was doing. 

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
5.1.13  cjcold  replied to  Thomas @5.1    one month ago

Pretty sure that my assessment is the only assessment that matters.

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
5.1.14  cjcold  replied to  Thomas @5.1.2    one month ago

Words count and tend to inspire actions.

I'll beat the shit out of anybody who says different.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
5.1.15  dennis smith  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.7    one month ago

The same can be said about Cuomo and free speech since he claimed he was doing the right thing and many died. He is a domestic terrorist by his own actions.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.17  seeder  Thomas  replied to  cjcold @5.1.14    one month ago

As tempting as it is to call your bluff... Do you wanna take this outside?  ;)

Again, I did not say that words did not matter. I was defining the framework that is structurally in place in the US and questioning where we could begin to address defining groups as being domestic terror groups. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @5.1.12    one month ago

If what happened by the former occupant of the White House and his mob, isn't considered domestic terrorism, I don't know what is.  I never said they didn't have rights.  Their rights have nothing to do with it.  These domestic terrorists conspired along with the former occupant of the White House and his mob and some new gqp members and other members of the gqp to 'Storm the Capitol!' 'It's an insurrection!

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.19  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.18    one month ago

Do you have the evidence to prove those accusations? Cause they will be screaming, "I know my rights!" like that drunk guy on Youtube. 

Due process is what we follow so that people who are proven to have committed crimes pay the price of same. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @5.1.19    one month ago

Where do I say anything about not following due process?  The majority of these domestic terrorists have already provided ample evidence for their trails.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
5.1.21  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.20    one month ago

This is the line I was referring to (emphasis mine):

These domestic terrorists conspired along with the former occupant of the White House and his mob and some new gqp members and other members of the gqp to 'Storm the Capitol!' 'It's an insurrection!

And, I really do not know who you are arguing with (are you?), since we are both approximately of the same opinion. But, hey. Keep up the good work. It is better than reading some of the other tripe on here. One can only deconstruct so many Tucker Carlson diatribes..... jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @5.1.21    one month ago

Since we're on the same page then I will move along but I just wanted to provide some more evidence of these morons providing their own evidence for their trials:

2 Men Charged In Capitol Riot Recorded Bonkers Boasts They Crashed The White House

Mary Papenfuss

Trends Reporter, HuffPost
Sun, March 14, 2021, 8:23 AM
604da457250000380084da4c.png?cache=7umYgdmmsh
Richard Barnard (left) and Jeffrey Shane Witcher in the Capitol, not the White House, in a screenshot taken from Witcher's cellphone. (Photo: Screen Shot/Affidavit/Jeffrey Shane Witcher)

Two men who have been charged in the Capitol riot recorded gleeful — and embarrassing — shots of themselves in the Rotunda that day, boasting that they had “crashed the White House.”

Nope.

The   goofy foul-up was exposed in an FBI affidavit   late last month supporting criminal charges against wannabe big shots Jeffrey Shane Witcher and his friend Richard Franklin Barnard, both of Texas.

“I am in the White House! We crashed this! Our house! We did it! We did it, family, we did it!” Witcher said in a cellphone video, according to the affidavit.

Morons didn't even know where they were 'insurrecting'

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
5.1.23  cjcold  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.5    one month ago

Pretty sure that Charlie killed a few folk. Just not the famous ones.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
6  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     one month ago

I have a feeling that what comes out in a full investigation will be quite interesting.

The resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum, someone instigated it, planned it and initiated it. 

Wonder who ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @6    one month ago
The resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum, someone instigated it, planned it and initiated it.

Most say God. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
6.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
6.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago

Err, you mean 'gawd'?

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
6.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago

Only fools "say god".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
6.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @6    one month ago

Resurrection?  I think you meant insurrection because no one was brought back to life and no second coming occurred.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
6.2.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2    one month ago
Resurrection?  I think you meant insurrection

.... LOL ..... Opps jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
6.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @6.2.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
6.4  cjcold  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @6    one month ago

I'm thinking that it was your mother.

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
7  bbl-1    one month ago

Follow the money.  It's source, received by whom and it's dispersal from there.  Into campaigns, SuperPacs, certain people's pockets and maybe into media.  

Just follow the damn money.

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
7.1  cjcold  replied to  bbl-1 @7    one month ago
Just follow the damn money.

Truer words were never spoken.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
7.2  dennis smith  replied to  bbl-1 @7    one month ago

Certainly true for career politicians

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @7.2    one month ago

The former occupant of the White House and his mob aren't career politicians.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
7.2.2  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.1    one month ago

I never said they were.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
7.2.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.1    one month ago

The term you are looking for is grifters....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.3    one month ago

Career grifters . . . . thugs. . . thieves. . . just heard of another charity that they diverted funds from to their own pockets

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
8  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Here's a some domestic terrorism from yesterday. . Let's see if Garland is true to his word.

Of course, since the Biden DOJ already dropped charges against dozens of the Democrats' fellow traveler terrorists in Portland, we know nothing will happen. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    one month ago

Define "domestic terrorism."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @8.1    one month ago

Sure, here's the statute.

(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;
Pass this on to Merrick Garland. He seems to think domestic terrorism  can only take place during banking hours. 
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    one month ago

If what the former occupant of the White House and his mob did on 1/6/21 was not domestic terrorism THEN NOTHING IS.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.3  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    one month ago

I don't think that this passes the bar to domestic terrorism from the intentions points of the statute cited, because if it did, any violent protest could then be labeled domestic terrorism.  However, it does pass the violent protest/riot test and should be prosecuted. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Thomas @8.1.3    one month ago

I think thats going to depend on if just one box of what sean posted has to be checked off or if some have to be or if all those things have to occur.

 its something i would have to think about.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.5  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.4    one month ago

I believe it is A, B, and C with the subsections i, ii, iii being either or as it is stated. The link is in his comment, highlighted in blue.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
8.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Thomas @8.1.3    one month ago

Just yesterday, another BLM so called peaceful protest turned violent and business sustained major damage.  I don't know if BLM could be classified as a DT organization or not, but BLM would seem to stand for Burn Loot Maim lately.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.7  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1.6    one month ago

Are they BLM?  BLM protests are usually organized during the day. The violent altercation in Portland started at night. BLM needs a leader like MLK to give them direction and keep the "brand" from being tainted by extremist elements both within the organization and from other external interests. Non-violence is what brought them so far in the 50's and 60's. Violence gives ammunition to their detractors, as we can see right here on NT. Then they can paint everything that BLM does as terroristic and violent, even though 95% of the protests last summer were peaceful. 

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
8.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.4    one month ago

Any politically based act of violence in the US is domestic violence/terrorism.

The FBI says far right wing fascist militant groups are at the top of their list.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
8.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Thomas @8.1.7    one month ago

As BLM is an organization, cities need to start going after them to pay for any and all property damage their members did in the name of "peaceful protests."

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.10  seeder  Thomas  replied to  cjcold @8.1.8    one month ago

The statute that Sean linked to is tracked back to 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

Without diving too deeply, I believe these are the United States statutory definitions for terrorism, published by the Legal Information Institute of the Cornell Law School. Within those definitions is contained the definition for domestic terrorism as per law in the US. 

Are there other definitions per law? I ain't no lawyer so you will have to ask someone above my pay grade, but I believe that this is the standard working definition for the US. Mayhaps the definition has been refined by the case law, but, as I am not going to dive that deeply into this subject because I am pretty sure that it is quite a rabbit hole, and it is almost spring.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.11  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1.9    one month ago

To whom the violence is ascribed and who doing that ascribing is an important question. We have to be careful when establishing these things that we do not throw out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater. Since you put the peaceful protests inside quotes I am thinking that you do not believe the protests where mainly peaceful Certain sections of the public and media (as well as some members on this site) would have you believe that most, if not all, of the protests last summer were 1) arranged by the BLM and the shadowy organization Antifa, and 2) were violent as a whole. If you actually look at the specific cases, the reality is that the overwhelming majority ( 95% or so ) of the protests organized by BLM were peaceful, daytime events. 

From the above link:

When the Department of Homeland Security released its Homeland Threat Assessment earlier this month, it emphasized that self-proclaimed white supremacist groups are the most dangerous threat to U.S. security. But the report misleadingly added that there had been “over 100 days of violence and destruction in our cities,” referring to the anti-racism uprisings of this past summer.

In fact, the Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.

Since 2017, we have been collecting data on political crowds in the United States, including the protests that surged during the summer. We have almost finished collecting data from May to June, having already documented 7,305 events in thousands of towns and cities in all 50 states and D.C., involving millions of attendees.

Because most of the missing data are from small towns and cities, we do not expect the overall proportions to change significantly once we complete the data collection.

We make two assumptions. First, when politicians and officials categorize the protests as violent, they are usually envisioning property destruction or interpersonal violence in which they infer that BLM protesters are attacking police, bystanders and property.

Second, using several measures to evaluate protest behavior offers a better assessment than the blanket term “violence.” For example, we disaggregate property destruction from interpersonal violence. We analyze separately the number of injuries or deaths among protesters and police. And we are thinking about how gathering even finer-grained data in the future could help further assign precise responsibility for violent acts.

Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.

First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.

Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.

Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.

The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.

Only 3.7% of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. Some portion of these involved neither police nor protesters, but people engaging in vandalism or looting alongside the protests.

In short, our data suggest that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7% of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence.

Such claims are false. Incidents in which there was protester violence or property destruction should be regarded as exceptional – and not representative of the uprising as a whole.

In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @8.1.3    one month ago

It wasn't a protest.  It was a mob/riot/insurrection.  It was domestic terrorism.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @8.1.8    one month ago
"Any politically based act of violence in the US is domestic violence/terrorism. The FBI says far right wing fascist militant groups are at the top of their list."

A large majority of them 'Stormed the Capitol', 'It's a Revolution' on 1/6/21

It was domestic terrorism, plain and simple.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.14  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.12    one month ago

First off, it is unclear what you are referencing when you say "it". What is "it"? In my comment, I was referring to the violence in Portland, Oregon. 

It wasn't a protest.  It was a mob/riot/insurrection.  It was domestic terrorism.  

In the case of Portland, this statement does not fit if we follow the definition of domestic terrorism as it is defined in the statute. In the case of the January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot well, lets see. The statute says:

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;  

It definitely passes that bar, so now  does it

(B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?

not really that one, How about (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?

I think that this would be applicable to the case in point.

How about (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?

Ehh, not really on that one. (Though there may be some argumentation for the Kidnapping part of it)

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?

Yes, it is in fact where it occurred. 

So Yes, the events of January, 6th, 2021 do in fact meet the definition of domestic terrorism.

Now, what do you do about it? Can they be prosecuted as a class? How, exactly, do we combine or separate the individuals who participated in these acts?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    one month ago

Well the video at your link doesn't show anything that qualifies under that statute.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @8.1.14    one month ago

"First off, it is unclear what you are referencing when you say "it". What is "it"? In my comment, I was referring to the violence in Portland, Oregon. 

It wasn't a protest.  It was a mob/riot/insurrection.  It was domestic terrorism.  

In the case of Portland, this statement does not fit if we follow the definition of domestic terrorism as it is defined in the statute. In the case of the January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot well, lets see. The statute says:

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;  

It definitely passes that bar, so now  does it

(B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?

not really that one, How about (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?

I think that this would be applicable to the case in point.

How about (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?

Ehh, not really on that one. (Though there may be some argumentation for the Kidnapping part of it)

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is in fact where it occurred. 

So Yes, the events of January, 6th, 2021 do in fact meet the definition of domestic terrorism.

Now, what do you do about it? Can they be prosecuted as a class? How, exactly, do we combine or separate the individuals who participated in these acts?"

I've been referring to the Capitol Riot all along.  If you've been referring to BLM, etc., then I'm sorry, I'm not on the same page as you then. 

What happened at the Capitol was domestic terrorism, not the protests carried out by BLM, and others, etc., etc., etc.

Those who 'Stormed the Capitol' 'It's an Insurrection' will be tried separately as individuals.

How else would they be tried???????????????????????????

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.17  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.16    one month ago

If a group of people can be shown to have participated in certain individual acts, it is not unheard of for them to be tried at the same time. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
8.1.18  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.2    one month ago

Again a comment without proof

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.19  seeder  Thomas  replied to  dennis smith @8.1.18    one month ago

You may, if you so desire, apply the same statutory definition of domestic terrorism and see if you get a different result than I did in 8.1.14 .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Thomas @8.1.14    one month ago
(B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?
not really that one

Well Sen. Ron Johnson seems to disagree. He said they were trying to get him to vote the way they wanted him to. Sounds like Johnson admitted that their purpose was to  'coerce' to me...and the vast majority of the inhabitants in the Capitol are civilians. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.21  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Dulay @8.1.20    one month ago

Respectfully, I think that would fall under (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion since he is a member of the government and the building that was attacked was (of course!) a government building.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Thomas @8.1.21    one month ago

They need not influence the policy of a government if they could intimidate or coerce enough Senators to vote the way they wanted them to. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.23  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Dulay @8.1.22    one month ago

It would seem that is indeed what they were trying to accomplish, ie, they were attempting to coerce the Senators and the House Members and the Vice President, all members of the government, to discard the one set of electors for another. I think it clearly a stretch of credibility to consider these members of government a "civilian population".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Thomas @8.1.23    one month ago
I think it clearly a stretch of credibility to consider these members of government a "civilian population".

Yet we characterize our military as 'civilian' controlled even though it's Commander in Chief is the Executive of that same government.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.1.25  seeder  Thomas  replied to  Dulay @8.1.24    one month ago

By the definitions given for the purposes of making the legislation clear, I do not think that a member of the government proper, in this case, is considered part of the "civilian population". I know it is splitting hairs. I did not write the shit. Just trying to give my interpretation of what it means as a statute from my limited knowledge base.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc


40 visitors