Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Odd Legal Question
Odd Legal Question
#1
Legally speaking, a citizen can betray a nation. This is Treason.

Can, legally speaking, a nation betray a citizen?
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
“They opened up a can’a dumbass!” – Jon Stewart regarding Fox News, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.” – Harvey Fierstein
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#2
Morally, the argument has been made. Most often to justify treason against the nation.

Legally, I don't think that has ever been an accepted argument. It's a matter of definition, treason is always written as being against a nation, not a member of said nation. To quote a medieval Spanish Romance that presented a similar conundrum: "There has never been a traitor King, nor an excommunicated Pope"
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#3
In a ways, yes.  Thing is, here in the USA the only recourse for a private citizen in this case is to take the matter up with the Judiciary Branch.  This is usually were you will see court cases with names like "So-and-So vs. The United States".

There are other means as well.  The Founding Fathers, IIRC, did leave a provision in the Constitution that would allow for the peaceful dissolution of the current government, and a subsequent meeting of representatives to work out a new system of government.

Note that this would only apply to the Federal Government.  In such an event, State Governments would revert to acting as sovereign territories, so it's not like there would be no government at all in the interim.  This would probably be the only way for a State to legally secede from the Union as there will no longer be any rules barring that.  It would be a simple matter of choosing not to participate, with words to the effect of "We, the people of State/Commonwealth XYZ, feel that our interests will not be served by the next governing body."

The only other option is an armed revolution.  I won't deign to call Trump's gathering of Good Old Boys at the Capitol anything other than an unlawful insurrection.  While they may feel that the election results wasn't what they wanted, they have no proof as the entire process was entirely and completely transparent.  The only way for it to have been any more transparent would be if you revealed who voted for who, but we all know how terrible of an idea that is.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#4
(08-11-2021, 03:41 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: In a ways, yes.  Thing is, here in the USA the only recourse for a private citizen in this case is to take the matter up with the Judiciary Branch.  This is usually were you will see court cases with names like "So-and-So vs. The United States".

There are other means as well.  The Founding Fathers, IIRC, did leave a provision in the Constitution that would allow for the peaceful dissolution of the current government, and a subsequent meeting of representatives to work out a new system of government.

Note that this would only apply to the Federal Government.  In such an event, State Governments would revert to acting as sovereign territories, so it's not like there would be no government at all in the interim.  This would probably be the only way for a State to legally secede from the Union as there will no longer be any rules barring that.  It would be a simple matter of choosing not to participate, with words to the effect of "We, the people of State/Commonwealth XYZ, feel that our interests will not be served by the next governing body."

The only other option is an armed revolution.  I won't deign to call Trump's gathering of Good Old Boys at the Capitol anything other than an unlawful insurrection.  While they may feel that the election results wasn't what they wanted, they have no proof as the entire process was entirely and completely transparent.  The only way for it to have been any more transparent would be if you revealed who voted for who, but we all know how terrible of an idea that is.

On the last point, while what they did was pants on head retarded, causing it an insurrection is a bit of a reach, especially since they had no feasible way or coherent plan for overthrowing the US government. It was a gaggle of angry people in D.C. being imbeciles over election results they hated, have yet to see proof they planned a Guy Fawkes-style plot or anything. If anyone has proof to the contrary, please let me know.

As for the legal question, when a government breaks its contract to the people, then it has, by the original definition of the social contract as defined by John Locke, broken faith with the people and that could be considered treason if done with purposeful malice. This, however, would require abuse of power so bad as to be a clear slap to the face to the powers reserved to the people or of the states as applied to the United States, and I cannot recall any event of that magnitude. Even the American Civil War did not rise to that level, the southern states seceded of their own free will, Lincoln made clear he would do nothing more than enforcing control over federally reserved areas only as he was well aware was the legal limit of his own powers, thus placing the ball in the seceded states court to make their secession legal insurrection against the government, a ball they picked up via Fort Sumter.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#5
... They attempted to overrule the election by force of arms.

How is that not an insurrection?

That the plan to do so was idiotic is irrelevant. It'd be like someone claiming not to have attempted murder by throwing somebody off a building because there happened to be something soft and yielding to catch the victim at the bottom.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#6
(08-12-2021, 01:53 AM)hazard Wrote: ... They attempted to overrule the election by force of arms.

How is that not an insurrection?

That the plan to do so was idiotic is irrelevant. It'd be like someone claiming not to have attempted murder by throwing somebody off a building because there happened to be something soft and yielding to catch the victim at the bottom.

Maybe I should make it a bit more clear. It seems a bit more to me like an angry mob who attempted to throw a grand mal tantrum with a pipe dream of trying to overturn election results via wishful thinking than a purposely planned attempt at insurrection done with foresight and conspiracy.

The American Civil War can be argued to be a planned insurrection with malice aforethought with the express purpose of defying the lawful government. This comes off more to me as the Whiskey Rebellion, which was more a bunch of angry people lashing out in anger than anything done as an organized plan.

Both organized conspiracy and unlawful riot are wrong, not disputing either, but aside from a bunch of fools forming an angry mob and making asses of themselves in an unlawful manner, I see no actual planned and calculated attempt to achieve an overthrow of the US government.

Their plan boiled down to if you can call it a plan:

1. Get riled up on social media.
2. Head down to Washington D.C. and make fools of themselves.
3. ????
4. Profit?

None of their actions would have resulted in any meaningful change, legally or otherwise. Putting them down would have been largely effortless and nothing they tried would have changed the lawful government of the United States in any manner recognized either domestically or foreign. It was a mob running high off stupid emotion from where I'm sitting, not a criminal conspiracy. It was still an unlawful excess that violated civil order and did pose a menace and deserved to be put down, but legally, aside from a loosely agreed plan to show up in the nation's capital largely based on knee jerk emotion, I've yet to set evidence of a coordinated attempt at unseating the U.S. government by force circa Jan 6, 2021 that would have made any coherent sense.

Besides, Trump was still legally president at the time, anything they did would have (and did) hurt him further, so it makes little sense this was a planned event that would constitute organized treason. All this did was further immolate Trump politically speaking, which was partially a result of him not knowing when to shut up on social media. In short, this was not so much planned malice as emotion-fueled stupidity. In the criminal field, this would be more, in a legal sense, a crime of passion, not carefully planned and executed malice. 

Back in the context of the OP, this still would have the people trying to injure the government regardless, not the reverse.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#7
(08-12-2021, 03:24 AM)GethN7 Wrote: Maybe I should make it a bit more clear. It seems a bit more to me like an angry mob who attempted to throw a grand mal tantrum with a pipe dream of trying to overturn election results via wishful thinking than a purposely planned attempt at insurrection done with foresight and conspiracy.

The American Civil War can be argued to be a planned insurrection with malice aforethought with the express purpose of defying the lawful government. This comes off more to me as the Whiskey Rebellion, which was more a bunch of angry people lashing out in anger than anything done as an organized plan.

Both organized conspiracy and unlawful riot are wrong, not disputing either, but aside from a bunch of fools forming an angry mob and making asses of themselves in an unlawful manner, I see no actual planned and calculated attempt to achieve an overthrow of the US government.

Their plan boiled down to if you can call it a plan:

1. Get riled up on social media.
2. Head down to Washington D.C. and make fools of themselves.
3. ????
4. Profit?

Funny, from where I'm sitting the plan was this.

1. Rile up supporters on social media with claims of a stolen election.
2. Get them down to Washington DC and point them at the US Congress.
3. Let the mob overrule Congressional certification of the election.
4. Use either the murder of Congress (because they don't overrule the election) or the fear of Congress (because they overruled the election) to maintain power.
5. ???
6. Profit.

That the plan was stupid does not not make it conspiracy.
That the people performing the illegal and violent acts were a bunch of moronic patsies does not not make them part of the conspiracy. It's entirely possible to have acted in a manner entirely in accordance with the law and be part of a conspiracy that used your actions to facilitate illegal acts and thus be liable for those acts. And these guys were not acting in accordance with the law.

(08-12-2021, 03:24 AM)GethN7 Wrote: None of their actions would have resulted in any meaningful change, legally or otherwise. Putting them down would have been largely effortless and nothing they tried would have changed the lawful government of the United States in any manner recognized either domestically or foreign. It was a mob running high off stupid emotion from where I'm sitting, not a criminal conspiracy. It was still an unlawful excess that violated civil order and did pose a menace and deserved to be put down, but legally, aside from a loosely agreed plan to show up in the nation's capital largely based on knee jerk emotion, I've yet to set evidence of a coordinated attempt at unseating the U.S. government by force circa Jan 6, 2021 that would have made any coherent sense.

That presumes they would have been put down. You forget that the person they were trying to benefit was, at the time, still President of the United States for 14 more days, who could have simply and flat out refused to do anything about it. Yes, this includes not letting the military intervene, DC has no National Guard that is under an authority other than the federal government's, of which he was at the time still the boss. Not heeding those would've been legally complex at best for those ignoring him. Them trying to oust him from power would've been a coup itself.

And I would say 'dozens if not hundreds of Congresspeople were murdered' would be a very meaningful change, legally and politically. Keep in mind that one of the goals of the mob was to murder the vice president, which is a rather important position for continuance of government reasons if nothing else, and exact vengeance upon Congress. It would've permitted Trump to appoint a new vice president, among other things, and this time without the input of the voting public.

A murdered or ousted Congress would also be valid grounds for exercising emergency powers, which could've been used to force the military to keep Trump in power, while said murders would've also disorganized resistance to the coup.

I'm not saying that is likely to have happened. I'm saying that given the circumstances, unless nobody in a position to act acted against Trump, there would've been a coup. A coup is not just a mob storming a building, it is a combination of factors all of which lead to a specific person or group of persons being in power and nobody else being able to do something about it. There's a reason why one of the first things every coup attempt does is make sure that any military forces that can interfere are either loyal or paralyzed.

(08-12-2021, 03:24 AM)GethN7 Wrote: Besides, Trump was still legally president at the time, anything they did would have (and did) hurt him further, so it makes little sense this was a planned event that would constitute organized treason. All this did was further immolate Trump politically speaking, which was partially a result of him not knowing when to shut up on social media. In short, this was not so much planned malice as emotion-fueled stupidity. In the criminal field, this would be more, in a legal sense, a crime of passion, not carefully planned and executed malice. 

On the part of the mob? Sure, I can see that argument. On the part of the organizers and the spokespeople who riled up the mob? Not so much.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#8
(08-12-2021, 07:48 AM)hazard Wrote: Funny, from where I'm sitting the plan was this.

1. Rile up supporters on social media with claims of a stolen election.
2. Get them down to Washington DC and point them at the US Congress.
3. Let the mob overrule Congressional certification of the election.
4. Use either the murder of Congress (because they don't overrule the election) or the fear of Congress (because they overruled the election) to maintain power.
5. ???
6. Profit.

That the plan was stupid does not not make it conspiracy.
That the people performing the illegal and violent acts were a bunch of moronic patsies does not not make them part of the conspiracy. It's entirely possible to have acted in a manner entirely in accordance with the law and be part of a conspiracy that used your actions to facilitate illegal acts and thus be liable for those acts. And these guys were not acting in accordance with the law.

And I would say 'dozens if not hundreds of Congresspeople were murdered' would be a very meaningful change, legally and politically. Keep in mind that one of the goals of the mob was to murder the vice president, which is a rather important position for continuance of government reasons if nothing else, and exact vengeance upon Congress. It would've permitted Trump to appoint a new vice president, among other things, and this time without the input of the voting public.

A murdered or ousted Congress would also be valid grounds for exercising emergency powers, which could've been used to force the military to keep Trump in power, while said murders would've also disorganized resistance to the coup.

I'm not saying that is likely to have happened. I'm saying that given the circumstances, unless nobody in a position to act acted against Trump, there would've been a coup. A coup is not just a mob storming a building, it is a combination of factors all of which lead to a specific person or group of persons being in power and nobody else being able to do something about it. There's a reason why one of the first things every coup attempt does is make sure that any military forces that can interfere are either loyal or paralyzed.


On the part of the mob? Sure, I can see that argument. On the part of the organizers and the spokespeople who riled up the mob? Not so much.

On your first point, 3 and 4 I just don't buy. If they did either, you'd get an immediate civil war. Admittedly, assuming this was pants-on-head retardation and you are right 3 and 4 were legit on the table, then I can see where the twain would meet. We already fought one civil war to make clear domestic insurrection against the lawful government does nothing except earning you the full wrath of the loyalist army, so I still lean more towards this was not logically thought out over actual conspiracy. In the absence of clear criminal proof revealed in a court of law or open public confession this was a conspiracy, I'm just going to assume massive amounts of idiocy is more likely. If said proof materializes, then I'll happily take the L on this.

As for the second one, okay, that's news to me (and anyone trying would be insane, we have the Secret Service for a reason), but assuming 3/4 from the first point were on the table for real, granted. Still, I think you place too little faith in the United States military. Trump might have been their boss at the time, but even the President cannot issue unlawful orders and expect American soldiers to carry them out. The Nazis were told "just following orders" was BS, they had moral judgment they should have exercised, same applies to American troops. 

On the third point, duly noted, I'll concede that one, assuming your logic is proven to be right.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#9
I think part of the problem is that it's been a bit like the old saw about the frog on a hot plate.

We saw the beginnings of this kind of behavior with the Pizza Gate fiasco.  Where, spurred by misinformation and outright lies, some armed idiot stormed a pizza restaurant in DC in search of a secret sex dungeon for pedophiles.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

And now you have the same bullshit happening at the US Capitol, only on a much grander scale.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

At which point people gotta start asking themselves, "When is it enough?"  At which point do you cross the line?  DEMOCRACY WAS FUCKING DISRUPTED.  PEOPLE DIED.

Where is the goddamned line!?  Are we gonna be like the frog that sits in the continually and steadily warming water until we get boiled alive?

You can't let shit like this continue to slide because it sets a very bad precedence.  Do you really want an actual, organized militia to storm a state capitol or Washington, DC, only because no one did anything because they covered themselves with the Bill of Rights?  Abusing our basic rights like, "Freedom of Speech", "Right to Gather", and "Right to Bear Arms"?  Even though what they are gonna do is blatantly obvious?

And if it does happen, they'll just reuse the same stock excuse.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

That's the road we're on right now.  Where "Insurrection" is just "Rioting", and where "Sedition" is just "Violations of a Social Media Network's TOS".  And further compounded by Republicans doing their best to stonewall due process for the "Rioters" at the capitol, and Social Media's reluctance to penalize accounts spreading misinformation.

So where do you draw the line at?
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#10
(08-12-2021, 09:48 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I think part of the problem is that it's been a bit like the old saw about the frog on a hot plate.

We saw the beginnings of this kind of behavior with the Pizza Gate fiasco.  Where, spurred by misinformation and outright lies, some armed idiot stormed a pizza restaurant in DC in search of a secret sex dungeon for pedophiles.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

And now you have the same bullshit happening at the US Capitol, only on a much grander scale.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

At which point people gotta start asking themselves, "When is it enough?"  At which point do you cross the line?  DEMOCRACY WAS FUCKING DISRUPTED.  PEOPLE DIED.

Where is the goddamned line!?  Are we gonna be like the frog that sits in the continually and steadily warming water until we get boiled alive?

You can't let shit like this continue to slide because it sets a very bad precedence.  Do you really want an actual, organized militia to storm a state capitol or Washington, DC, only because no one did anything because they covered themselves with the Bill of Rights?  Abusing our basic rights like, "Freedom of Speech", "Right to Gather", and "Right to Bear Arms"?  Even though what they are gonna do is blatantly obvious?

And if it does happen, they'll just reuse the same stock excuse.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

That's the road we're on right now.  Where "Insurrection" is just "Rioting", and where "Sedition" is just "Violations of a Social Media Network's TOS".  And further compounded by Republicans doing their best to stonewall due process for the "Rioters" at the capitol, and Social Media's reluctance to penalize accounts spreading misinformation.

So where do you draw the line at?

Ergo the rub of the situation: without a smoking gun proving X was meant to do Y for Z reason, any possible overreach would be a cure worse than the disease.

Jumping the gun and declaring judgment without a confession in open court of an intent to commit a crime (or a conviction based on evidence) means either this was blithering madness that resulted in tragedy or actual conspiracy, and as infuriating as it sounds, until the legal process does it's thing, we just won't know. What we are spitballing about here is basically an academic debate.

Besides, let's say, for the sake of argument, this was all a planned event to overthrow the U.S government with malice aforethought. If that's the case, that's even more reason I want it proven in a court of law so, assuming the said theory is true, those guilty are punished by the rule of law instead of by a mob, otherwise complaining about the disruption of said law will be a pathetic and ironic joke.

Even the British soldiers during the Boston Massacre were defended by guys who otherwise would've thrown them to the wolves because if the soldiers had to be punished, they wanted it to be for the right reasons no one could later dispute based on the evidence on the record as regards their guilt or innocence.

I want the same for whoever is guilty or innocent in this case, just so rule of law remains intact. Anything else leads to anarchy all of us can agree would be even worse.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#11
(08-12-2021, 09:48 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I think part of the problem is that it's been a bit like the old saw about the frog on a hot plate.

We saw the beginnings of this kind of behavior with the Pizza Gate fiasco.  Where, spurred by misinformation and outright lies, some armed idiot stormed a pizza restaurant in DC in search of a secret sex dungeon for pedophiles.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

And now you have the same bullshit happening at the US Capitol, only on a much grander scale.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

At which point people gotta start asking themselves, "When is it enough?"  At which point do you cross the line?  DEMOCRACY WAS FUCKING DISRUPTED.  PEOPLE DIED.

Where is the goddamned line!?  Are we gonna be like the frog that sits in the continually and steadily warming water until we get boiled alive?

You can't let shit like this continue to slide because it sets a very bad precedence.  Do you really want an actual, organized militia to storm a state capitol or Washington, DC, only because no one did anything because they covered themselves with the Bill of Rights?  Abusing our basic rights like, "Freedom of Speech", "Right to Gather", and "Right to Bear Arms"?  Even though what they are gonna do is blatantly obvious?

And if it does happen, they'll just reuse the same stock excuse.

"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"

That's the road we're on right now.  Where "Insurrection" is just "Rioting", and where "Sedition" is just "Violations of a Social Media Network's TOS".  And further compounded by Republicans doing their best to stonewall due process for the "Rioters" at the capitol, and Social Media's reluctance to penalize accounts spreading misinformation.

So where do you draw the line at?

I can't speak for the USA, but I have an answer for Canada.

Given the reaction to the "pizzagate" conspiracy theory that you mentioned and I just linked to, a competent prosecuter would ask the court to look at that event as precedent. Then the prosecutor would ask what result a reasonable person would expect to see from the January 6 comments, given the precedent.

So... if this was Canada, the line was drawn at that pizza place.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#12
(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: On your first point, 3 and 4 I just don't buy. If they did either, you'd get an immediate civil war. Admittedly, assuming this was pants-on-head retardation and you are right 3 and 4 were legit on the table, then I can see where the twain would meet.

As I said, it was a stupid plan. A plan that, most likely, would not have worked.

But that doesn't mean that it wasn't tried.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: We already fought one civil war to make clear domestic insurrection against the lawful government does nothing except earning you the full wrath of the loyalist army,

Multiple such wars actually. Just only one was actually called a civil war, the others were rebellions and civil unrest. The difference is scale, not success.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: so I still lean more towards this was not logically thought out over actual conspiracy.

Not logically thought out on whose part? The mob's? Well, most probably didn't think it through. But we have video evidence and ongoing trials and criminal investigations against members of the mob who did logically think through what they were doing and took measures to maximize their chances of success.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: In the absence of clear criminal proof revealed in a court of law or open public confession this was a conspiracy, I'm just going to assume massive amounts of idiocy is more likely. If said proof materializes, then I'll happily take the L on this.

The thing is, conspiracy does not actually require spoken or written agreement. It does require agreement, mind you, but being told to go to the Capitol to cheer on lawmakers and then going is in itself an act of agreement. Now, that is not necessarily an illegal act, but the Capitol was closed. If they'd halted at the barriers and made noise? Not really an issue, because aside possibly breaking noise and protest regulations they wouldn't have broken no laws to my knowledge.

But they didn't. The mob forced its way onto the grounds and past the barriers. This is already conspiracy to trespass. Then they started assaulting people, shouting at the officers, and battering them (that is, actually hitting them). Now, last I checked that's a felony, so we are already there too, and because we are talking about a conspiracy, it does not matter who committed the act, it matters if anybody committed the act because all are responsible for all the crimes a conspiracy committed.

Then they forced the officers back further into the building, and again, if they'd halted there it would've been bad, but they didn't. Instead they battered down the doors and windows, doing quite some damage to government property in the process, and continued their assault. In the process, 4 people died, and as a felony had already been committed, that's 4 counts of felony murder for which all members of the mob are responsible. On top of everything else. The US Department of Justice is handling the relevant cases very softly indeed.

And yes, strictly speaking the fellow who instructed his followers to go the Capitol is part of the conspiracy, why do you ask? They agreed with him after all that that was a good idea.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: As for the second one, okay, that's news to me (and anyone trying would be insane, we have the Secret Service for a reason)

When a crowd is chanting 'hang Mike Pence', I am not going to presume they want to give him a massage, I am going to presume they either actually want to hang him, or, if not, that their intent is irrelevant because somebody is going to do so because that's what the crowd is loudly shouting that is what they want.

And when members of the mob are wearing body armour, hauling wrist cuffs and are moving around in a place where hours if not minutes earlier duly designated representatives of the people were working, in a place that is said representatives work place when acting as representatives, and when said representatives have been subject of politically motivated attacks and many have received death threats from people purporting to be supportive of the fellow the mob supports, I am not going to presume they wouldn't try to murder them too.

And yes, it's a good thing security was on the ball when it came to evacuating Congress. This could've gotten much, much bloodier than it did.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: but assuming 3/4 from the first point were on the table for real, granted. Still, I think you place too little faith in the United States military. Trump might have been their boss at the time, but even the President cannot issue unlawful orders and expect American soldiers to carry them out. The Nazis were told "just following orders" was BS, they had moral judgment they should have exercised, same applies to American troops. 

It is not unlawful to be instructed to remain in barracks even while the city is burning down and they can assist.

Now, I don't think they would've heeded that order. But they'd have been in an active state of mutiny themselves for ignoring that order.

And even if they had heeded that order, I expect they'd have acted on January 21st to ensure the rightful president was in power.

I just don't know whether they'd have put in the president elect, or the incumbent. Depending on the situation, either might've seemed a better option to the forces in the capital, and it's hard to know which. Especially since while Trump might be an idiot, the people around him were generally competent. They'd have tried to make sure things went as they desired.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#13
(08-12-2021, 01:07 PM)hazard Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: On your first point, 3 and 4 I just don't buy. If they did either, you'd get an immediate civil war. Admittedly, assuming this was pants-on-head retardation and you are right 3 and 4 were legit on the table, then I can see where the twain would meet.

As I said, it was a stupid plan. A plan that, most likely, would not have worked.

But that doesn't mean that it wasn't tried.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: We already fought one civil war to make clear domestic insurrection against the lawful government does nothing except earning you the full wrath of the loyalist army,

Multiple such wars actually. Just only one was actually called a civil war, the others were rebellions and civil unrest. The difference is scale, not success.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: so I still lean more towards this was not logically thought out over actual conspiracy.

Not logically thought out on whose part? The mob's? Well, most probably didn't think it through. But we have video evidence and ongoing trials and criminal investigations against members of the mob who did logically think through what they were doing and took measures to maximize their chances of success.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: In the absence of clear criminal proof revealed in a court of law or open public confession this was a conspiracy, I'm just going to assume massive amounts of idiocy is more likely. If said proof materializes, then I'll happily take the L on this.

The thing is, conspiracy does not actually require spoken or written agreement. It does require agreement, mind you, but being told to go to the Capitol to cheer on lawmakers and then going is in itself an act of agreement. Now, that is not necessarily an illegal act, but the Capitol was closed. If they'd halted at the barriers and made noise? Not really an issue, because aside possibly breaking noise and protest regulations they wouldn't have broken no laws to my knowledge.

But they didn't. The mob forced its way onto the grounds and past the barriers. This is already conspiracy to trespass. Then they started assaulting people, shouting at the officers, and battering them (that is, actually hitting them). Now, last I checked that's a felony, so we are already there too, and because we are talking about a conspiracy, it does not matter who committed the act, it matters if anybody committed the act because all are responsible for all the crimes a conspiracy committed.

Then they forced the officers back further into the building, and again, if they'd halted there it would've been bad, but they didn't. Instead they battered down the doors and windows, doing quite some damage to government property in the process, and continued their assault. In the process, 4 people died, and as a felony had already been committed, that's 4 counts of felony murder for which all members of the mob are responsible. On top of everything else. The US Department of Justice is handling the relevant cases very softly indeed.

And yes, strictly speaking the fellow who instructed his followers to go the Capitol is part of the conspiracy, why do you ask? They agreed with him after all that that was a good idea.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: As for the second one, okay, that's news to me (and anyone trying would be insane, we have the Secret Service for a reason)

When a crowd is chanting 'hang Mike Pence', I am not going to presume they want to give him a massage, I am going to presume they either actually want to hang him, or, if not, that their intent is irrelevant because somebody is going to do so because that's what the crowd is loudly shouting that is what they want.

And when members of the mob are wearing body armour, hauling wrist cuffs and are moving around in a place where hours if not minutes earlier duly designated representatives of the people were working, in a place that is said representatives work place when acting as representatives, and when said representatives have been subject of politically motivated attacks and many have received death threats from people purporting to be supportive of the fellow the mob supports, I am not going to presume they wouldn't try to murder them too.

And yes, it's a good thing security was on the ball when it came to evacuating Congress. This could've gotten much, much bloodier than it did.

(08-12-2021, 09:27 AM)GethN7 Wrote: but assuming 3/4 from the first point were on the table for real, granted. Still, I think you place too little faith in the United States military. Trump might have been their boss at the time, but even the President cannot issue unlawful orders and expect American soldiers to carry them out. The Nazis were told "just following orders" was BS, they had moral judgment they should have exercised, same applies to American troops. 

It is not unlawful to be instructed to remain in barracks even while the city is burning down and they can assist.

Now, I don't think they would've heeded that order. But they'd have been in an active state of mutiny themselves for ignoring that order.

And even if they had heeded that order, I expect they'd have acted on January 21st to ensure the rightful president was in power.

I just don't know whether they'd have put in the president elect, or the incumbent. Depending on the situation, either might've seemed a better option to the forces in the capital, and it's hard to know which. Especially since while Trump might be an idiot, the people around him were generally competent. They'd have tried to make sure things went as they desired.

You make a compelling case, have to admit. Still want to see it all hashed out in court to settle any remaining doubts, but your logic is pretty sound.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#14
I got the impression that a lot of those who showed up didn't particularly realise the gravitas of the endeavour they embarked upon. They literally had no idea they were starting a rebellion - it was a complete coup d'etat of the yahoos.

When yer wan Babbit got shot for her trouble you can just feel the change in mood wash over the crowd. From someone in the back still egging on with 'Its just a flashbang' to someone yelling 'Shots fired' like a Cop Cosplay --- then you have the riot police show up and step over her bleeding body. Any impetus the crowd had to keep trying just sort of died about ten seconds after she did.

There's just that sense of 'Oh Shit', this isn't fun anymore, they're really going to shoot us. They were all for stringing up congress and having a great laugh while senators twitched from the trees but the moment it became 'real' with 'real' consequences that included dying, they just sort of deflated and gave up and realised that whatever the hell they were doing wasn't worth dying for. There was zero fucking mettle in them --- the moment it stopped being fun, they fucked off.

It was the most pathetic rebellion in history. And this from a country with a history of defeated rebellions.

In all likelyhood, if the army had showed up fully armed -- - there'd be nothing but surrender after the first shot.

In the end, their sentence will account for whatever the fuck they thought they were doing at the time, what they actually did, and the ultimate consequences of their actions. The ones who went in full-tactical gear, with zip-cuffs and knew exactly what they were doing need to spend a long time in a dark cell. The idiots need a fine and felony conviction --- it's the felony that'll sting hard with the whole No-Gun and No-Vote thing.

----

Meanwhile, the real rebellion is happening in the judicial bench, or in the State houses.

I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed.

One day they're going to ban them.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#15
(08-12-2021, 01:47 PM)Dartz Wrote: I got the impression that a lot of those who showed up didn't particularly realise the gravitas of the endeavour they embarked upon. They literally had no idea they were starting a rebellion - it was a complete coup d'etat of the yahoos.

When yer wan Babbit got shot for her trouble you can just feel the change in mood wash over the crowd. From someone in the back still egging on with 'Its just a flashbang' to  someone yelling 'Shots fired' like a Cop Cosplay --- then you have the riot police show up and step over her bleeding body. Any impetus the crowd had to keep trying just sort of died about ten seconds after she did.

There's just that sense of 'Oh Shit', this isn't fun anymore, they're really going to shoot us.  They were all for stringing up congress and having a great laugh while senators twitched from the trees but the moment it became 'real' with 'real' consequences that included dying, they just sort of deflated and gave up and realised that whatever the hell they were doing wasn't worth dying for. There was zero fucking mettle in them --- the moment it stopped being fun, they fucked off.

It was the most pathetic rebellion in history. And this from a country with a history of defeated rebellions.

In all likelyhood, if the army had showed up fully armed  -- - there'd be nothing but surrender after the first shot.

In the end, their sentence will account for whatever the fuck they thought they were doing at the time, what they actually did, and the ultimate consequences of their actions. The ones who went in full-tactical gear, with zip-cuffs and knew exactly what they were doing need to spend a long time in a dark cell. The idiots need a fine and felony conviction  --- it's the felony that'll sting hard with the whole No-Gun and No-Vote thing.

----

Meanwhile, the real rebellion is happening in the judicial bench, or in the State houses.

Amen. Those who were idiot LARPers, it's basically just a mirror image of those ANTIFA "All Cops are Bastards" types who immediately wimp out when they realize the cops and community are not having their crap at all, and whatever they earn for their idiocy is for them to live down. For those who went in there to seriously commit to doing actual treason and insurrection with malice aforethought, they can fry for it and I will not shed a tear.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#16
Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed.

One day they're going to ban them.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#17
(08-12-2021, 02:31 PM)Dartz Wrote: Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#18
(08-12-2021, 02:42 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:31 PM)Dartz Wrote: Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#19
The funny thing here is that the Capitol Insurrection last January is such a textbook example of sedition that it's silly to argue that it wasn't an attempt to overthrow the government.  You could take a person from 2500 years ago, plop them on the National Mall last January 6 with no cultural context, and they would be able to tell you with certainty that some people were trying to overthrow the government that day.

A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry Wrote:No ancient Greek would have had any trouble in understanding what happened on the 6th or that it was a serious attempt (albeit an incompetent one) to seize power. Having a leader or a political faction move with a mob (often armed, but not always so) to try to disperse the normal civic assemblies of a Greek polis and occupy their normal meeting place was a standard maneuver to try to seize power during stasis. As Dr. Roel Konijnendijk, an ancient Greek history specialist, noted in this excellent discussion on the r/AskHistorians reddit (where he posts as Iphikrates), “In the Greek world, most attempts to seize power by force tended to take the same form: the seditious party would contrive an opportunity to gather in arms while their opponents were unarmed and off-guard, and seize control of all public spaces.”

Source: Insurrections Ancient and Modern

They'd also think our temple to the founder deity Lincoln was pretty cool, but would wonder where the sacrificial fire pit was.

The plan was ultimately very simple:  Delay Congressional certification of the vote past the deadline by occupying the civic buildings, which would force the election into the House of Representatives.  Because that election gets one vote per state, the majority would vote for Trump, and he would quasi-legally seize power as our new tyrant.

Black Aeronaut Wrote:Lincoln made clear he would do nothing more than enforcing control over federally reserved areas only as he was well aware was the legal limit of his own powers, thus placing the ball in the seceded states court to make their secession legal insurrection against the government, a ball they picked up via Fort Sumter.

Just a reminder that the siege of Fort Sumter began months before Abraham Lincoln assumed office.  South Carolina seceded in December 1860.

Back on the OP question, there is no real sense of a country betraying its citizens being a crime, though much of our thought about revolutions is that a state requires the consent of the governed.  But the right of revolution is more of a thing that can be exercised collectively.  Rather than talking about individual cases as betrayal, it is usually considered to be injustice: something to be remedied by the courts.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#20
(08-12-2021, 04:53 PM)robkelk Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:42 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:31 PM)Dartz Wrote: Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#21
(08-12-2021, 05:52 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 04:53 PM)robkelk Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:42 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:31 PM)Dartz Wrote: Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

I refer you to this ATT page..

If you don't like that source, then supply another source that can be read outside of the USA.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#22
(08-12-2021, 06:55 PM)robkelk Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 05:52 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 04:53 PM)robkelk Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:42 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:31 PM)Dartz Wrote: Most of the BLM folks, and 'Antifa' seemed to generally get on fine with their communities.

There's also a difference between someone getting battered by the cops when otherwise lawfully protesting in the street. There's a line between protest and riot --- and it seemed from the coverage we got here that most 'riots' began at the instigation of the police themselves.

I mean, these are the cops who are parading in military convoy pepper-balling people on their own property.

It seems more like the BLM folks have a legitimate grievance - and for want of a better term, far more skin in the game. They've enough drive behind them to stand up to the police - more mettle and more substance to their protest.

Ultimately, BLM remained for the most part, a protest. The whole character of the average participant was generally different. There seemed to be a lot more sense that there'd be consequences of failure - and this had to happen to keep their lives from getting worse. There was weight to their actions.

Whatever happened in the Capitol wasn't a protest - it was some sort of what the fuck.

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

I refer you to this ATT page..

If you don't like that source, then supply another source that can be read outside of the USA.

Rob, I was not attacking you, I was saying Wikipedia's objectivity on social and political issues is worthless and has been for at least a decade now. They cower behind reliable sources as a shield, and what they consider reliable sources is even more baldly obvious in their political bias. As someone who studies history, they write hagiography for what they like and Two Minutes Hate level things about whatever they don't. Much like the Nazi fanboy we kicked off ATT (since you brought that up), I won't take anyone who says Hitler did nothing wrong seriously, and on political and social commentary on any topic within the last decade or so, Wikipedia is objectively worthless and cannot talk about anything in that regard without trying to frame the argument to suit the views of their editors while they carefully and selectively choose "reliable sources" that agree with them for the fig leaf of objectivity.

Again, this is not an insult to you and was not intended as such. I consider the study of history very important. I'm a devout Christian, but I'll happily admit my faith has a lot of horrific moments in its entire history worthy of shame and I don't shrink from admitting it. I'm a proud American, but our history is streaked in blood and we have disgraces in our national past I have no problem owning up to it because refusal to acknowledge the past without bias means one cannot learn any honest lesson from it. Ergo, anything that purports to profess fact and instead shows naked bias and has the brass to claim otherwise has my disgust due to my love of discerning the truth as divorced from any bias for or against that truth.
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#23
(08-12-2021, 05:52 PM)GethN7 Wrote: Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

That reason is not the biases you say Wikipedia holds.

That reason is the fact that anybody can edit Wikipedia at any time, so it is entirely possible to (re)write an article on whatever your assignment is and then quote it because, well, that's what Wikipedia said at the time, so clearly it's correct and reliable, right?

The fact that Wikipedia demands reliable sources is them doing their job as an encyclopedia. They do not hide behind those sources any more than any other organization dedicated to the accurate recording of information.

(08-12-2021, 07:23 PM)GethN7 Wrote: Rob, I was not attacking you, I was saying Wikipedia's objectivity on social and political issues is worthless and has been for at least a decade now. They cower behind reliable sources as a shield, and what they consider reliable sources is even more baldly obvious in their political bias. As someone who studies history, they write hagiography for what they like and Two Minutes Hate level things about whatever they don't. Much like the Nazi fanboy we kicked off ATT (since you brought that up), I won't take anyone who says Hitler did nothing wrong seriously, and on political and social commentary on any topic within the last decade or so, Wikipedia is objectively worthless and cannot talk about anything in that regard without trying to frame the argument to suit the views of their editors while they carefully and selectively choose "reliable sources" that agree with them for the fig leaf of objectivity.

Again, this is not an insult to you and was not intended as such. I consider the study of history very important. I'm a devout Christian, but I'll happily admit my faith has a lot of horrific moments in its entire history worthy of shame and I don't shrink from admitting it. I'm a proud American, but our history is streaked in blood and we have disgraces in our national past I have no problem owning up to it because refusal to acknowledge the past without bias means one cannot learn any honest lesson from it. Ergo, anything that purports to profess fact and instead shows naked bias and has the brass to claim otherwise has my disgust due to my love of discerning the truth as divorced from any bias for or against that truth.

Have you considered the possibility that you, in fact, are biased regarding the matters you say Wikipedia is less than objective about?
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#24
(08-13-2021, 02:25 AM)hazard Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 05:52 PM)GethN7 Wrote: Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

That reason is not the biases you say Wikipedia holds.

That reason is the fact that anybody can edit Wikipedia at any time, so it is entirely possible to (re)write an article on whatever your assignment is and then quote it because, well, that's what Wikipedia said at the time, so clearly it's correct and reliable, right?

The fact that Wikipedia demands reliable sources is them doing their job as an encyclopedia. They do not hide behind those sources any more than any other organization dedicated to the accurate recording of information.

(08-12-2021, 07:23 PM)GethN7 Wrote: Rob, I was not attacking you, I was saying Wikipedia's objectivity on social and political issues is worthless and has been for at least a decade now. They cower behind reliable sources as a shield, and what they consider reliable sources is even more baldly obvious in their political bias. As someone who studies history, they write hagiography for what they like and Two Minutes Hate level things about whatever they don't. Much like the Nazi fanboy we kicked off ATT (since you brought that up), I won't take anyone who says Hitler did nothing wrong seriously, and on political and social commentary on any topic within the last decade or so, Wikipedia is objectively worthless and cannot talk about anything in that regard without trying to frame the argument to suit the views of their editors while they carefully and selectively choose "reliable sources" that agree with them for the fig leaf of objectivity.

Again, this is not an insult to you and was not intended as such. I consider the study of history very important. I'm a devout Christian, but I'll happily admit my faith has a lot of horrific moments in its entire history worthy of shame and I don't shrink from admitting it. I'm a proud American, but our history is streaked in blood and we have disgraces in our national past I have no problem owning up to it because refusal to acknowledge the past without bias means one cannot learn any honest lesson from it. Ergo, anything that purports to profess fact and instead shows naked bias and has the brass to claim otherwise has my disgust due to my love of discerning the truth as divorced from any bias for or against that truth.

Have you considered the possibility that you, in fact, are biased regarding the matters you say Wikipedia is less than objective about?

I plan to bow out of this discussion after this reply, I really do not need to aggravate a stress condition I just had to get a medication increase for recently, so I'll just leave it at this:

Yes, I have examined my biases. Yes, I examined arguments from both sides, if only because political discussion is so polarized these days it's the only I, who simply wants the truth without prejudicial varnish, can seem to figure out what is going on (if I just relied on one side, I'd only get lickspittle for one side and demonization for the other on most topics). And yes, I will happily admit I could be wrong.

With all that said, I stand by my every word, and I will leave my stance at that. Finally, since you posed me a question, I will do the same as my final post here, albeit it's a rhetorical one, so an actual answer is not necessary:

The now late Tom Clancy, while he was a devout Catholic and held many conservative and libertarian views, freely admitted he gave the arguments of his opponents a fair hearing regardless of his own bias because he believed it was ignorant not to do so and in case he was wrong, he wanted to be armed with all the knowledge he could have so he could admit fault and readjust his own stance in case he was in error.

If he could do that, and I'm willing to do the same, does that sound fair for everyone else to do?
Reply
RE: Odd Legal Question
#25
(08-12-2021, 07:23 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 06:55 PM)robkelk Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 05:52 PM)GethN7 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 04:53 PM)robkelk Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 02:42 PM)GethN7 Wrote: Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

I refer you to this ATT page..

If you don't like that source, then supply another source that can be read outside of the USA.

Rob, I was not attacking you, I was saying Wikipedia's objectivity on social and political issues is worthless and has been for at least a decade now. They cower behind reliable sources as a shield, and what they consider reliable sources is even more baldly obvious in their political bias. As someone who studies history, they write hagiography for what they like and Two Minutes Hate level things about whatever they don't. Much like the Nazi fanboy we kicked off ATT (since you brought that up), I won't take anyone who says Hitler did nothing wrong seriously, and on political and social commentary on any topic within the last decade or so, Wikipedia is objectively worthless and cannot talk about anything in that regard without trying to frame the argument to suit the views of their editors while they carefully and selectively choose "reliable sources" that agree with them for the fig leaf of objectivity.

Again, this is not an insult to you and was not intended as such. I consider the study of history very important. I'm a devout Christian, but I'll happily admit my faith has a lot of horrific moments in its entire history worthy of shame and I don't shrink from admitting it. I'm a proud American, but our history is streaked in blood and we have disgraces in our national past I have no problem owning up to it because refusal to acknowledge the past without bias means one cannot learn any honest lesson from it. Ergo, anything that purports to profess fact and instead shows naked bias and has the brass to claim otherwise has my disgust due to my love of discerning the truth as divorced from any bias for or against that truth.

That completely ignores my point.

I presented definitions from a source that's available worldwide.

You proceeded to attack the source, ignoring the content - that's a straight-up classic Ad Hominem fallacy.

When I called you on it, I asked you to provide an alternate source for definitions.

In reply, you doubled down on the Ad Hominem and failed to "supply another source that can be read outside of the USA".

At this point, I can only assume that you are not interested in debating the actual issue.
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)