Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[Pags]

I’m not sure I’d fully agree. BLM protesters over ran and took control of police stations in Seattle, Minneapolis, and Baltimore. If the police aren’t, metaphysically speaking” a clear indication of a government seeking to maintain established laws, then what is? Please note that I am NOT defending the actions of those in D.C. but I do have a hard time seeing how Hawk Newsome (BLM leader) tweeting that if change doesn’t happen then “we will burn this system down” is any less seditious than the anti-government garbage posted on some Qanon (sorry if it’s misspelled) site? It strikes me that we are meshing the physical structure that is the capitol building with the philosophical structure that is our actual government.

Are we only concerned with “property crimes?” You note that “BLM did not run into federal buildings with zipties intent on something presumably less than good” but they did try to set fire to the federal building in Portland and others have, further in the past, raided ICE buildings in the PNW. Is assaulting a distant federal building more acceptable than attacking one in D.C.? Was the destruction of federal property (in the form of Albert “who?” Pike’s statue) in D.C less of an offense than smashing things in the capitol?

I don’t want to get into an apples v oranges - “but they did this” kind of thing, and I stand by my belief that once you break something you go from “cause” to “mob,” and I don’t give a crap about the politics of the thing, but it is the ardent need to make one fringe look better than another fringe that drives people nuts. Sedition is sedition or it is free speech. The politics of the writer, the skin tone of the writer, or the intent of the writer is the least important thing in this discussion. In short, you can call the BLM people arsonists or call the Qanon people seditious but in the end they are both just criminals.

So, at the top level I'd say that if one was bad then they're both bad, ie you can't say that BLM was bad and the Capitol wasn't. That said, it's ok to recognize that violations of the same law can vary in intensity and that smart people should use their judgement to determine how bad it really was. Or put another way is going 56 in a 55 zone the same as going 110 in a 55? Both have violated the posted limit but the impacts of the two actions are greatly different.

I'd also say that smart folks should be able to tease out different groups/phases from this summer's various gatherings. A non inclusive list would include:

1. Peaceful BLM protestors
2. Violent riots immediately following a local decision (george floyd riots)
3. Counter protests
4. Violent interactions of competing protests
5. Violent, sustained PDX actions
6. CHOP shennagins

1. All good here. Peaceful assembly.
2. Not good but still a localized response to local issues. It's not good for a mob to burn down a police station but, to me, that's not at the same level of showing into the Capitol while the election is being certified. A police station being burned somewhere will not have a direct effect on most Americans.
3. Lawful peaceable assembly. Until #4
4. There are laws for subsequent altercations between protesters. But if you physically hurt someone that person should be legally dealt with.
5. Bad and should be dealt with. But the damage of one federal courthouse isn't going to have the same impact as trying to prevent a national election from being certified.
6. Who cares. This is SEA being full of hippies and it hurt no one. After being ignored and once the weed ran out they went home.

As to what folks say and what they do that's always a tricky one. And I think it comes down to when words align with actions. If someone says "we're gonna change it all! But peacefully!" And then goes on a voter registration drive, hands out pamphlets, and drives folks without cars to polling places that's ok. If someone says "we're going to change it all" and then says "by arresting the traitors" and then goes on to show up where the purported traitors are with flex cuffs things get a bit different. Again, what's the impact?

I'd think that most of college educated, current/former military officers can use the judgement we supposedly have/had to compare the facts and impacts of these actions to see how bad they really are and be able to see that maybe the impacts of certain actions aren't the same.

 

[taxi1]

After being ignored and once the weed ran out they went home.

Sounds like quitting time on a drill weekend.

 

[Brett327]

OK no. Come on, she didn't attend a political rally, she attended a riot.

Exactly, but it gets even more complicated. If she had attended a KKK meeting, she would also be in hot water/legal jeopardy as the DoD already has policies prohibiting servicemembers from participating in that, so it's not like this is new territory. If DoD deems that attending a political rally (riot or otherwise) whose primary theme is overturning a duly certified election, storming the capitol, or advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, then Capt Rainey is going to answer for that via judicial and administrative consequences.

The bottom line here is that some political speech crosses the line, both legally and from a DoD policy perspective. FWIW, members of Congress have no role to play in any administrative or judicial process in this case. They can make demands and public statements, but they have no authority here.

 

[sevenhelmet]

6. (CHOP shenanigans) Who cares. This is SEA being full of hippies and it hurt no one. After being ignored and once the weed ran out they went home.

Did it really not hurt anyone? What about the property owners downtown, dependent on their business income? What about people whose livelihoods were disrupted? Was there really zero violence involved in setting up the CHAZ/CHOP/whatever zone? I find it hard to believe it was all peaceful and victimless. No matter what the politics of the region, it was illegal and a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law, just like last week in the Capitol.

 

[Pags]

Did it really not hurt anyone? What about the property owners downtown, dependent on their business income? What about people whose livelihoods were disrupted? Was there really zero violence involved in setting up the CHAZ/CHOP/whatever zone? I find it hard to believe it was all peaceful and victimless. No matter what the politics of the region, it was illegal and a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law, just like last week in the Capitol.

Yeah, after I wrote that I went and looked at the wikipedia history and it was a more impactful than I thought so Id like to re-categorize my assessment for #6 as bad. But I'd again say that the specific violations and associated impacts be determined by the legal process. It definitely was worse than 56 in a 55 but was it 110 in a 55 (Part II? Part I but with no *? ?)?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

So, at the top level I'd say that if one was bad then they're both bad, ie you can't say that BLM was bad and the Capitol wasn't. That said, it's ok to recognize that violations of the same law can vary in intensity and that smart people should use their judgement to determine how bad it really was. Or put another way is going 56 in a 55 zone the same as going 110 in a 55? Both have violated the posted limit but the impacts of the two actions are greatly different.

I'd also say that smart folks should be able to tease out different groups/phases from this summer's various gatherings. A non inclusive list would include:

1. Peaceful BLM protestors
2. Violent riots immediately following a local decision (george floyd riots)
3. Counter protests
4. Violent interactions of competing protests
5. Violent, sustained PDX actions
6. CHOP shennagins

1. All good here. Peaceful assembly.
2. Not good but still a localized response to local issues. It's not good for a mob to burn down a police station but, to me, that's not at the same level of showing into the Capitol while the election is being certified. A police station being burned somewhere will not have a direct effect on most Americans.
3. Lawful peaceable assembly. Until #4
4. There are laws for subsequent altercations between protesters. But if you physically hurt someone that person should be legally dealt with.
5. Bad and should be dealt with. But the damage of one federal courthouse isn't going to have the same impact as trying to prevent a national election from being certified.
6. Who cares. This is SEA being full of hippies and it hurt no one. After being ignored and once the weed ran out they went home.

As to what folks say and what they do that's always a tricky one. And I think it comes down to when words align with actions. If someone says "we're gonna change it all! But peacefully!" And then goes on a voter registration drive, hands out pamphlets, and drives folks without cars to polling places that's ok. If someone says "we're going to change it all" and then says "by arresting the traitors" and then goes on to show up where the purported traitors are with flex cuffs things get a bit different. Again, what's the impact?

I'd think that most of college educated, current/former military officers can use the judgement we supposedly have/had to compare the facts and impacts of these actions to see how bad they really are and be able to see that maybe the impacts of certain actions aren't the same.

I realize you said it’s not an all inclusive list, but the Floyd riots were far from a “localized response to local issues.” Burning the police precinct in Minneapolis was local but doesn’t cover riots in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, St Louis, LA, Dallas, and dozens of other cities where opportunists were practically cheered on by media and politicians.

 

[Brett327]

Breaking: Capt Rainey resigned her commission prior to attending the event in DC, which tells me she knew she was about to participate in something that was incompatible with military service.

Army PSYOP officer resigned commission prior to leading group to DC protests

Capt. Emily Rainey was still on active duty during the Jan. 6 protest in D.C., but she had already resigned her commission, a defense official said.

www.armytimes.com

 

[Griz882]

So, at the top level I'd say that if one was bad then they're both bad, ie you can't say that BLM was bad and the Capitol wasn't. That said, it's ok to recognize that violations of the same law can vary in intensity and that smart people should use their judgement to determine how bad it really was. Or put another way is going 56 in a 55 zone the same as going 110 in a 55? Both have violated the posted limit but the impacts of the two actions are greatly different.

I'd also say that smart folks should be able to tease out different groups/phases from this summer's various gatherings. A non inclusive list would include:

1. Peaceful BLM protestors
2. Violent riots immediately following a local decision (george floyd riots)
3. Counter protests
4. Violent interactions of competing protests
5. Violent, sustained PDX actions
6. CHOP shennagins

1. All good here. Peaceful assembly.
2. Not good but still a localized response to local issues. It's not good for a mob to burn down a police station but, to me, that's not at the same level of showing into the Capitol while the election is being certified. A police station being burned somewhere will not have a direct effect on most Americans.
3. Lawful peaceable assembly. Until #4
4. There are laws for subsequent altercations between protesters. But if you physically hurt someone that person should be legally dealt with.
5. Bad and should be dealt with. But the damage of one federal courthouse isn't going to have the same impact as trying to prevent a national election from being certified.
6. Who cares. This is SEA being full of hippies and it hurt no one. After being ignored and once the weed ran out they went home.

As to what folks say and what they do that's always a tricky one. And I think it comes down to when words align with actions. If someone says "we're gonna change it all! But peacefully!" And then goes on a voter registration drive, hands out pamphlets, and drives folks without cars to polling places that's ok. If someone says "we're going to change it all" and then says "by arresting the traitors" and then goes on to show up where the purported traitors are with flex cuffs things get a bit different. Again, what's the impact?

I'd think that most of college educated, current/former military officers can use the judgement we supposedly have/had to compare the facts and impacts of these actions to see how bad they really are and be able to see that maybe the impacts of certain actions aren't the same.

Spot on.

 

[Pags]

I realize you said it’s not an all inclusive list, but the Floyd riots were far from a “localized response to local issues.” Burning the police precinct in Minneapolis was local but doesn’t cover riots in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, St Louis, LA, Dallas, and dozens of other cities where opportunists were practically cheered on by media and politicians.

Yeah, you'd still have to parse out the various actions and stages. Many of these started as peaceful protests and then, for a variety of reasons that differed in each city, took in their own follow on stages. But I'd still offer that how each initially peaceful protest progressed depended on local factors such as history of LE relationship, LE response, regional history of racism, counter protests, etc. In some locales the BLM protests remained peaceful while in others they certainly got violent.

 

[DanMa1156]

Let’s revisit this post in 18-24 months. Specifically, I’d like to see if there are still just nine Supreme Court justices.

Pelosi and Democrats move to rig the House rules | EDITORIAL | Editorials | Opinion

Keeping members safe from difficult votes.

www.google.com

This is a fair concern. Nonethless, my point stands that when people say it, they mean to say "they control the executive and the two houses of Congress," vice "all three branches of government."

 

[taxi1]

Wonder if the Supreme Court will now get the capitol treatment?

As expected, the Supreme Court refused Monday to fast-track a batch of challenges to the presidential election filed by President Trump and his allies.
The rejections came without comment or noted dissent and were formal notifications of what already had become clear. Some of the petitions asking for the court to move quickly were filed in early December, and the court had not even called for responses from officials in the states where the results were challenged.

 

[Griz882]

This is a fair concern. Nonethless, my point stands that when people say it, they mean to say "they control the executive and the two houses of Congress," vice "all three branches of government."

True, at least two moderate democrats in the Senate have said they won’t back an expansion of the SCOTUS so I imagine that is a dead issue.

 

[SlickAg]

True, at least two moderate democrats in the Senate have said they won’t back an expansion of the SCOTUS so I imagine that is a dead issue.

I don't think it's going to be that easy. The Democratic Party is going to go after them with guns blazing if they don't step into line. And remember, Senator Manchin said what he said before the events of last week.

Whole. New. Ballgame.

Former Ocasio-Cortez spokesman: Biden doesn’t ‘have time’ to wait for Manchin’s approval on agenda

No Excuses PAC founder Corbin Trent, a former spokesperson for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said Monday that the incoming Biden administration “[doesn’t] have time” to tailor its agenda …

thehill.com

 

[Griz882]

I don't think it's going to be that easy. The Democratic Party is going to go after them with guns blazing if they don't step into line. And remember, Senator Manchin said what he said before the events of last week.

Whole. New. Ballgame.

Former Ocasio-Cortez spokesman: Biden doesn’t ‘have time’ to wait for Manchin’s approval on agenda

No Excuses PAC founder Corbin Trent, a former spokesperson for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said Monday that the incoming Biden administration “[doesn’t] have time” to tailor its agenda …

thehill.com

I think we will find Senator’s are famously tough at bucking their party to save their skins with reference to their constituents.

 

[Brett327]

There's zero appetite in the Senate for this and they'd need 60 votes. Not going to happen. Write it down.