Tag: January 6

Categories
News

Joint Chiefs Chairman notes attempt to ‘overturn the Constitution’ on January 6

General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking military officer in the United States, acknowledged during Congressional testimony this week that the insurrection on January 6 was an attempt to – in his words – “overturn the Constitution.”

According to USA Today:

“What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America?” Milley said of the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump. “What caused that? I want to find that out. I want to maintain an open mind here, and I do want to analyze it.”

Milley’s remarks came in response to Republican attacks on the study of structural racism in the United States, specifically at West Point.

“I’ve read Mao Tse-tung. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist,” Milley is quoted as saying. “So, what is wrong with understanding … having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend? And I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United States military — our general officers, our commissioned and non-commissioned officers — of being, quote, ‘woke’ or something else because we’re studying some theories that are out there.”

Sugarcoating the insurrection is dangerous. Milley understands that perhaps more than anyone.

More important though are the comments acknowledging that Trump supporters attempted to overturn the Constitution on January 6 – some of whom were both active-duty or retired police and military.

Some of us have accurately called the insurrection a coup attempt since January. It plainly was: Trump lied to his supporters for weeks about bogus election fraud claims, summoned them to Washington DC on January 6, and then unleashed his mob of supporters on the Congress of the United States to prevent the certification of the Electoral College.

Milley’s comments are the highest-ranking acknowledgment of what happened on January 6. They come from a decorated general who holds a respected and completely nonpartisan position.

Granted, he didn’t outright call it a coup. But what else do you call a mob of Trump supporters attempting to “overturn the Constitution” at the behest of the then-president of the United States?

Now we just need others – especially elected officials and the news media – to call January 6 what it was and do everything in our power to prevent it from ever happening again.

Photo Credit: Flickr

Categories
Analysis News

We need an independent investigation of police and military involvement in the insurrection

The indictment of a Chicago police officer for his participation in the insurrection once again highlights the need for a thorough and independent investigation of all police departments and the military.

It’s amazing that five months after the insurrection, we do not yet have a national effort to identify and root out police officers and military members who participated in, helped organize, or provided material support to the insurrection. Dozens of active-duty and retired police officers and military have been identified to date. In April, ABC News put the figure at over 50, although it is likely much higher.

January 6 was a seminal moment in our history, one where our fellow countrymen attacked our Capitol. It’s the most disturbing and brazen attempt at overthrowing the government since the 1860s. Had it succeeded, we very likely would be in the middle of a civil war.

Given the gravity of the situation, a little more urgency might be expected. Yet there is no coordinated national attempt to expel seditionists from the ranks of law enforcement and the military. So what in the heck is going on?

It’s not just a matter of accountability; it’s also a matter of public safety and national security.

The police officers and soldiers involved in the insurrection swore an oath to the Constitution. They violated that oath in one of the most outrageous acts possible. The only thing worse than insurrection is aiding a foreign enemy – which they arguably did as well, although indirectly since the US is now in its most vulnerable geopolitical position in decades.

Then there’s also the matter of ongoing risk to the safety of the general public. Insurrectionists within the ranks of law enforcement and the military have already shown a propensity to abuse their power. It’s no wonder why we have an epidemic of police violence against civilians – particularly people of color – when white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement and the military.

And if you think that January 6 was a one-off event, think again.

Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has already endorsed the idea of a Myanmar-style military coup only months after he urged then-president Trump to declare martial law to overturn the election.

Who do you think will be in the front lines of a second coup attempt?

These people are a clear and present danger to the republic. They are a danger to their communities, particularly people of color. They have no business wearing a badge, let alone having the authority to make arrests or carry a gun.

When are we going to get serious and root out insurrectionists and white supremacists from law enforcement and the military? It’s better late than never. After all, next time we likely won’t be so lucky as a failed coup.

Categories
Analysis Opinion

Should Donald Trump be permanently banned from Facebook and Twitter?

Free speech and free assembly are essential rights in any democracy.

Average citizens should always have the right to petition their government for redress, peacefully assemble (with reasonable limits during true emergencies, including pandemics), and protest. We hold these values deep in our hearts.

Speech, assembly, and protest are clearly protected under the First Amendment, but they only prevent the government from imposing undue restrictions on the population. It is a failsafe against an unchecked, Chinese-style authoritarian government where censorship is the rule.

That being said, corporations are not the government. They may restrict content on their platforms – and there are many legitimate reasons why they should. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and other social media companies all have sets of rules that define a code of conduct for users – and users agree to those terms in order to use their services.

So when we hear griping from some about how Facebook or Twitter ban high-profile politicians like Donald Trump from their platforms, it is not a genuine First Amendment argument so much as a political or ideological argument. Seeing that Trump routinely broke those platforms’ terms of use with little or no consequences for years, it’s more surprising that he was allowed to continue to use them despite breaking the rules than that he eventually faced a ban.

In fact, it took a coup attempt on January 6 for Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to finally crack down on the former president. Likewise, it took far-right extremists organizing a violent insurrection online for Apple and Google to pull the far-right social media app Parler from the App Store and Google Play. (Parler is already back on the App Store.)

Big Tech’s laissez-faire attitude toward violent extremist groups organizing, recruiting, and spreading dangerous conspiracy theories and propaganda on their platforms is disconcerting, to say the least. They have contributed to the erosion of American democracy, allowing anti-democratic forces to propagate and thrive online while restricting users for artistic expressions of nudity.

So what should Twitter, Facebook, and other social media giants do about Trump?

Until January 20, 2021 at noon, Donald Trump was president of the United States. In effect, as president, he was the most visible representation of the American government with a dedicated communications staff, a press pool, and access to the international press. He was a regular on cable’s highest-rated ‘news’ network, Fox.

Needless to say, Trump enjoyed (as do all presidents) a giant platform, a megaphone – or, as President Theodore Roosevelt would say, a bully pulpit – even without his Twitter account. The idea that Trump’s Twitter and Facebook bans amount to unconstitutional censorship is laughable on its face.

However, just as social media companies have the right to ban him from their platforms, they also have the right to unban him. But should they?

As the lead organizer of anti-democratic and white supremacist forces in the United States, Trump poses a particular threat to American democracy. He has already attempted a coup, inspiring supporters to gather in Washington DC on January 6 and then instructing the mob to go to the Capitol as Congress convened to certify the Electoral College results.

Trump’s actions that day – and in the months both prior and since – have endangered the lives of our nation’s leaders. Former vice president Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were specific targets of insurrectionists, although all members of Congress can count their lucky stars that the plot was ultimately thwarted.

Indeed, law enforcement was less fortunate on that day. Outrageously, countless Republicans in Congress ignored the pleas of  Gladys Sicknick, the mother of fallen Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick. Instead, the focus of the likes of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been to re-write history and cover up Trump’s unprecedented attacks on our democracy.

Facebook’s ban extended but not permanent

In response to news that Facebook would extend Trump’s ban on the platform until January 2023 – while leaving the door open for a return – the disgraced former president yet again repeated the Big Lie.

“Facebook’s ruling is an insult to the record-setting 75M people, plus many others, who voted for us in the 2020 Rigged Presidential Election,” Trump said in a statement.

Should the ban get lifted, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he will immediately resume the same behavior that got him banned from social media platforms in the first place. He will use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms to lie, divide, incite violence, and spread conspiracies.

A second insurrection is certainly not farfetched. His supporters – including disgraced former National Security Advisor, retired general, and convicted felon Michael Flynn – are calling for a military coup. Flynn previously called on Trump to declare martial law and overturn the election results.

Should the government sanction Big Tech?

It should go without saying that what Trump and his acolytes are doing is not normal political discourse. It is sedition.

Social media companies who aid in undermining our democracy – either directly advocating the overthrow of a democratic government or simply failing to police their platforms – should find themselves in legal trouble for facilitating violence.

That being said, I do not support governments – federal or state – taking action to force social media companies to restrict or ban speech from any particular individual. Social media companies should, however, face civil penalties if they fail to act when there are credible threats of violence. They should also have clear terms of use that are applied consistently.

I also oppose laws in states like Florida that compel social media companies to host content that violates their terms. A new Florida law makes it illegal for companies to ban candidates. The Florida law directly challenges Facebook and Twitter’s ability to moderate content, including fake news and hate speech. It’s a dangerous law that should be immediately struck down.

We need to strike a balance – one that protects the rights of individuals to express themselves in actual public forums (i.e. on the street) and curtails the ability of violent extremists to organize.

Categories
News

Murkowski slams Republican colleagues over January 6 Commission opposition

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has criticized her Republican colleagues for their opposition to the January 6 Commission.

At the urging of Donald Trump and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the vast majority of Senate Republicans plan to block the bill that would establish an independent commission tasked with investigating the insurrection. The commission would also make recommendations for preventing a future attack on the Capitol.

As we reported earlier today, only three Republicans in the Senate – including Murkowski – have signaled that they would vote against a planned filibuster when the bill comes up sometime tonight. That isn’t sitting well with Murkowski.

CNN reports on her comments:

“To be making a decision for the short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us, on January 6, I think we need to look at that critically,” she said.

“Is that really what this is about is everything is just one election cycle after another? Or are we going to acknowledge that as a country that is based on these principles of democracy that we hold so dear. .. One of those is that we have free and fair elections, and we respect the results of those elections and we allow for a peaceful transition of power. I kind of want that to endure beyond just one election,” she continued.

It’s too bad that Senator Murkowski is in the minority within her party. If there were more Republicans like her, Trumpism might have never taken hold in the first place.

Image Credit: AFGE, Flickr

Categories
Analysis News

Senate Republicans likely to filibuster January 6 Commission

Senate Republicans appear likely to have enough votes to successfully filibuster the bipartisan January 6 Commission.

According to the AP:

Senate Republicans are ready to deploy the filibuster to block a commission on the Jan. 6 insurrection, shattering chances for a bipartisan probe of the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol and reviving pressure to do away with the procedural tactic that critics say has lost its purpose.

The vote Thursday would be the first successful use of a filibuster in the Biden presidency to halt Senate legislative action. Most Republicans oppose the bill that would establish a commission to investigate the attack by Donald Trump supporters over the election.

“We have a mob overtake the Capitol, and we can’t get the Republicans to join us in making historic record of that event? That is sad,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “That tells you what’s wrong with the Senate and what’s wrong with the filibuster.”

The filibuster is likely to hold despite Gladys Sicknick – the mother of fallen Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick – urging Republicans to support the commission. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came out against the commission last week.

So far, only two Republican senators – Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski – say they will support the commission bill as it is currently written, which passed in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. Susan Collins says that she will oppose a filibuster but wants changes to the House-passed bill. Ten Republicans would need to join all Democrats for the bill to overcome a filibuster.

What is the proposed January 6 Commission?

The proposed independent commission would be made up of both Democrats and Republicans, most likely former lawmakers. It would be tasked with investigating the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Trump supporters ransacked the Capitol to prevent the certification of the Electoral College results in what amounted to an attempted coup that put at risk the lives of members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence.

The commission would have subpoena power to force witness testimony and officially document what happened on that day. It would also offer recommendations to prevent a future attack. Importantly, the scope of the proposed independent commission’s investigation would be broader than anything that individual Congressional committees would have the necessary jurisdiction or expertise in.

McCarthy’s motivation for opposing the commission is clear.

One likely witness is Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who had an expletive-filled phone call with former president Donald Trump as the insurrection took place.

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said during the phone call.

The former president refused to call off his supporters for several hours, only after it became clear that the coup attempt had failed. When he finally released a video tepidly telling his supporters to “go home,” he repeated his lies that the election was “fraudulent.”

For his part, McCarthy is seeking to become the next Speaker of the House. So he has a clear motivation in not wanting to see a commission force his testimony and upset Trump supporters in the leadup to next year’s midterm elections.

Time to eliminate the filibuster.

Should the filibuster hold, Republicans could only bury the commission depending on whether or not Democrats eliminate or reform the filibuster. Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona are the two main holdouts. Aside from the commission, the filibuster also threatens the Democrats’ entire agenda.

We have argued on here that the filibuster is anti-democratic, and it’s time to eliminate it. This latest abuse of the filibuster – blocking an independent commission from investigating and offering recommendations to prevent a future attack on the Capitol – demonstrates yet again why the antiquated obstruction tactic must go.

Photo Credit: John Brighenti, Flickr, CC BY 2.0