The OP is about lawmakers. Generals started talking about people and then shifted to lawmakers. Whom are we talking about? Make a guess, 'cause I don't know where the goalposts have moved into by the time I write this reply to you.
Canada adds Proud Boys to the terrorist group list
- Thread starter CaitSeith
- Start date
It has been clear from it was about lawmakers but as I talk with people here my posts are also going to contain points and opinions about what people post and their expressed opinions. It's the concept of dicussing with people.
Last edited:
So, as far as I'm aware, the old Woodrow anarchist law is still on the book, meaning calling them anarchists is the best way to kick them out of the country
Let's be clear here I'm not saying the fact they were following (or thought they were following) the president's instructions absolves them of responsibility. I have been quite clear about that. So I do not see how Nuremberg is relevant here. They breached the capitol and should be prosecuted for all the crimes comitted on January 6th.
On the other hand all the elements I mentioned serve as contextualization to help understand why and how things happened. And this is important if you're trying to judge an organization and how it operates based solely on that one event. That's why I also mentioned that for example had they also been behind the attempted kidnapping it would have been much easier to judge their modus operandi and label them a terrorist organisation. But here it seems to be based solely on that one event. You know it's like trying to contextualise an event to determine if it's a crime or hate crime. Even if the conclusion is that it is "just" a crime this doesn't absolve the culprit of the responsibility of the crime.
Off course they allowed themselves to get swayed. It was much easier for them accept fraud was the cause than their beloved Trump actually being a loser 1 term president. But let's be honest here, we have all our biases and we're all willing to accept certain "facts" with less evidence than others. And there was some intense fake news production going on after the election. And the fact the President himself (with some other Republican lawmakers) pushed that rethoric helped legitimise it. And it's always hard to determine who legitimately fell for the lies and who knew it was nonsense but just used it as an excuse to try and usurp power.
This doesn't and shouldn't grant them absolution for everything they have done, but it helps contextualising events.
I am not claiming I know any law any better than anyone. Maybe the real question is "What do these scholars know I do not?". I'm neither a terrorism expert nor a Proud Boys Expert. Nor do I have access to all the information these people have. Maybe if I did I would agree with them. But I can merely express my opinion based on what I am and what I know.
They're the first option. They've done way too much to be classified as some common criminals or random gang.
One of the main differences from the legal perspective is that it usually isn't illegal to help a criminal or a gang with non-criminal activity; but it is a crime to help a terrorist organization. It isn't a question on how much they have or haven't done. It's a question on how much the government wants to restrict their non-criminal activities and dissuade alliances.
I remember reading your first post and keeping track of what you said. I do thank you. I want them to restrict their non-criminal activities. After all the shit they've done, and how they want to keep down minorities or those of different races and religion. See how those fuckers like it.