Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
As someone who actually works in the government I find your claims hard to credit.

Ok, so you have an opinion... and emotions about those opinions... and?? Thanks for sharing. I have opinions as well.


What evidence do you have of these people?

For other bad actors all one has to do is look at their actions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,023
2,546
✟228,159.00
Faith
Christian
18 U.S. Code § 2384.Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Were those ranchers who took over a federal building in Oregon or Nevada or somewhere to protest the government stopping them from grazing their cattle on federal land, plus all their supporters who sent them food, money, etc. ever charged with sedition?

Because if they weren't, there's no hope a bunch of rioters will ever be...
 
Upvote 0

usexpat97

kewlness
Aug 1, 2012
3,308
1,618
Ecuador
✟76,839.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Were those ranchers who took over a federal building in Oregon or Nevada or somewhere to protest the government stopping them from grazing their cattle on federal land, plus all their supporters who sent them food, money, etc. ever charged with sedition?

Because if they weren't, there's no hope a bunch of rioters will ever be...

The ranchers were white.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,653
11,693
54
USA
✟294,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Were those ranchers who took over a federal building in Oregon or Nevada or somewhere to protest the government stopping them from grazing their cattle on federal land, plus all their supporters who sent them food, money, etc. ever charged with sedition?

Because if they weren't, there's no hope a bunch of rioters will ever be...

It doesn't look like it. Most of the indicted were for "impeding a federal officer"

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge - Wikipedia

I didn't find "the" indictment quickly. (There seems to have been an additional or superseding indictment per the Wikipedia article.) The word sedition does not appear in the article.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Were those ranchers who took over a federal building in Oregon or Nevada or somewhere to protest the government stopping them from grazing their cattle on federal land, plus all their supporters who sent them food, money, etc. ever charged with sedition?

Were they attempting to create unrest leading to destabilizing America and remove the sitting president from office? Or generate fear thusly suppressing voting?

All while politically and financially back by a major party in America that has the same goals?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,023
2,546
✟228,159.00
Faith
Christian
Were they attempting to create unrest leading to destabilizing America and remove the sitting president from office? Or generate fear thusly suppressing voting?

According to the wording of the law they don't have to, though we could certainly argue on the destabilisation part.

"OR by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof"

They did exactly the above.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I dont know if this is good or bad. I do not yet have a stance on the issue. I do not know enough at this point to call anyone out.

It's called a discussion. Sometimes people just talk about things and work it out as a group. It does happen, I promise.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
This is stupid.

I agree. Claiming that you have some understanding when you have no data and your claims contradict people who are actually in a position to directly observe is silly. But this is where we are in American politics. We have come to a place were ideology is treated the same as knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
View attachment 284744

Attorney General William Barr told the nation’s federal prosecutors to be aggressive when charging violent demonstrators with crimes, including potentially prosecuting them for plotting to overthrow the U.S. government, people familiar with the conversation said.

In a conference call with U.S. attorneys across the country last week, Mr. Barr warned that sometimes violent demonstrations across the U.S. could worsen as the November presidential election approaches. He encouraged the prosecutors to seek a number of federal charges,...


Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition

This is all I was able to read thus far because I do not have a subscription to WSJ. I'm digging further.

I think this is an exceptionally dangerous-for-your-country proposition. What protests with some violence in the previous history of your country would NOT fall under this definition of sedition? Wonder where the entire civil rights movement and MLK would have been if Barr had been the head of the DOJ at the time. Protesting is a part of the lifeblood of your country. Turning it into a federal felony is totalitarianism.

Also, you made mention later of "democrats supporting it" (all 100 million of them, I guess). If this were true, then the democrats, being an active part of the US government, are apparently plotting to overthrow themselves. Seems unlikely.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I didn't say "figurehead", I said "temporary". No president can serve more than 8 years, that is by definition temporary. I've owned cars longer than 8 years. This is just the ordinary power of the citizens of this country.
I believe that a person can only be “elected twice”, and serve no more than two years of their predecessor’s term.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think this is an exceptionally dangerous-for-your-country proposition. What protests with some violence in the previous history of your country would NOT fall under this definition of sedition? Wonder where the entire civil rights movement and MLK would have been if Barr had been the head of the DOJ at the time. Protesting is a part of the lifeblood of your country. Turning it into a federal felony is totalitarianism.

This is exactly why I approach this with caution. And this is exactly the type of response I was looking for so, thank you.

It is hard to look at this without seeing it on a grander scale. Most of what you are bringing up is activism. Maybe even riots, but sedition requires intent to subvert. MLK did not want to tear down the USA. He wanted rights for his people.

I do not have a problem labeling groups and or factions. This is coming down on an individuals level.

Also, you made mention later of "democrats supporting it" (all 100 million of them, I guess).

This is one thing I get so sick and tired of explaining. This is an American POLITICS forum... Not an American layperson/citizenry forum.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In my view/opinion I am much harder on the organization, and leadership than the useful idiot on the street. I also believe ideology and or sated purpose comes into play. Its a sticky situation. That is why Im trying to just discuss it.
 
Upvote 0

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,023
2,546
✟228,159.00
Faith
Christian
I dont know if this is good or bad. I do not yet have a stance on the issue. I do not know enough at this point to call anyone out.

It's called a discussion. Sometimes people just talk about things and work it out as a group. It does happen, I promise.

Hey that's cool. I don't see an issue with what you want to discuss.

As for my opinion - sedition charges are a very dangerous road to go down. Lots of things can be called sedition - that's exactly how communist dictatorships dealt with people they didn't like.

Ironically, I think a US government attempting to charge someone with sedition over a protest would invite a lot more real sedition, and the whole thing would very quickly spiral out of control.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
This is one thing I get so sick and tired of explaining. This is an American POLITICS forum... Not an American layperson/citizenry forum.
Actually this is “news and current events”.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LostMarbels
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Ironically, I think a US government attempting to charge someone with sedition over a protest would invite a lot more real sedition, and the whole thing would very quickly spiral out of control.

I would not believe it is over protests. I believe that is a misnomer. Personally I view this through stated intention, actions, and ideology. If a man had racist rants all over social media, was known to be in a racist group, and latter robed someone of that 'hated' race, I could justify hate crime charges. See where I am going?

If the same group specifically targeted individuals in a campaign/movement/revolution (of sorts) I could see that group being domestic terrorist and receiving harsher sentencing.

The problem I see is proving known affiliation. Now when you come to a sedition, you are going to have to prove intent. That they looted a store and burnt cars to tear down the gov. That is on a different level entirely.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is exactly why I approach this with caution. And this is exactly the type of response I was looking for so, thank you.

It is hard to look at this without seeing it on a grander scale. Most of what you are bringing up is activism. Maybe even riots, but sedition requires intent to subvert. MLK did not want to tear down the USA. He wanted rights for his people.

That's what these people want too. However, I'm not sure that there's any clause in this argument for the moral purity of the protest. There's nothing in your history that suggest someone somewhere gets to make a legal call on what protests are OK, and which ones are felonies. Like I said, that's totalitarianism.

This is one thing I get so sick and tired of explaining. This is an American POLITICS forum... Not an American layperson/citizenry forum.

My point stands. The Democrats control the lower house of congress and have strong representation in the other half of the legislature and judicial branches. You are still claiming that they are attempting to sedition themselves. It doesn't make any sense regardless of the level of inclusitivioty of your use of "democrats" as a pejorative.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Now when you come to a sedition, you are going to have to prove intent. That they looted a store and burnt cars to tear down the gov. That is on a different level entirely.

Well yes, that's on the level where you explain how looting stores and burning cars in any way shape or form could tear down the government.
 
Upvote 0