Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamBam | Hacker News Reader

This is relevant right now because Sen Durbin is planning on reintroducing the Domestic Terrorism Bill in light of recent events.[1]

I agree with those who say that there is no need for another bill that grants sweeping new powers to law enforcement. They need only use the laws already on the books. There is plenty more that law enforcement could have done the other day, and plenty more they can still do. Passing another bill has no bearing on that.

1. https://abc7chicago.com/senator-durbin-plans-to-reintroduce-...

View on HN

20 years ago people criticized it will be used inwards at some point. You should start to listen to these people.

This kind of terrorism is mostly caused by people that wrote these bills and it slowly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It is not due to some post on Twitter. Just a very old stupidity rehashed...

> They need only use the laws already on the books.

Existing laws already make certain acts a crime, but that isn't what the new legislation is trying to do. Rather, it is trying to signal that certain acts, such as the storming of the Capitol by Trump associates, are objectionable to those proposing the new legislation. That's a political statement - not a legal necessity, as you point out.

The risk of making a political statement via legislation is that it can backfire when the shoe is on the other foot, which is what the ACLU is warning against.

They can make political statements on Twitter, pushing legislation to make a political statement is a mockery of the process, a mockery of the actual victims of terrorism, and it costs a boatload of money with nothing to show for it.

To play Devil’s advocate, congresspeople don’t typically get re-elected without bills (failed or otherwise) to show for it and speeches don’t cut it. Also, such a bill targeted at Trump would have 0% chance of passing since it would go across his desk.

But yes, I agree.

From the statement, "In addition to further harming already marginalized communities, these charges could be used to brand as terrorists people who protest against government injustices by engaging in civil disobedience or actions that result in property damage."

Clearly demonstrated this summer, when these people [1] were charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment. One of their charges had a 45 year mandatory minimum sentence. What sense does it make to create more Draconian laws? According to a former AUSA, "It's batshit... and I'm a pretty law-and-order guy."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/nyregion/nyc-protests-law...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com