Going with the crowd
There is discussion over whether or not to charge all the insurrectionists, not because some of them were innocent bystanders but because the courts could be swamped.
The internal discussions are in their early stages, and no decisions have been reached about whether to forgo charging some of those who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.
Justice Department officials have promised a relentless effort to identify and arrest those who stormed the Capitol that day, but internally there is robust back-and-forth about whether charging them all is the best course of action. That debate comes at a time when officials are keenly sensitive that the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI are at stake in such decisions, given the apparent security and intelligence failures that preceded the riot, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal deliberations.
Federal officials estimate that roughly 800 people surged into the building, though they caution that such numbers are imprecise, and the real figure could be 100 people or more in either direction.
Among those roughly 800 people, FBI agents and prosecutors have so far seen a broad mix of behavior — from people dressed for military battle, moving in formation, to wanton vandalism, to simply going with the crowd into the building.
I suspect that white people “going with the crowd” into the Capitol building in defiance of fences and cops and “Closed to the Public” signs get viewed more forgivingly than not-white people do. Possibly.
And just as important, they need to charge any insiders who helped.
They should go for as many as possible. If that means dumping less important, non-violent criminal investigations, so be it. If they don’t hit this hard, it will only happen again.
At the very least, anyone identified should be added to no-fly lists. That doesn’t require arrest or trial, does it? Prioritize the more violent, destructive, and organized ones. Get plea-deals from lower-downs. I’m sure that many will turn on each other once they understand that their incursion into the Capitol was more than a cool selfie op. Trump did exactly that to them himself: I would expect many to follow his fine example in order to evade this thing called “consequences.”
As per iknklast, above investigate those reports of pre 01/06 Capitol “reconnaissance missions” undertaken with inside Congressional help. Expell and charge any and all members or staff who assisted, organized or ran any such tours. Investigate any and all Republicans who openly supported and followed insurrectionist participants and promoters. Investigate links between the White House and the “Stop the Steal Rally” and the attack. Hearings, investigations, trials, imprisonment. All of it.
Bruce,
I really don’t like the idea of using the no-fly list to punish people, which seems to be what you’re suggesting. Imposing punishment without any trial or even rudimentary due process is a bad thing, even when it happens to people I don’t like.
Fair enough, point taken. I’ll curb my enthusiasm for extra-judicial punishment.
Was Kathy Griffin put through a judicial process before she went on the no fly list?
Not sure why you chose Kathy Griffin as your sympathetic example when you could have picked someone less famous and wealthy, but either way:
Shitty unfair policies are still shitty unfair policies even when they’re applied to people I don’t like. This remains true even if they were previously applied to people I do like.
Putting a bunch of conservative assholes on the no-fly list doesn’t make Kathy Griffin’s life easier, or the life of anyone else on the no-fly list. Cops beating up or shooting white people doesn’t bring dead non-white people back to life or heal the injuries of those who were beaten. Jailing people I don’t like pending trial without a good reason (i.e. danger to the public, risk of flight) doesn’t help any of the other people being jailed without a good reason. In short, increasing the amount of unfair treatment in the world doesn’t make the world a fairer place just because there’s now more of a “balance” between groups that have been treated unfairly.
People occasionally argue that “if we treat a small number of conservatives/white people/whoever as unfairly as we treat liberals/minorities/whoever, then conservatives/white people/whoever will join us in supporting reform.” I have not observed that as an empirical matter.
I will acknowledge, of course, that certainly I am less sympathetic to the plight of people who are hoist on the petard of unfair policies that they previously supported. But there’s a difference between being less sympathetic and actively cheering something on.
During the 2011 riots in Britain, more than 3000 people were arrested, of which nearly 1300 received prison sentences… including a woman who got 5 months because, while she did not participated in the rioting, she handled a pair of stolen shorts. It is widely recognised that the courts handed down vastly more severe sentences to the rioters than was usual, or even recommended in their own guidelines.
But then these were people of colour protesting the shooting of one of their own by the police…
I don’t think I think the people who did nothing other than going into the building along with the others should get harsh punishment (i.e. I think Screechy is right), but I think maybe an uncomfortable few hours listening to a lecture on law, rights, slavery, Jim Crow, and the like, would be appropriate.