Ever since the events of Jan. 6, 2021, this newspaper, like many others, as well as online comment boards has received a lot of commentary about that day.
Much of it has tried to excuse the actions of those who invaded the Capitol building in D.C. They were patriots trying to save democracy (by trying to disrupt the certification of a free and fair election because their guy didn't win).
They were normal tourists (who broke windows, carried bear spray and plastic restraints, smeared feces on walls, used whatever they could find--flagpoles, fire extinguishers, etc.--to beat anyone who challenged them, and made threats against Vice President Mike Pence, among others).
They weren't armed (ahem, firearms aren't the only weapons with which one can be armed; at least 23 people were charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons on Capitol grounds that day, including a Maryland man carrying a loaded pistol as well as a knife).
One of the most persistent arguments has been that the riots that day can't be considered insurrection (or at least an attempt at it) because no one's been charged with insurrection or sedition.
Ha!
Enter the indictment unsealed Jan. 13 (happy birthday to me) charging Stewart Rhodes and 10 other people associated with the Oath Keepers "with seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election," according to the Justice Department news release. (The news release is interesting reading, and can be accessed at www.justice.gov.)
When that news came out, I noticed that a few people slightly changed their argument by removing "sedition" ... but if you look at the definitions of "insurrection" and "sedition," it's sort of a wash. The intent is the same.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote last year, "Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion. ... In a constitutional democracy, sedition and insurrection refer to inciting or participating in rebellion against the constitutionally established government, its processes and institutions, or the rule of law.
"In other words, in the United States' democracy, violently overthrowing the government or its institutions is overthrowing the Constitution itself. One cannot commit sedition or insurrection to 'overthrow a government' while still claiming to uphold and defend the Constitution. The U.S. government, the rule of law, and the Constitution are inextricably linked, and violent attacks on any of the three are not protected actions."
But wait, why did it take a year to charge anyone with sedition or insurrection? The charges are politically loaded, for one thing (not least because "sedition," "treason," and other terms have been tossed around so much against political enemies in the past several years), so prosecutors would want an airtight case.
Sedition charges are rarely levied, and it takes time to investigate and build a winnable case. The Justice Department has had a mixed record on the few sedition charges it's levied, including in the 1988 trial in Fort Smith where 13 white supremacists were acquitted.
What makes a case easier to prove is when overt acts are involved (like, say, an attack on the Capitol, preceded by planning documented on the Internet). The 1981 prosecution of members of Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN was a textbook case of seditious conspiracy, according to Jeremy Margolis, one of the lead prosecutors interviewed recently by Ryan Lucas of NPR.
"They wanted to change the way the government of the United States functions and acts," he told Lucas. "And because the statute very, very clearly tracked what they were doing and in fact what these anonymous FALN communiques said they were doing and why they were doing it, it was an easier case to prove."
Which to me sounds an awful lot like how this case will be made.
We'll find out what happens when the Oath Keepers go to trial this summer. Meanwhile, I'm sure apologists will continue to gripe every time the word "insurrection" is used, despite the fact that 11 people have been charged with seditious conspiracy in a planned attack (not spontaneous) that damaged taxpayer property and resulted in multiple deaths and injuries.
But sure ... it was just another day at the Capitol.
Reminder to readers: I'm on medical leave at the moment, so others are keeping on top of columns and letters until I return; please be patient with them, and please remember to add your name and town to your letters (none of us are mind readers).
I plan to keep writing while I'm out and recovering (stifle your groans of disappointment, please), but won't be checking my work email until I get the all-clear from my doctor to return to work.
Who knows? Maybe I'll actually get a little sleep while I'm out. Stranger things have happened.
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Email her at blooper@adgnewsroom.com. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.