No Congressional incumbent, and certainly no Congressional leader, should remain in office if they have failed to take action, or at least vigorously demand action, over the unnecessary killing by a Congressional security employee of an unarmed female protester.
Amidst a wholesale failure by Congressional security to restore order amidst what was mostly simply a noisy protest on Jan. 6, 2021, a Congressional security employee shot down, at close range, unarmed protester and U.S. Air Force Veteran Ashli Babbitt when she simply stood atop something to look through a broken window next to an interior door.
It would be difficult to describe the killing as anything other than a summary execution “making an example” of a semi-random target within a noisy protest involving persons lacking building passes.
No rational explanation has ever been offered as to why deadly force was needed to restrain an unarmed women essentially milling about and then trying to stand atop something. Multiple Congressional security employees present nearby could easily have restrained Babbitt, or simply warned her to desist, without engaging in what appeared to be a tactic usually reserved to third world strongmen, of gunning down a random protester in order to make an example of someone and cow the rest.
Efforts to brush aside and deceptively recast the matter by the Congressional security force itself, and a local federal prosecutor’s office simply add to questions about the competence and honesty of each, as they essentially make themselves de facto bureaucratic accessories after-the-fact to a summary execution.
The failure of a Democrat-controlled Congress, since then, to shut down and replace a failed Congressional security force, and take action against the killer of Ashli Babbitt, call into question the capacity of Congressional leadership to function appropriate as government figures in a free society with a democratic, republican form of government.
It is unclear whether any incumbent member of Congress should be reelected unless they have vigorously spoken out against the killing and called for justice to be brought.
Rule of law requires no less, and rule of law is a foundational element of the American way of life, including the right to due process, that no person may lose life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Respect for life, and the protection of life, also is a fundamental element of the legitimacy and purpose of a lawful government.
The failure by government to act against a governmental killing of an unarmed protester has further been seized upon by a deceptive “news media” to claim falsely that the killler has been “exonerated” or “cleared” by those who compounded the egregiousness of the matter by failing to act.
Particularly repugnant was the attempt by media to repeat apparently false claims by the killer that he used killing only as a “last resort.” Any such claim would either be a deliberate falsehood or evidence of irrational thinking.
Any able-bodied security could have stopped the unarmed female protester simply by warning her to desist, or grabbing her by the arm. To claim that there was no choice but to shoot her like a dangerous animal sounds out of touch with reality.
Any claim that, if protesters fail to disperse, there was a necessity to start shooting them would be both unlawful, incompetent and irrational.
The implication that the killer’s behavior was within acceptable office policy for the Congressional security employees would necessitate the shutting down of the current Congressional security force, and the barring from security work or government employment by any employees associating themselves with such thinking.
Any implication by local federal employees functioning as prosecutors that the killer’s behavior was within the bounds of the law calls into question whether the federal employees associating themselves with such a position should be allowed in the legal profession. Under no circumstances do they belong in a government position, or a position responsible for enforcing the law or maintaining the peace.
Also incompetent and deceptive are any claims attempting to “smear” the dead woman as an insurrectionist. Such claims appear to be wholly fanciful and unsubstantiated. No evidence has been offered that Ashli Babbitt was armed or exhibited the intention, the will, or the ability to overthrow the government of the United States and rule the country in its place, or that she took any step towards such a possibility.
The failure to call for action against the killer, remove the killer and his post-killing confederates render current Congressional leadership, and some substantial portion of the current Congress, House and Senate, unfit to serve in a public position uin the United States.
Their constituent jurisdictions’ failure to remove the elected officials through recall elections calls into question their patriotism and commitment to the American way of life. To reelect such people would be even more egregious, and invite the necessity of peaceful, lawful, domestic action against such jurisdictions, such as through business or consumer boycotts or efforts by future lawmakers to curtail funding to jurisdictions that failed to remove officials tacitly condoning the summary execution of an unarmed civilian protester.