Members of Christian Militia Arrested

KingGorilla wrote:

I would disagree characterising that religion is not the rallying point at play here in the US.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me: I meant that religion is *more* than a rallying point with Christian militias and Islamic terrorists, not that it isn't.

My point was that with those groups religion is *both* a rallying point *and* a goal. Contrast that with what was going on in Northern Ireland where neither side had any real religious goals. Like the OP said about the militia: "The group isn't preaching much new. The usual fundamentalist Christian, end-of-days, anti-government stuff."

You don't find that in the NI struggle where, at least from the Republican (Irish Republican, not American) we're talking about, basically, run-of-the-mill 19th century Nationalism, with goals not unlike the civil rights movements of the 1960s (the failure of which in NI led to the formation of the Provisional IRA and the modern era of IRA operations). That's about as far as you can get from religious 'fundamentalism,' whether Christian or Islamic.

OK, I gotcha. Irish and Anglican priests are not encouraging, condoning the violence. I am on the same page now.

Well, apart from Iain Paisley. I'm not trying to play favourites here but while the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries was certainly quite secular, the likes of the DUP certainly get there warrant from religion. I'm in a tad of a rush and I not getting at you, Cheese, and it is fair to say that religion did not play the same part as some other conflicts but to say religion play little or no part in sustaining the Troubles is actually a not quite accurate. Tribalism was the catalyst but religion was there to keep it smouldering or stoke the fires.

Axon wrote:

Well, apart from Iain Paisley. I'm not trying to play favourites here but while the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries was certainly quite secular, the likes of the DUP certainly get there warrant from religion. I'm in a tad of a rush and I not getting at you, Cheese, and it is fair to say that religion did not play the same part as some other conflicts but to say religion play little or no part in sustaining the Troubles is actually a not quite accurate. Tribalism was the catalyst but religion was there to keep it smouldering or stoke the fires.

The thing is, in NI, the part religion played was basically that of defining the tribes. There was no actual conflict *over* religion. Compare that to 'Christian militias' and 'Islamic terrorists', and I think it illustrates how 'Christian militias' are more like 'Islamic terrorists' than they are like the irregular forces in Northern Ireland.

Mostly because I think the fear of Iain Paisley and the DUP at being part of the South wasn't about religion, it was about economy: kinda interesting how quickly the peace process began to move when the Republic's economy turned into what it is today...or at least, what it was yesterday.

If that was the DUP's concern they are still doing a pretty good job of hiding that fact. Absolutely the Celtic Tiger has a huge effect on the Troubles, that is beyond doubt but do not underestimate how deeply religious the DUP are and how that drives their decision making process on many levels. Even the former Loyalist paramilitaries would describe them as religiously fundamental.

But, to be fair I don't think these conflicts are really as black and white as people are tempted to make them. How many in reality are really over religion? Boil them down and you begin to realize that while religion plays its role, its not the driving force. Its usually a perceived injustice and religion just acts as a identifier. From my vantage point, I couldn't help but notice that the religions involved in Northern Ireland were given a huge amount of leeway during the Troubles. Nobody remembers that a Catholic priest was the liaison for the hunger strikers during its political height, for example.

On the other hand we are told that, for example, Israel and Palestinians are at each others throats over religion. Lets say I go test members of the IDF and Hamas on religious dogma, care to guess how they fare? On the other hand, if I ask them why they hate their enemy, I'm pretty sure I know the answer and religion will factor down the chart. In a weird way that almost mirrors Northern Ireland, its people who don't or won't actually fight are more than happy to justify the conflict with some religious warrant and send young men to their death.

I suppose the point I'm making is while you can certainly get people who fight over religion but to get serious numbers you must have a hurt or injustice to feed the cause. That is why these Christian Militias will just be small groups of frustrated white men.

Axon wrote:

If that was the DUP's concern they are still doing a pretty good job of hiding that fact. Absolutely the Celtic Tiger has a huge effect on the Troubles, that is beyond doubt but do not underestimate how deeply religious the DUP are and how that drives their decision making process on many levels. Even the former Loyalist paramilitaries would describe them as religiously fundamental.

I would say, though, that none of those decisions were really over religion. It's not like the DUP had any kind of significant religious agenda along the lines of these other groups we're talking about. And of course, granting what you say for sake of argument, leaving out Loyalist paramilitaries you've got the IRA which you can contrast with these Christian militias. But I don't want to be accused of playing favorites either ;-D

But, to be fair I don't think these conflicts are really as black and white as people are tempted to make them. How many in reality are really over religion? Boil them down and you begin to realize that while religion plays its role, its not the driving force. Its usually a perceived injustice and religion just acts as a identifier. From my vantage point, I couldn't help but notice that the religions involved in Northern Ireland were given a huge amount of leeway during the Troubles. Nobody remembers that a Catholic priest was the liaison for the hunger strikers during its political height, for example.

On the other hand we are told that, for example, Israel and Palestinians are at each others throats over religion. Lets say I go test members of the IDF and Hamas on religious dogma, care to guess how they fare? On the other hand, if I ask them why they hate their enemy, I'm pretty sure I know the answer and religion will factor down the chart. In a weird way that almost mirrors Northern Ireland, its people who don't or won't actually fight are more than happy to justify the conflict with some religious warrant and send young men to their death.

I suppose the point I'm making is while you can certainly get people who fight over religion but to get serious numbers you must have a hurt or injustice to feed the cause. That is why these Christian Militias will just be small groups of frustrated white men.

No, I don't disagree with that. I just wanted to make the point that for purposes of Lobster's question about why we call them a 'militia' and not 'terrorists' and if it's just because one is Christian and the other is Muslim, the IRA and even possibly the Paramilitaries make for a good contrast.

I think we could tease this out further but lets leave it alone for now

But as far as the topic goes, not calling these guys terrorists I suspect is more to do with the fact that we know they are a militia and therefore give them that label. Foreign groups are harder to describe to the audience so where we used to get that odd label of "gunmen" we now get "terrorist". I don't think there is anything nefarious here, just laziness.

Axon wrote:

I think we could tease this out further but lets leave it alone for now

But as far as the topic goes, not calling these guys terrorists I suspect is more to do with the fact that we know they are a militia and therefore give them that label. Foreign groups are harder to describe to the audience so where we used to get that odd label of "gunmen" we now get "terrorist". I don't think there is anything nefarious here, just laziness.

Except that we're constantly referring to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorists even though we know they're insurgents, they are much closer to insurgents than they are to terrorists, and they probably don't call themselves either.

Two years later, most of the militia members have been acquitted of all charges. Weapons charges against Stone and his son remain.

Yet another fake terror plot to make their numbers look better.

When asked what he wanted to tell the public about his experience, he replied, "Watch what you say. Even the most innocent of statements can be bent. If they want to get you, they get you."

(boldface mine)

But no, it's not a police state! That's because police states are evil. The United States is good. Therefore, no matter what it does, the US is not a police state.

Malor wrote:

But no, it's not a police state! That's because police states are evil. The United States is good. Therefore, no matter what it does, the US is not a police state.

Yes, great leader. As you wish, great leader.

Worst police state ever.

Weren't they supposed to be disappeared forever?

These guys just went through two years of hell because an undercover informant didn't like what they said. Not because of actions they took, but words they said.

If you can look at that, and not see a police state, you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

Bear wrote:

Weren't they supposed to be disappeared forever?

Under that recent law that passed, they could be.

And how would you even know if that power was being misused?

It's because they said they wanted to kill cops, and then kill more cops at the funeral. They don't deny saying that. Their defense is, they were just blowing off steam. Oh, and their militia is just a social club.

So fine, these douchebags didn't form a coherent plan:
IMAGE(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2012/01/hutaree-wedding-fresh-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg)

IMAGE(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/hutaree-militia-sg.jpg)

These guys get a fair hearing, and yet some still want to pretend this is a police state.

Again, undercover informant. No concrete plans of any kind.

With that new law, they might not get a trial anymore.

It's because they said they wanted to kill cops, and then kill more cops at the funeral.

Wanting to kill cops is not an offense... or, rather, it is only to the extremely authoritarian. Actually planning to DO it would be illegal, but WANTING to is not.

Malor wrote:

Again, undercover informant. No concrete plans of any kind.

With that new law, they might not get a trial anymore.

No, we have record of their attorney, and them, admitting what they said. But it was ruled to be "just talk" and not a coherent plan.

And no one would have raised an eyebrow if they got railroaded. Yet they still get a fair hearing.

Two years of hell because of a bunch of bullsh*t talk. NO concrete plan, no actions of any kind, but just for having an opinion the government doesn't like, long terms of imprisonment, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, if they had their own lawyers.

For having an opinion.

Police state.

Malor wrote:

Two years of hell because of a bunch of bullsh*t talk. NO concrete plan, no actions of any kind, but just for having an opinion the government doesn't like, long terms of imprisonment, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, if they had their own lawyers.

For having an opinion.

Police state.

Their opinion was that police should be killed. The state found that was protected speech.

After two years of hell, and likely monumental legal fees.

Their lives were pretty much destroyed.

Police state.

I never wade into these discussions, and I will probably regret doing it now, but the way you guys are talking past each other reminds me of an issue that I have been thinking about recently.

Jay seems to be saying that they go their due process and no punishment so no problem. Malor seems to be saying that the due process *is* the punishment, since it has overturned their lives, smeared their names across the headlines, and incurred thousands in legal fees.

Isn't there something to the idea that an investigation for terrorism/CP/whatever is damning enough because of the way the process works even if the accusee is eventually cleared of the charges? To the point that laying false charges around something like that could present a real risk to innocent citizens through alienation from friends/family, loss of job, etc.?

Again, not arguing that these guys had false charges laid against them, but they certainly seem to have been poorly substantiated charges.

You make a fair point, necroyeti. I'd argue that their inability to make a solid case wa the result of bering forced to act before they were ready, as OG posted earlier, and years ago, in this thread.

OG_slinger wrote:
sheared wrote:

Anyone know if the Patriot Act (or some leftover portion of it) helped in the apprehension of these folks?

Don't know, but it sounds like they were under surveillance for a while:

A scouting mission was planned for April and, if someone had stumbled upon the mission, the Hutaree decided they could be killed, according to the indictment.

It was this mission that prompted the raids, said Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

"Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time," she said in a prepared statement.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...

I do want the Feds to be proactive in cases like this. I don't think they should have waited for them to kill someone, even though it weakened their case.

I do want the Feds to be proactive in cases like this. I don't think they should have waited for them to kill someone, even though it weakened their case.

You know, I nearly wrote, 'Police state,' as yet another worthless, non-contribution post to this thread and have instead decided to write something else entirely.

Ice Cream State.

Malor's passion aside, I think necroyeti hits the nail on the head. One of the hallmarks of a police state is that merely committing thoughtcrime can get your life upended. Eventually that teaches other members of the citizenry to just keep quiet and keep their opinions to themselves. It's not like you go from Democracy straight to rounding people up and putting them in death camps. There are various degrees and different ways in which police states operate.

I will say that the fact that they even got a trial and got exonerated heartens me a bit.

I agree. When members of a group are talking about killing people, and mention that they should kill anyone who finds out about it or comes across their reconnaissance mission, it is important to remember that before you can do anything, you have to wait for them to kill someone first.

That way you know that you aren't in a police state. Right??

Or they could have waited for some actual planning and prep work, which actually would have been worth prosecuting. Instead, the government wasted millions of dollars on these people without result, and tipped them(and any other militias) off to the risk of informants in their ranks. This is a combination of bad ideas and incompetence on the government's part.

If arresting people for talking about terrible crimes is such a great idea, why didn't the government get any convictions?

mudbunny wrote:

I agree. When members of a group are talking about killing people, and mention that they should kill anyone who finds out about it or comes across their reconnaissance mission, it is important to remember that before you can do anything, you have to wait for them to kill someone first.

That way you know that you aren't in a police state. Right??

That's absurd. Part of living in a free country, assuming you want to live in a free country, is accepting the risk that someone might be crazy or angry and thinking about terrible terrible things. Part of living in a free country is accepting that there might be awful people with horrendous ideas. But you wait. Not until they literally commit the crime. You wait until you can at least prove they were planning to commit a crime. Like actually taking action of some fashion. There is some wiggle room in there for a reasonable society to stop people from doing something without arresting someone for what they think or believe.

DSGamer wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

I agree. When members of a group are talking about killing people, and mention that they should kill anyone who finds out about it or comes across their reconnaissance mission, it is important to remember that before you can do anything, you have to wait for them to kill someone first.

That way you know that you aren't in a police state. Right??

That's absurd. Part of living in a free country, assuming you want to live in a free country, is accepting the risk that someone might be crazy or angry and thinking about terrible terrible things. Part of living in a free country is accepting that there might be awful people with horrendous ideas. But you wait. Not until they literally commit the crime. You wait until you can at least prove they were planning to commit a crime. Like actually taking action of some fashion. There is some wiggle room in there for a reasonable society to stop people from doing something without arresting someone for what they think or believe.

Where is that wiggle room exactly and what does it look like? Move beyond platitudes and give concrete examples.

DSGamer wrote:

That's absurd. Part of living in a free country, assuming you want to live in a free country, is accepting the risk that someone might be crazy or angry and thinking about terrible terrible things. Part of living in a free country is accepting that there might be awful people with horrendous ideas. But you wait. Not until they literally commit the crime. You wait until you can at least prove they were planning to commit a crime. Like actually taking action of some fashion. There is some wiggle room in there for a reasonable society to stop people from doing something without arresting someone for what they think or believe.

The problem (and reality) is that as much as it would be nice, there is no hard line that one can objectively determine that exists between "arresting them for what they think or believe" and "arresting them because they *are* going to do this thing that they are planning."

As was noted above, the authorities thought that, based on the evidence that they had, the militia *was* going to do the reconnaissance mission and that innocent people who they came across *were* going to die.

The judge thought otherwise.

Last I checked, that is *exactly* how the legal system is supposed to work, unless you expect the authorities to wait until they are completely, 100% certain that they are going to do something. And, I can guarantee you that doing that *would* result in more people dieing. Criminals, seeing as how they really don't want people to know what they are doing, have this unfortunate habit of not* telling people what they are going to do sometimes.