Is it time to open another front on the War on Terror?

On right wing militia groups who apparently have the same goals as extremist Islamic terrorist.

or at least, to be framed that way.

Not only should it happen, but those who incite them should also be held accountable.

Sounds like Neo-Conartist logic to me.

Pour encourager les autres....

Do you think that most militia members want to overthrow the government, or do they want to protect themselves against the government violating their Constitutional rights?

Those adhering to it may well suffer under some delusion that their rights are threatened, but that is not the case, and in most instances, the stated belief is simply a cover for racist distress.

Have you ever read the history of Ruby Ridge, including Gerry Spence's account?

Do that intensely enough, and it will end poorly for you....

You are aware that a JURY found that his rights and those of his family WERE violated. The government first entrapped him, then tried to force him to spy for them, then attacked his family in a military style assault.

Do you REALLY want more of that?

He was not entrapped: he was asked to do something by an agent of the police and did it, which comes nowhere near the legal threshold for a successful plea of entrapment. The rest all flows from there, and he could have halted it at any time by co-operating with lawful authorities. My sympathy is less than zero.

One of the humorous elements of the militia sub-culture is the idea that people have a right to succeed when they set themselves up in arms against the government. There is a species of natural right to rebel, certainly, but this does not entail to the slightest degree any right to succeed in rebellion. Defying a government is not an idle amusement or a form of self-expression akin to throwing pots or collecting stamps: it is a deadly serious business, and people who engage in it have to be aware of that, and willing to die at it. People who want to claim the name without paying the freight are beneath contempt.

the media or the opinions of people who have only learned what the media has told them.

The jury decided that Weaver was entrapped. They had more evidence and more opportunity and motive to study the evidence than nearly everyone else in the nation.

Perhaps we will have to disagree.

Over the years, I have come to the unhappy realization that one of the greatest threats to our individual freedom comes from the most ideological and partisan members of our society. They are often the most willing to disregard the rights of those whom they disagree with. And both sides are seemingly blind to their own willingness to erode the rights of others.

An excellent lawyer skilled at voir dire, a local jury in a venue saturated with anti-government feeling and full of sympathizers with the racism of Weaver: it does not much impress me, any more than the acquittal by a Mississippi jury of the men who murdered young Mr. Till does.

Further, the threshold in a civil action is merely preponderance of evidence, which is basicaly fifty percent plus one, and bears little relation to the beyond reasonable doubt standard employed in a criminal trial.

Weaver should have turned himself in the moment he knew there was a warrant for his arrest. All which occured subsequently traces to his failure to do this.

None of this would have happened without government agents asking Weaver to perform an illegal act on their behalf. And then after they entrapped him in that manner, they attempted to use him.

If you agree with this kind of governmental activity, our philosophical differences are strong.

He could have said no, and walked away.

He is solely responsible for the consequences of not doing that.

officials ask someone to do something for the expressed reason of being able to use their actions to blackmail them into acting as an informant, that this is not entrapment?

Like I said before and like I am constantly reminded of, our rights are in constant danger of ideologues and partisans who are willing to see anyone else's rights trampled to further their own agenda.

That an undercover policeman has made available to a person the opportunity and occasion for him to commit a crime does not suffice to establish a defense of entrapment against his being charged with that crime. A citizen presented with the opportunity and occasion to commit a crime is expected to say no, and refrain from committing the crime.

Most police investigations involve what you call 'blackmail' to some degree; they involve telling people they will have a grater punishment if they do not co-operate than if they do. That is how the art is practiced.

It is still unethical, and the jury that decided Weaver's case agreed.

My perspective on this is clear. Most people who support this kind of government action would be outraged if it happened to take place against someone of their own political persuasion.

People have a number of illusions about the actual practice of law enforcement.

The civil jury's vote carries no weight at all with me.

You may be sure my sympathy for a left revolutionist foolish enough to procure weaponry from a police agent, or supply weaponry to him, is no greater than my sympathy for Weaver.

Things like this are not a matter of supporting a kind of government action or not; things like this are a question of recognizing reality or not.

what constitutional rights would that be? habeas corpus?
oh yeah, that was chimpenfurher and the military commissions act.

i'm so sick of hearing this idiotic bullshit.

if people were really so scared of their constitutional rights being taken away they would've protested bush night and day insteading of responding to the patriot act and military commissions act with "freedom ain't free"... dur..

fucking stupid.

anyone you know. I have consistently opposed the erosion of ALL of our rights. Unfortunately, most people on the far right and far left are only willing to defend SOME of our rights, the ones that are fashionable within their own groups.

my point is this fantasy about gun rights being taken away is exactly that: a fantasy.

it's a RW concotion, and good ole boy voters fall for it hook line and sinker every time.

it's pure nonsense.
but you go right ahead and run with it.
i won't stop you.

very long time to restrict and erode the 2nd Amendment. Trying to suggest otherwise doesn't change that simple truth.

Or several somethings, really, but Oklahoma city was the big one, of course.

And if you think that was just one isolated wackjob, then who were all those assholes who threw a big party on April 19th to celebrate what he did?

its not a war, its a law enforcement issue. When any idiot with some homemade chemicals and a grudge can commit terror, how the fuck do you fight a war against that?

border" (from invasion?). Does seem that some want to fight a war rather than treat it as a law enforcement issue.

Before we had the War on Drugs, the police were "Peace Officers" who were there to protect and to serve.

Now it has all become "Law Enforcement". I don't think this is a good thing.

(And please don't think that I have some nostalgic desire to go back to the 50's with segregation and the like, that is NOT what I mean at all)

and corruption. The war on terror is great for defense contractors, because its a war without end, so their profits are secured indefinitely. A war on illegal immigration, let's say border fences/walls plus militarizing it would be a huge boon to contractors specializing in building trades, surveillance technology, and even some military contracts. Neither one of these are solutions to the problems they claim to solve, but they involve billions of dollars in profits to many people who are influential to Congress, and hence get what they pay for.

their corporate buddies make too much off the drug trade

there was billions last year laundered through the big banks from the drug trade.

While you may think we should go after people some people today, when the R's get back in charge, many of them will want to go after people on the Left.

Remember how we all opposed the Patriot Act? Remember how we knew beforehand that the government would use the new powers in unjust and unConstitutional ways?

Well guess what, the D's have regained control of the government, but the Patriot Act is still here.

NEVER give them more power or permission to go after ANY segment of our society. Individuals who have committed actual crimes, sure, but not just groups because we disagree with them.

sir.:hi: