They don't seem to like Jews much.

And just to make sure the FBI keeps an eye on me I left a note on their message board approximately:

If you want pipes may I suggest a bong store. I hear they have pipes that are da bomb.

Last time I looked, wanting to start a civil war (insane as it is) was not a crime.

Look again, Eric: Levying war against the United States of America is the basic constitutional definition of treason.

"...they still have the same constitutional rights as everyone else"

To sell pipe bombs?

Talk about trying to put words in my mouth!

CK, levying war against the United States of America is treason. But wanting to is no more of a crime than wanting to murder someone.

JC I said they have the same constitutional rights as you or I. The Constitution does not include a right to sell pipe bombs. Did I imply in any way that it did?

They were plotting to kill a police officer, then kill other officers at his funeral. Loat I checked, that's a whole friggin' boatload of crimes.

And by the way, plotting a civil was is a crime. It's called "sedition." Look it up, Einstein.

* - Also, re: previous comment, that's "Last time I checked..."

Plotting civil war is very different than advocating it. As I tried to point out, they look like crazy people, but here's what they're accused of:

***QUOTE***

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

***QUOTE***

Violation of that statute involves more than "wanting to start a civil war." But regardless of what they're accused of, they still have their constitutional rights, and for the sake of innocent people, I am glad this didn't turn into a Waco siege.

If by that, you mean you're glad the militia didn't open fire on Federal agents executing a warrant, then, yeah, I'm glad it didn't turn into a Waco siege, too.

No shit. No one said that they were only accused of "advocating" civil war. Do you really believe that they were arrested because they were only "advocating"? They were arrested because they were actively planning it. Look at what lengths you'll go to defend these homegrown terrorists.

And oh yeah...way to defend potential cop killers. They're terrorists and should be treated that way.

I'm not sure of what the issues are here.

It appears a group of extremists were arrested for blatently illegal activities (selling pipe bombs) and for planning even more blatently illegal activities (murdering one police officer to set up a mass murder of police officers.)

They were arrested in a way that demonstrated a lot of lessons learned from Waco, Ruby Ridge, and even Iraq. Overwhelming force and suprise, rather than a drawn out siege or a limited number of Federal agents. Law enforcement prepared and protected enough that they would be able to handle the situation, rather than get taken by surprise and potentially react badly.

All told, I haven't heard of anyone dying yet, which in taking in for arrest multiple highly armed and prepared individuals is to me an indicator of success.

Even though these folks are nominally on "the right", I would get hung up in neither the spectrum nor the "Christian" label. "Christian" is used by a lot of folks, and misused by many IMHO. The only reason to ally yourself with them or show ideological sympathy is political optics, which seems foolish to me. They are alleged to be very bad people; if they were anything close to as alleged it will boot conservatives little to do anything but condemn their activities in the strongest terms.

That said, of course they should have the full constitutional protections we afford to citizens, and IMHO should apply to everyone. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic lesson I remember from my elementary school civics lessons, and it should be applied here, and in all cases. Society needs to protect itself, but not at the expense of the values that have made the U.S.A. a great nation.

Read what I said. I didn't defend them at all. Nor did I say they were only advocating civil war; I commented on a post I read yesterday, and said (after reading the town looked like an army had descended on it) that I hoped their constitutional rights were being respected and there wouldn't be another Waco. (Which I am glad there wasn't/)

"way to defend potential cop killers"?

Are you kidding? These comments are getting a bit ridiculous. If they're guilty as charged they should go to prison. You'd think I was saying "Free Mumia" or something.

I have zero sympathy for the crackpot group, and I thought I made that clear.

Planning Civil War is not a crime, but planning the murder of a policemen is a crime that you will do time, and forever have the attention of the US criminal justice system.

(after reading the town looked like an army had descended on it) that I hoped their constitutional rights were being respected

So now terrorists should have their rights respected?

I guess if having standards is good, having double standards is twice as good!

Let's just say, incitement against the government wasn't illegal (but it is), plotting murder--no matter how profoundly it may supposedly serve Jesus--IS ILLEGAL. These people want to kill someone because of some misguided notion they're the foot soldiers of the supposed Anti-Christ. No, these people are their own collective of Anti-Christ. They're sick people.

They should have let police officers be murdered happen so nutty RW bloggers wouldn't whine about "timing"?

Do you people realize how paranoid and un-American sounds? At the best, how small and petty?

They should have let police officers be murdered happen so nutty RW bloggers wouldn't whine about "timing"?

I never made that argument, nor did anyone else I know of.

By putting words in people's mouths you're simply debating yourself.

Now that things have been clarified (I can see why folks might have been confused, especially if biased against the author), I really see only one major issue.

The "double standard" that I believe was referred to is our treatment of non-U.S. citizen terrorists, who apparently have very little in the way of legal rights under the Bush or Obama admistrations.

From the update:
"Again, these people are United States citizens, and until they are convicted, they have the same constitutional rights as any other citizen."

From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

One of the things about the declaration is that it is a broad statement of values. (which falls short on the discussion of slavery side, but gets it right on other issues.)

IMHO, our values are what made us a great nation, not just the abundent natural resources and energy of our populace. From even before the constitution was adopted, the values we chose to represent were of the highest caliber (with some notable exceptions, see above.)

Washingtons treatment of British and Hessian mercenary POWs was far kinder, at a time far more desperate than anything we are experiencing today, with the most powerful empire in the world at the time as our enemy and us a tiny state on the edge of the world. This was in an atmosphere where on occasion, orders had been given to not take American prisoners, and the conditions for those who were captured as atrocious.

A large number of the British and Hessian POWs chose to stay in the new United States after the war, and their descendents no doubt fought in 1812, in the trenches in France, at Iwo Jima, and in Iraq.

The double standard is that in our current was, we are doing our best to circumvent international agreements, not to exceed them. We've tortured some of our prisoners, which is far below the standards and values I value in my country.

Personally, I've never held that there was any magical value in U.S. citizenship. The rights U.S. citizens have and should have are the rights I would like everyone to have. Lately, in dramatic examples, that hasn't been the case.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that, compared to some of the others mentioned in the more leftward leaning blog posts-- Ex: In the Wake of Arrests in Three States, Right-Wingers Rush to Defend Terror Suspects, Criticize FBI | Firedoglake, or my favorite bigoted bloggers, who saw the word "Christian" and immediately jumped to speculating as to why why they weren't arresting the "muzzies," instead... Actual facts/charges be damned... Donald Douglas and Pam Geller spring to mind...) --you got a raw deal on this one...

As you (along with we "commies" who support the ACLU) have learned, it ain't easy speaking up for the right to express dangerous, bigoted, hurtful, hateful thoughts... You're right... It isn't a crime to want to start a civil war, or even to say so... That isn't to say that we citizens, and law enforcement too, ought not pay close attention to the crackpots who express views like this, so that expressing that opinion never reaches the stage that these asses got to (with rights come responsibilities), but no, there is no crime in thinkin' it, or even saying it...

Except for the last lines--I do think there's something special about US citizenship, and I do think it ought to afford those who have it special privileges not offered to non-citizens--I agree with the anonymous fellow above (3/30/10, 12:40 PM, just in case). The way I read the Constitution, it's "all men, not all citizens," and I do believe that because our legal system is the best in the world, we ought to use it whenever we detain or put anyone, citizen or otherwise, on trial... I'm not opposed to military trials, but I don't believe in this "not enemy soldiers subject to Geneva, not citizens subject to US protections" limbo we put them in at the start of this conflict... We're America, and we should abide by the ideals for which we fight, or amend them so that we once again can... (It's like civil commitment for pedophiles... Increase the legal penalties for the crime, but don't create some kind of civil fiction to continue detaining people who've served their prison time...) We're a nation ruled by laws and ideals, not by the things we want, short term... No one said it was supposed to be easy living up to our values... YMMV...

Then I suppose you'll have no trouble with these terrorism suspects being treated like American citizen Jose Padilla?

The Fibbies raid on the Hutaree was nothing more than an attempt to try to scare the real militias into disbanding. It won't work, in fact it will probably recruit more folks to militias.

One wonders why the FBI can't/won't go after the Islamist "training camps" in the US, where future "martyrs" are learning how to kill Americans. One also wonders why the Feds can't stop the Zetas and other murderous Mexican gangs from coming into the US and killing American citizens. Why? Because the cowardly Fibbies know that the jihadis and Zetas will shoot back, whereas it was pretty obvious that the Hutaree were all bark and no bite.

chicopanther