Pages

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Feds Decide Time to Take Citizens 'Down'



Barbara McQuade, the U.S. attorney leading the prosecution against a Michigan militia group said Tuesday:
"The time had come that we needed to arrest them and take them down," McQuade told The Associated Press in an interview at her office."

Members had been undergoing paramilitary training, including learning how to shoot guns and make bombs, since 2008, according to an indictment. Nevertheless, we are to believe that the critical moment for the Federales to "take them down" arose a couple of days after the passage of the Federal healthcare takeover bill was signed into law. Hmmm.

"The group quotes several Bible passages and declares: "We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. ... Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment."


Those ideas are legal in this country. I might add they are not particularly threatening.

The militia group, which called themselves the HUTAREE, were the holders of a number of curious notions to be sure, and the schemes mentioned in the indictment were pretty crazy.

For insistence, according to the indictment:
"The general concept of operation further provided that once such action was taken HUTAREE members would retreat to one of several rallying points where the HUTAREE would wage war against the government and be prepared to defend in depth…"

Absolutely preposterous. Could anyone seriously believe that a group of nine individuals could attack US law enforcement officers and then fall back to a rallying point where they could wage war (?!) against the government and defend in depth? It sounds like something out of a computer combat sim game, where everything is in the here and now and there is no big picture.

Meanwhile, in southwest Texas,
"The Department of Homeland Security sent out a security alert to all men and women in uniform to be careful and advise their families to take extra precaution. Barrio Azteca gang members say they plan to kill law enforcement officers in the El Paso area as retaliation, the department said.

Last week, the FBI and DEA conducted a sweep of Barrio Azteca members, resulting in the arrest of dozens alleged gang members. The gang has ties with the Juárez drug cartel and is under scrutiny for its possible involvement in the murders in Juárez of three people tied to the U.S. Consulate. FBI officials said the threat is uncorroborated but want to warn officers anyway."

What appears to be a far more serious threat, and a far more restrained response by the Federales. The FBI warned local officers. Why the difference, one wonders.

Politically it all works out very nicely for Janet Napolitano – some might say a little too nicely. The actual threat the Hutaree posed is dwarfed by their political usefulness to the Democrats in power in their ongoing efforts to criminalize opposition to their actions.

Regardless of the schemes hatched in the fevered mind of one David ‘Joe Stonewall’ Stone in a back road double-wide in Michigan, the very real threat to the freedoms guaranteed to the people of our nation are stemming from the expansion in size and reach of the Federal government in Washington DC.

Change you better believe in.

5 comments:

  1. Ya' certainly gotta wonder, sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Could anyone seriously believe that a group of nine individuals could attack US law enforcement officers and then fall back to a rallying point where they could wage war (?!) against the government and defend in depth?

    Well, sadly, yes, and it doesn't take a lot of manpower to inflict a lot of damage. (Oklahoma City and Atlanta bombings, the "DC sniper" attacks) But what I can't figure out is what these Hutaree folks actually did to warrant the charges against them: A federal grand jury indictment, unsealed this week in Detroit, charged the eight men and one woman with seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence. They could face up to life in prison.

    I haven't been able to find any info about an attempt to use their explosives, or any violent crime during which someone possessed a firearm. ???

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oklahoma City and Atlanta bombings, the "DC sniper" attacks are examples of terrorist type attacks in which the attacker strikes and then attempts to disappear to avoid the overwhelming force that the US military and law enforcement agencies could apply against them. According to the indictment, these people intended to initiate a war against the government by attacking, and then falling back to a rallying point and assuming defensive positions from which they would fight out the remainder of the conflict... Washington at Bunker Hill, Jackson at New Orleans, Lee at Fredericksberg, Clark at Anzio ... and Dave Stone somewhere out in the woods near Clayton, Michigan.

    Attack and disappear is one thing, but attack and then fall back to a defensive position...to hold out against the combined might of the US military? I don't see it.

    As to the other question, I think that is the heart of the matter. Is the government acting appropriately, or are they just acting? Why such a big reaction here, and far less response in El Paso, even though three US consulate officers were murdered a few days ago just across the border.

    It would seem that the family Stone spoke of a lot of things, but didn't do any of them. It is not clear to me that they ever would, but the Feds say their inside man heard talk amongst the militia folk...oh yes, a lot of talk!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Attack and disappear is one thing, but attack and then fall back to a defensive position...to hold out against the combined might of the US military? I don't see it.

    Well, i never said it was a sensible plan!

    (Although apparently they expected that other home-grown militias would join forces with them in response to an initial strike by the Hutaree guys. Sorry I can't remember where i saw that...)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This stuff is creeping me out. I don't trust our government, the actions they take, what they tell us. Obviously what those people were talking about was wrong, but were they going to act? If so, how so and when? When a citizen's freedom is deprived him and the government commences upon a prosecution, I would like to think that the government is acting to protect the people. But the Duke Lacross case? The prosecution of Scooter Libby? The Conrad Black trial and incarceration? All of the Eliot Spitzer prosecutions? I mean, clearly if the law comes after you, it may have nothing to do with the application of our laws and the protecting of our society.

    Can't wait for The Thin Man.

    ReplyDelete