Friday, April 02, 2010

Two More Articles to Consider When Assessing the Hutaree Media-Op

One from Reuters...

and one from William Grigg...

How...uh...convenient, that the embedded asset passed himself off as an explosives guy...

7 comments:

jon said...

alinsky would prescribe that we "chew gum."

jon said...

one more tidbit on how to identify a snitch.

Longbow said...

Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Smile for the camera.

John B said...

The Hutaree defendants have been indicted for “Seditious Conspiracy”. “Conspiracy” is understood as being something short of an “attempt”. Federal prosecutors would have We The People believe that “Seditious Conspiracy” is a crime of violence as the two indictments for possessing a fire arm during the commission of a crime of violence specifically mention Seditious Conspiracy as a crime of violence. However, I cannot find any allegations in the indictments that violence, or that even an attempt at violence, was actually committed by the defendants against any person or property.

Am I missing something?

[W-III]

W W Woodward said...

Sorry, My Son-in-law has been using my computer.

[W-III]

Joe G. said...

Would a real group who wanted to "start a war with the government" have their own youtube channel about it? Either this is all bs or these guys are mildly autistic re-tahds... something doesn't smell right with this whole affair.

Anonymous said...

Guido,
Take a look at U.S.C. 18, the sections referenced in the indictment.

The conspiracy to commit a violent act being used for the weapons charges. Conspiracy is listed in the sections as an offense punishable.

For example, the WMD charge is USC18S.2332a which begins
"A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction"

Also, check out section 2386, "Registration of certain organizations" to see some real crap in the law.