Monday, March 29, 2010

Indictment...

...of the Hutaree...[Read]

For background and insights, Vanderboegh has been following this closely over at Sipsey Street Irregulars. Scroll down and look around, because there are several posts.

[Via Stephen S]
Posted by David Codrea at 3/29/2010 10:45:00 AM

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

NO, this isn't fishy at all - a raid on Sunday, a grand jury indictment the VERY NEXT DAY.

Nope, nothing screwy here. Justice moves fast against Christians, but not against Muslim terrorist camps in upstate NY.

3/29/2010 10:58 AM
Phelps said...

Am I the only one disturbed that they are charging them with WMD charges for what appears to be plain old pipe bombs? The indictment lists explosives under the WMD counts, but nothing about any sort of NBC material.

3/29/2010 1:10 PM
The_Chef said...

Oh come on.

You set out plans explicitly targeting police officers and you expect to NOT get caught when you start gathering the materials to make pipe bombs.

I mean come on. These morons were asking to get arrested with a giant neon sign.

Not that I necessarily agree with the actions of the state but come on.

3/29/2010 1:45 PM
David Codrea said...

The_Chef: Just 'cause the indictment says they did doesn't mean they did...at this point, we just don't know who really did what.

3/29/2010 2:18 PM
straightarrow said...

Waco and Ruby Ridge cost the authorities any sliver of trust I may have had in them. My default position now is that they are lying.

3/29/2010 3:16 PM
The_Chef said...

Apparently they got infiltrated by the FBI. At least that's the scuttlebutt I'm hearing.

"You can only be betrayed by those you trust."

Though the "honeypot theory" is insidious. It makes you wonder who you can trust. Can we trust Vanderboegh, or you David? Hell can you trust me?

I don't agree with Mike on a lot of things, I'm not accusing him, calm the hell down. But it does make you wonder...

3/29/2010 4:15 PM
David Codrea said...

Those are hard questions we need to ask--and do the best we can to get answers to.

3/29/2010 5:05 PM
The_Chef said...

And people call me paranoid....

Well if the shoe fits!

I'm less skeptical of people that don't act like firebrands, perhaps that's a flaw in my thinking. But the entire thing is a damn chess match.

3/29/2010 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...

@ phelps

"Am I the only one disturbed that they are charging them with WMD charges for what appears to be plain old pipe bombs?"

Nope, you aren't the only one. It must mean that they are capable of the destruction of tiny amounts of mass.

Next they will be arresting teenagers with black cat firecrackers and calling them WMD.

@ the Chef

The MSM is still reporting that they were manufacturing and selling pipe bombs. I have seen three conflicting stories in the MSM today, so I still don't know what these people were up to- the indictment notwithstanding. I do know that I looked at their website before and they had a Nazi flag behind the people in the picture. Thus, they aren't patriots or libertarians in my book.

That doesn't mean they don't deserve equal protection under the law.

3/29/2010 11:10 PM
W W Woodward said...

While checking up on the CFRs cited in the indictment I found some disturbing material. Not only would pipe bombs be determined to be weapons of mass destruction but so would a spud gun you might want to construct for your grandson.

Under CFR Title 18 Chapter 113B - Terrorism sec 2332a (a)(2)the term “weapon of mass destruction” means— (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;

Title 18 Chapter 44 Sec 921 (a)(4)defines "destructive device" as (B) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;

But of course, The very minute these laws went into effect We The People were presumed to be aware of them understand them and understand the penalties of violating them. We The People are also supposed to understand that just because the law means one thing today it can very well mean something else tomorrow. Depends upon the Attorney General or one of his lackey's moods on a specific day and time.

[W-III]

3/30/2010 7:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)