Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 SouthCarolinaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,493
    vCash
    500

    Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    So much for the First Amendment. For what its worth, I'm not advocating the Hutarees should do jail time either. Protection under the first amendment shouldn't just apply to angry whites, though.
    http://www.privacysos.org/node/553
    and
    http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/201...harmed-no-one/
    It is a frightening scenario. Nine heavily armed men conduct military-style training in preparation for a terrorist attack involving the bombing of a funeral for the police officer they had killed three days earlier.

    Over a two-year period, a paid FBI informant and FBI agent infiltrate their cell, discuss building bombs and getting explosives and tape their conversations. By the time their homes are raided, they had amassed instructions and material for making bombs, night vision binoculars, machine guns, assault rifles, 148,000 rounds of ammunition, body armor, gas masks, tear gas, knifes and swords.

    Before their trial started, one of their members took a plea bargain, admitting the group “advocated” and prepared for violence against local, state and federal law enforcement. True, the government’s case was not helped when the informant who received $31,000 to infiltrate the group got arrested for shooting at his wife, but it still seemed like the case against the others would be a slam dunk – right?

    Well, it almost certainly would have been if they were Muslims. It is difficult to imagine any judge extending the protection of the First Amendment to taped conversations between Muslims stating that they should “start hunting” law enforcement “pretty soon” and that “it is time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny.”

    But that is what a Michigan federal judge, Victoria Roberts, did on March 27 in the case involving seven members of the Hutaree militia of self-described “Christian warriors.” Throwing out the most serious charges against the four members of the Stone family and their associates, she declared that the case was “built largely of circumstantial evidence” and that the alleged plot to kill a local police officer and then attack his funeral procession is “utterly short on specifics.”

    While the prosecution insisted “these individuals wanted a war,” Judge Roberts agreed with the defense attorney William Swor who said that the group’s leader, David Stone, “was exercising his God-given right to blow off steam and open his mouth.”

    In the words of the judge, his “statements and exercises do not evince a concrete agreement to forcibly resist the authority of the United States government. His diatribes evince nothing more than his own hatred for – perhaps even desire to fight or kill – law enforcement; this is not the same as seditious conspiracy.”

    At a time when armed extremist anti-government groups may have as many as 100,000 adherents, Judge Roberts’ homage to the breadth of First Amendment protected speech may appear welcome to some and foolhardy to others. But there is no denying that it highlights the chasm between the prosecutions carried out against suspected Muslim terrorists, and the homegrown domestic brand that gave us Timothy McVeigh.

    On April 12, in the federal district court in Boston, there will be a sentencing hearing for Tarek Mehanna, convicted late last year on terrorism charges. From the time he was a teenager, this 29-year old pharmacist from Sudbury was subjected to every kind of surveillance the FBI could muster – secret sneak and peek searches, FISA wiretaps, the seizure of his emails, the use of informants.

    Having spent three years in solitary confinement, he could face decades more in prison after being convicted of plotting to go to Yemen for military training (which he never had), translating classical Islamic texts into English and expressing his views about the invasion of Iraq on websites. He also was taped stating that taking up arms against the US would be a violation of Islam since he lived and practiced his religion here.

    Mehanna never had a gun or an explosive. But he did refuse to become an FBI informant, even after being warned that unless he cooperated with the agency they would make his life hell.

    In a striking departure from Judge Victoria Roberts, Judge George O’Toole in the Boston federal district court refused to allow the First Amendment to be introduced in the Mehanna case. He refused to admit an ACLU of Massachusetts brief asking for certain charges to be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, he did not allow defense attorneys to bring up the First Amendment and he did not instruct the jury on what the First Amendment protects.

    While the Hutaree judgment sent the message that core Constitutional values are not to be trifled with, Mehanna’s conviction conveyed this warning: if you are Muslim and criticize US foreign policy, you too can be prosecuted – unless you agree to play the FBI’s game.
    Last edited by SouthCarolinaSooner; 4/17/2012 at 04:29 PM.

  2. #2
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member Turd_Ferguson's Avatar
    Location
    Surrounded by ***** *** libs...
    Posts
    8,494
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Where was this linked from...HateWhitey.org?

    OleVet Posse Instigator

  3. #3
    Stayatworkdad yermom's Avatar
    Location
    Nomran
    Posts
    48,866
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    this also seems to help out the kids that write stories about shooting up schools

  4. #4
    Stayatworkdad yermom's Avatar
    Location
    Nomran
    Posts
    48,866
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Turd_Ferguson View Post
    Where was this linked from...HateWhitey.org?
    source? http://www.privacysos.org/node/553

  5. #5
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 SouthCarolinaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,493
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by yermom View Post
    Ah, sorry I forgot the link in the first post. But yes, the story is also available on hatewhitey.org.

    Additional article with links to various sources here: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/201...harmed-no-one/

  6. #6
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member KantoSooner's Avatar
    Location
    Hunkered down....waiting...
    Posts
    9,443
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    I don't think I'll waste time reading the opinion, but, if anyone did, riddle me this: How on earth did they get around the conspiracy charges? (I'm assuming our uber-competent AGs did charge them with conspiracy. Please tell me they did.) I always thought you were pretty well nailed if you had an illegal plan and 'acts toward'....and bomb making gear and 148,000 rounds of ammo gets you pretty out of "I'm a deer hunter" territory.
    "I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown

  7. #7
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 SouthCarolinaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,493
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by KantoSooner View Post
    I don't think I'll waste time reading the opinion, but, if anyone did, riddle me this: How on earth did they get around the conspiracy charges? (I'm assuming our uber-competent AGs did charge them with conspiracy. Please tell me they did.) I always thought you were pretty well nailed if you had an illegal plan and 'acts toward'....and bomb making gear and 148,000 rounds of ammo gets you pretty out of "I'm a deer hunter" territory.
    “statements and exercises do not evince a concrete agreement to forcibly resist the authority of the United States government. His diatribes evince nothing more than his own hatred for – perhaps even desire to fight or kill – law enforcement; this is not the same as seditious conspiracy.

  8. #8
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member Turd_Ferguson's Avatar
    Location
    Surrounded by ***** *** libs...
    Posts
    8,494
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthCarolinaSooner View Post
    “statements and exercises do not evince a concrete agreement to forcibly resist the authority of the United States government. His diatribes evince nothing more than his own hatred for – perhaps even desire to fight or kill – law enforcement; this is not the same as seditious conspiracy.
    Sounds pretty spot on to me...

    OleVet Posse Instigator

  9. #9
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 SouthCarolinaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,493
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Turd_Ferguson View Post
    Sounds pretty spot on to me...
    I agree as well, I'm not making an indictment myself of the Hutarees. I don't see how this is any different than translating Al-Qaeda documents, though.

  10. #10
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    4,730
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    I agree with the judge. If the KKK or black panthers or what have you want to spout off their nonsense and play soldier in the forest, what the hell do I care?

  11. #11
    Stayatworkdad yermom's Avatar
    Location
    Nomran
    Posts
    48,866
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    at what point does talking hypotheticals and making plans overlap?

    at what point in the planning stages of terrorism are you a terrorist?

  12. #12
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    4,730
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by yermom View Post
    at what point does talking hypotheticals and making plans overlap?

    at what point in the planning stages of terrorism are you a terrorist?
    If they've been out there practicing for 15 years or so and never put anything to practice, they're a bunch of weekend warriors. Some folks might get a kick out of rehearsing urban warfare just for the hell of it.

  13. #13
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by yermom View Post
    at what point does talking hypotheticals and making plans overlap?

    at what point in the planning stages of terrorism are you a terrorist?
    Good question, but planning a trip to Yemen for military training seems to be on the list.

  14. #14
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 SouthCarolinaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,493
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by 8timechamps View Post
    Good question, but planning a trip to Yemen for military training seems to be on the list.
    But not to your backyard training ground in Michigan .

  15. #15
    Administrator
    8timechamps's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    19,085
    vCash
    1500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthCarolinaSooner View Post
    But not to your backyard training ground in Michigan .
    Apparently.

  16. #16
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member cleller's Avatar
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    5,320
    vCash
    1355

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    If you're so worried about what angry whites are doing in the woods, you should examine what people of all races do to people of other races every day and night in our cities.
    Actually whites kill people from other races at a lower rate than the reverse. Whites are also less likely to commit murder in the first place.

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

    Edit: Sorry, I focused mainly on your assailing of whites. These guys are still criminal conspirators, and deserve to have the book thrown at them.
    Last edited by cleller; 4/18/2012 at 09:56 AM.

  17. #17
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member KantoSooner's Avatar
    Location
    Hunkered down....waiting...
    Posts
    9,443
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    Hmmm. 'Seditious Conspiracy'. Must be a separate crime. One would think the DA would have charged good ole criminal conspiracy as well. In that case, one would think expressed intent and plans to kill police officers, combined with amassing an arsenal wihtout other purpose would get you pretty close to jail time.
    But that's just me and I get kind of crusty regarding cop killing. Just don't like it.
    "I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown

  18. #18
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 cccasooner2's Avatar
    Location
    A wormhole away from Norman
    Posts
    3,293
    vCash
    500

    Re: Only angry whites protected under first amendment

    "But that is what a Michigan federal judge, Victoria Roberts, did on March 27 in the case involving seven members of the Hutaree militia of self-described “Christian warriors.” Throwing out the most serious charges against the four members of the Stone family and their associates, she declared that the case was “built largely of circumstantial evidence” and that the alleged plot to kill a local police officer and then attack his funeral procession is “utterly short on specifics.”

    "Mehanna never had a gun or an explosive. But he did refuse to become an FBI informant, even after being warned that unless he cooperated with the agency they would make his life hell.

    "In a striking departure from Judge Victoria Roberts, Judge George O’Toole in the Boston federal district court refused to allow the First Amendment to be introduced in the Mehanna case. He refused to admit an ACLU of Massachusetts brief asking for certain charges to be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, he did not allow defense attorneys to bring up the First Amendment and he did not instruct the jury on what the First Amendment protects."



    It's what white folk call "checks and balances".
    Mike Stoops: "F*ck me. " - Quoted during the FAMU game following the 1st quarter timeout for 12 men on field.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •