Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Some of my friends may be shocked, but I think St. Stephen may have a point. I don't know the facts of this case, but it does happen that informers become provocateurs.

Agreed. Sometimes the informers are provocateurs. Sometimes the defense council will raise the possibility of the informers being provocateurs when they aren't. We really don't know at this point.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Some of my friends may be shocked, but I think St. Stephen may have a point. I don't know the facts of this case, but it does happen that informers become provocateurs.

That doesn't mean he has a point, or anyway it doesn't mean he has the point he's trying to make. If an FBI provocateur floats the idea of a violent move against the government, and the rest of the group stands up and salutes, they're still guilty. One could argue that the FBI doing this sort of thing (which in the specific case is pure speculation, please note) is not appropriate, but that's a different point -- and leaves the Hutteree no less guilty.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We really don't know at this point.

No, we don't. But it's not much of a stretch to think the Obama administration will approach "right-wing extremism" the same way the Bush administration approached "Muslim extremism."

The Miami 7, the Newburgh 4, the Detroit 5 --time after time during the Bush years, a bunch of losers who posed no threat to no one were cajoled by the feds into saying something stupid so prosecutors could put a few scalps on the wall. And yes, juries often did convict, albeit often on lesser charges (and/or after multiple mistrials).

I have no trouble believing the same principle is in operation with the Hutaree. A big show of force with helicopters, a somber press conference, a bunch of whacked-out looking mugshots to keep the people scared... meanwhile, real Neo-nazis and skinheads might well be planning a real attack the feds have no clue about. But once it goes down, we'll probably be treated to Robert Gibbs doing a reprise of Ari Fleischer's "People need to watch what they say."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Some of my friends may be shocked, but I think St. Stephen may have a point. I don't know the facts of this case, but it does happen that informers become provocateurs...

That doesn't mean he has a point, or anyway it doesn't mean he has the point he's trying to make. If an FBI provocateur floats the idea of a violent move against the government, and the rest of the group stands up and salutes, they're still guilty. One could argue that the FBI doing this sort of thing (which in the specific case is pure speculation, please note) is not appropriate, but that's a different point -- and leaves the Hutaree no less guilty.

FWIW, during my sojourn in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, we were infiltrated by Federal agents (probably FBI), and attempts to incite illegal activities were part of their gig. I have zero sympathy for agents provocateur, and find them uniquely guilty when they incite law breaking (especially violence), justifying it by arguing that "... it would have happened eventually, but now we're here to stop it".

Some people are gullible followers, and they will often follow false leaders. The Feds have no business pretending they are those leaders.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't mean he has a point, or anyway it doesn't mean he has the point he's trying to make. If an FBI provocateur floats the idea of a violent move against the government, and the rest of the group stands up and salutes, they're still guilty. One could argue that the FBI doing this sort of thing (which in the specific case is pure speculation, please note) is not appropriate, but that's a different point -- and leaves the Hutteree no less guilty.

Arguably everyone up the FBI chain of command who conspired to create said guilt is also guilty. I dislike entrapment.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There is only one way to properly respond to a threat of violence, and it is neither with misguided sympathy nor with a respectful argument.

Why keep it a secret? What is the one proper way to respond to a threat of violence? (I ask sincerely, not sarcastically)
Child of Socrates, since you agreed, how would you answer the question?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't mean he has a point, or anyway it doesn't mean he has the point he's trying to make. If an FBI provocateur floats the idea of a violent move against the government, and the rest of the group stands up and salutes, they're still guilty. One could argue that the FBI doing this sort of thing (which in the specific case is pure speculation, please note) is not appropriate, but that's a different point -- and leaves the Hutteree no less guilty.

What point (do you think) am I trying to make?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

FWIW, during my sojourn in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, we were infiltrated by Federal agents (probably FBI), and attempts to incite illegal activities were part of their gig.

Right, I'm familiar with what COINTELPRO did with the radical left, which is why I don't dismiss the idea of a provocateur out of hand. But here's the big question: when you were with VVAW, and someone attempted to "incite illegal activities," did you do it? (You don't have to answer that if the answer may serve to incriminate you.) Either way, the provocateur did wrong, but if you did it, then YOU did wrong, too, provocateur or no provocateur.

Look, what the Weathermen did back then was illegal. It was sabotage, and depending on how you parse the definitions it may have met the requirements for treason. It certainly was wrong and endangered lives. (Cost some lives, too, albeit only their own.) Let's suppose -- and this may even be true for all I know -- that the idea to plant bombs came from a COINTELPRO agent. The fact remains that the whole organization did it. And so, COINTELPRO or no COINTELPRO, they were guilty, because nobody forced them to do it.

Same reasoning applies here. If there was an FBI plant who spurred the Huttaree on to plan their kill-cops conspiracy, the fact remains nobody forced them to participate. The fact remains this is a violent insurgent group. The fact remains that if what is alleged to have happened did happen, then they are guilty of serious crimes and need to be put away, and the additional fact (if it is one) of a government agent provocateur changes that not one iota.

It DOES, of course, add a crime on the government's part. But that's a separate subject.

I have no sympathy for agents provocateur, either. But that fact doesn't add any sympathy for the violent criminals they provoke.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Right, I'm familiar with what COINTELPRO did with the radical left, which is why I don't dismiss the idea of a provocateur out of hand. But here's the big question: when you were with VVAW, and someone attempted to "incite illegal activities," did you do it? (You don't have to answer that if the answer may serve to incriminate you.) Either way, the provocateur did wrong, but if you did it, then YOU did wrong, too, provocateur or no provocateur...

Three of the advantages of that group: we were older, had experience working in organized group, and had already seen where actions lead. We were not a target of opportunity.

Other groups with younger, more naive members weren't so well disciplined. Even there, violence was typically avoided, though property damage was common.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Can you tell me what the target of the plot could have done in order to justify his murder in cold blood?

I don't know?!?! WTF?.... okay.... What if he raped the the dog, goat, wife, horse, children of the perps, killed thousands of innocent children and was convicted of said crimes & then escaped. Then it would be justified..... Seriously, did you not read my post? I'm trying to get away from this one party is completely innocent and the other is completely guilty perspective that is floated so readily in the MSM . I just don't see things in real life as being so black and white. Life seems more complicated than that. If your life is different, I am truely sorry, because in addition to being oversimplified I'd guess its also a cold hard one. Seeing life in a complex way is difficult, but it has its rewards.

The MSM has a pronounced tendency to be an establishment tool -- no matter what the establishment happens to be at the moment. More's the pity -- but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

Its the one that I've brough up here. We are taking issue with different things & I don't disagree with your point of view, I actually agree with you, I just think you have misunderstood my position.

It appears to me that these were defense attorney arguments, not absolutely proven facts. Defense attorneys are, of course, going to do anything possible to keep their clients from getting convicted.

That doesn't seem like a stretch to me.... Which doesn't make it untrue. Its their job to keep their clients from being convicted. This is all beside the point. You seem forclosed about the details of the case. Has a verdict been reached? Other cases like this have been a big deal in the media, as overture pointed out, but with lesser convictions. My point is, like Bob Butler pointed out, we don't really know. But this is hardly the way that it is portrayed in the MSM. I think they are fanning the flames of violence by polarizing things in the way that they are characterized.

Now, I'll grant that planted provocation is not beyond the realm of possibility. Still, the group could have said no. Why didn't they? Don't they share any responsibility?

Do you really think you need to ask this??? Where is this coming from?..... I don't know the details & as far as I know, the case hasn't started. I wouldn't say that they shoulder NO responsibility. How much? I can't say, WE do -that's the job of the jury.

Weren't Charles Manson and his followers all convicted of multiple homicides, even though he didn't actually do much of the dirty work himself?

IDK.

Indeed, so why did the militia adhere to the "authority" of the agent provocateur, assuming that's what indeed happened?

I'm not claiming that I have all of the answers. I just have lots of questions that I don't hear being asked. I could speculate, but I think you'd use it to attack my speculation. My point about the milgram experiment was meant as a general concept, not necessarily applied to that specific instance. I find that there is a specific archetype that is being cherished here & the milgram experiment does a good job of undoing the cherished status of that archetype. If you don't understand that, its okay & not really expected, it wasn't really intended for 'you'.

I don't have a problem with talking about the issues of limited government or fiscal discipline. I do have a problem with the birthers, the people who insist that Obama is a communist, a socialist, and/or a Muslim, and the racists. Trying to sort all those out among the tea partiers is a challenge.

It is for me too (challenge to sort out). I like it that way. It keeps me in the IDK zone. I fancy seeing you there.(genuinely, not sarcasticly)

While I believe that some element of that may be true, there are plenty of socially excluded people who don't resort to violence, and there are plenty of powerful people who do.

The point was that they 'perceive' that they are being socially excluded. If this is indeed the case, stopping future violence may hinge on our ability to make fringe groups included. It isn't about who's right and wrong, guilty and innocent -not that they aren't important, just that those things are too often oversimplifications. To me, what is more vital is understanding the circumstances that lead to violence and undoing those hot spots. Besides, don't we all feel safer when everyone is included & humanized? (No, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have jails -lol)

Sorry if this is hard to follow, I am still trying to figure out this quote usage tools on the forum. I have appreciated reading everyone's replies to this part of the thread today. Thanks Marx & Lennon, Overture, KaiserD2, Brian Rush, Bob Butler and you too Child of Socrates.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

The point was that they 'perceive' that they are being socially excluded. If this is indeed the case, stopping future violence may hinge on our ability to make fringe groups included. It isn't about who's right and wrong, guilty and innocent -not that they aren't important, just that those things are too often oversimplifications. To me, what is more vital is understanding the circumstances that lead to violence and undoing those hot spots. Besides, don't we all feel safer when everyone is included & humanized? (No, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have jails -lol)

Sorry if this is hard to follow, I am still trying to figure out this quote usage tools on the forum. I have appreciated reading everyone's replies to this part of the thread today. Thanks Marx & Lennon, Overture, KaiserD2, Brian Rush, Bob Butler and you too Child of Socrates.

Stephen, you lost me there. Inclusiveness is a mantra in Awakenings and maybe Unravelings. It doesn't work in crises. Ask your fellow Xer Barack Obama, he'll tell you.
There are a lot of folks who do not want to be included.

I suppose that if I'm were to get all pissy about Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk stirring up the unwashed (which I do), then I'll have to get pissy about the FBI infiltrating and supplying planning, strategic and tactical leadership to camoflaged, pot-bellied mutton-heads, if and when it is shown that the FBI did that.

As I see it, this thread has taken a good turn.
And not just because of the linguistic acrobatics.
What's really good IMHO is how we are starting to doubt the officials despite our wish to believe them.

We should never forget the value of our civilian legal system.
The accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Our Constitution should be a living document.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Three of the advantages of that group: we were older, had experience working in organized group, and had already seen where actions lead. We were not a target of opportunity.

Other groups with younger, more naive members weren't so well disciplined. Even there, violence was typically avoided, though property damage was common.

See, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's own actions. You did well: you continued to oppose the war in a nonviolent fashion. If there was a COINTELPRO agent trying to goad you into violence, he failed.

It is pointless to try to make a group like the Hutaree, or an individual like the man recently sentenced to life in prison for murdering a family-planning doctor, feel "socially included." Except perhaps through intense individual psychotherapy, and I would not even hold much hope out for that. After all, why exactly do these people feel excluded? Because the nation has passed laws they don't agree with, and because they see its demographics and its culture changing into something that makes them feel like foreigners. So what would it take to make them feel included? Repeal the laws? Not gonna happen. Expel a certain percentage of blacks, hispanics, and Asians so they feel like it's a white country again? That won't happen either. Put a lid on totally necessary progress and reform?

No. At some point, you simply have to say that a certain amount of violence on the part of these guys is the price of progress, accept it, and defend ourselves against it firmly. This is not a time for compromise, for backpedling, or for slowing down. It's time to press forward more than ever, and if some people who don't like it decide to pick up guns and do something about it that way -- it's their funeral. Literally, in all likelihood.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Stephen, you lost me there. Inclusiveness is a mantra in Awakenings and maybe Unravelings. It doesn't work in crises. Ask your fellow Xer Barack Obama, he'll tell you.
There are a lot of folks who do not want to be included.

According to
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/hi..._turnings.html
The Fourth Turning is a Crisis —a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.

I don't expect the sense of inclusion to come from the top down. I see it happening the other way, so forget about asking Obama. But, take a look at what Strauss and Howe have to say:

Eventually, the mood transforms into one of exhaustion, relief, and optimism. Buoyed by a new-born faith in the group and in authority, leaders plan, people hope, and a society yearns for good and simple things.

http://www.fourthturning.com/html/turnings_3.html

The faith in groups and authority won't come without a sense of inclusion, that's how a 'group' works.

You think people don't want to be included? Hafiz disagrees:

Admit something:
Everyone you see, you say to them, "Love me."
Of course you do not do this out loud, otherwise someone would call the cops.
Still, though, think about this, this great pull in us to connect.
Why not become the one who lives with a full moon in each eye
that is always saying,
with that sweet moon language,
what every other eye in this world is dying to hear?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

See, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's own actions. You did well: you continued to oppose the war in a nonviolent fashion. If there was a COINTELPRO agent trying to goad you into violence, he failed.

It is pointless to try to make a group like the Hutaree, or an individual like the man recently sentenced to life in prison for murdering a family-planning doctor, feel "socially included." Except perhaps through intense individual psychotherapy, and I would not even hold much hope out for that. After all, why exactly do these people feel excluded? Because the nation has passed laws they don't agree with, and because they see its demographics and its culture changing into something that makes them feel like foreigners. So what would it take to make them feel included? Repeal the laws? Not gonna happen. Expel a certain percentage of blacks, hispanics, and Asians so they feel like it's a white country again? That won't happen either. Put a lid on totally necessary progress and reform?

No. At some point, you simply have to say that a certain amount of violence on the part of these guys is the price of progress, accept it, and defend ourselves against it firmly. This is not a time for compromise, for backpedling, or for slowing down. It's time to press forward more than ever, and if some people who don't like it decide to pick up guns and do something about it that way -- it's their funeral. Literally, in all likelihood.

I'm in agreement that once the deed is done, the inclusion should come in the form of incarceration. My focus on inclusion is more of an intention to attempt to curtail things BEFORE they get violent. I know that doesn't always work, but it seems worth trying.

What exactly do you mean by 'totally necessary progress and reform'?

I'm not big on comprimise either. I'd prefer colaboration. I bet you see a time for it as well.

Do you see any value in wondering or asking 'why?' in response to these fringe groups and their plans for violence? I don't buy the "Because the nation has passed laws they don't agree with". Although I am sure some do feel that way. (no, I won't go for 'they hate our freedom' either)

I think there is a way in which the 'why' question could, at times, be a better long term defense than weapons, (but not always). -It never hurts to grow your arsenal.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Arguably everyone up the FBI chain of command who conspired to create said guilt is also guilty. I dislike entrapment.

In this one, I have to agree with Bob. If the agent did anything to incite said violence, then he is guilty like the rest of them. The worry I have is that the agent will never be charged under some perverse view of "just doing his job" and "keeping us safe." Or if he is charged, a jury will acquit for that same reason. Incitement to violence is incitement to violence, no matter what your purposes behind it.

Note that I'm not saying that in this case the normal idea of entrapment would hold... This group probably wouldn't fall into the public vision of "would probably not have done a similar illegal act," and especially after the Fed show of force that took them down. Less thinking would probably assume this group was dangerous enough to actually NEED that level of overkill. They are guilty, fine. But if the agent involved did anything, hang him with the rest.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

Why keep it a secret? What is the one proper way to respond to a threat of violence? (I ask sincerely, not sarcastically)
Child of Socrates, since you agreed, how would you answer the question?

If it can be determined from where the threat originated, the person making the threat should be detained and questioned. They may be guilty of a crime depending on the circumstances.

I'm not a legal expert, so I won't go any further than that.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

Sorry if this is hard to follow, I am still trying to figure out this quote usage tools on the forum. I have appreciated reading everyone's replies to this part of the thread today. Thanks Marx & Lennon, Overture, KaiserD2, Brian Rush, Bob Butler and you too Child of Socrates.

Uh, yeah, that entire block of text looks like I posted it. But my original comments can be sorted out, so you're forgiven.

You did write:

I don't know?!?! WTF?.... okay.... What if he raped the the dog, goat, wife, horse, children of the perps, killed thousands of innocent children and was convicted of said crimes & then escaped. Then it would be justified.....

I don't see violence as justifiable unless there is a clear perception of an immediate danger to oneself or to others. I don't see revenge killings as appropriate or necessary. Why not just capture the person and let the legal system sort it out?

Seriously, did you not read my post? I'm trying to get away from this one party is completely innocent and the other is completely guilty perspective that is floated so readily in the MSM . I just don't see things in real life as being so black and white. Life seems more complicated than that. If your life is different, I am truely sorry, because in addition to being oversimplified I'd guess its also a cold hard one. Seeing life in a complex way is difficult, but it has its rewards.

Oh, you're mistaken. I can understand what you're saying, and have some level of sympathy for it. However, I strongly believe that violence can have so many tragic and unintended consequences that I think it can only be justified in very narrow circumstances. Simply feeling excluded and powerless isn't a good enough justification.

It is for me too (challenge to sort out). I like it that way. It keeps me in the IDK zone. I fancy seeing you there.(genuinely, not sarcasticly)

I will watch as the specifics of this case emerge.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

The faith in groups and authority won't come without a sense of inclusion, that's how a 'group' works.

You think people don't want to be included? Hafiz disagrees:

Admit something:
Everyone you see, you say to them, "Love me."
Of course you do not do this out loud, otherwise someone would call the cops.
Still, though, think about this, this great pull in us to connect.
Why not become the one who lives with a full moon in each eye
that is always saying,
with that sweet moon language,
what every other eye in this world is dying to hear?

That's a wonderful sentiment, but a great many of these fringe groups think they're "special" or that they have some secret knowledge that will help them survive the "apocalypse" while the rest of the "heathens" perish. No matter how much you try to reach out to them, they won't care.

Sad, but true.

The nuts are going nuts...

The FBI is warning police across the country that an anti-government group's call to remove governors from office could provoke violence.

The group called the Guardians of the free Republics wants to "restore America" by peacefully dismantling parts of the government, according to its Web site.

For now, the letters stand as merely a citizens' uprising movement trying to put pressure on the administration, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently.

As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The note was obtained by The Associated Press.

Orr reports the FBI-DHS advisory uses language including this passage: "...they (the group) advocate for their views through the use, support, or facilitation of violence or illegal conduct..."

One U.S. security official says the advisory was distributed "...out of an abundance of caution to ensure that state and local partners have tools they need to recognize behaviors," Orr reports.

The FBI expects all 50 governors will eventually receive such letters.

Governors whose offices reported receiving the letters included Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chet Culver of Iowa, Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, and Gary Herbert of Utah, where officials stepped up security in response to the letter.

In Nevada, screening machines for visitors and packages were added to the main entrance to the state Capitol as a precaution after Gibbons received one of the letters.

"We're not really overly concerned, but at the same time we don't want to sit back and do nothing and regret it," Deputy Chief of Staff Lynn Hettrick said.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said federal authorities had alerted the governor that such a letter might be coming, and it arrived Monday or Tuesday. Boyd, who described the letter as "non-threatening," said it was opened by a staffer and immediately turned over to the Michigan State Police.

Jindal's office confirmed the governor had received one of the letters and directed questions to the Louisiana State Police.

"They called us as they do for any letter that's out of the norm," said Lt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman.

He declined to provide specifics about the letter, but said, "not knowing the group and the information contained in the letter warranted state police to review it."

The FBI warning comes at a time of heightened attention to far-right extremist groups after the arrest of nine Christian militia members last weekend accused of plotting violence.

In explaining the letters sent to the governors, the intelligence note says officials have no specific knowledge of plans to use violence, but they caution police to be aware in case other individuals interpret the letters "as a justification for violence or other criminal actions."

The FBI associated the letter with "sovereign citizens," most of whom believe they are free from all duties of a U.S. citizen, like paying taxes or needing a government license to drive. A small number of these people are armed and resort to violence, according to the intelligence report.

Last weekend, the FBI conducted raids on suspected members of a Christian militia in the Midwest that was allegedly planning to kill police officers. In the past year, federal agents have seen an increase in "chatter" from an array of domestic extremist groups, which can include radical self-styled militias, white separatists or extreme civil libertarians and sovereign citizens.

These people are REALLY starting to frighten me.

Originally Posted by Odin

These people are REALLY starting to frighten me.

Sometimes I think the country should automatically go on alert whenever April comes around. It's tax month, and Patriots Day right around that same time -- and the crazies do seem to come out -- McVeigh, the Branch Davidians, Columbine, etc.

Funny how the feds haven't released a copy of the letter. You know, so we the people can judge for ourselves how much of a threat this is.

Instead, we're supposed to accept the government's vague pronouncements and cower under our beds -- just like the color-coded terrorism alerts under Bush.

Same excrement, different day.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Sometimes I think the country should automatically go on alert whenever April comes around. It's tax month, and Patriots Day right around that same time -- and the crazies do seem to come out -- McVeigh, the Branch Davidians, Columbine, etc.

McVeigh deliberately chose the 19th of April as two years following the Branch Davidian incident in Waco. So far as I know, the Feds didn't choose the 19th of April as a commemoration of the anniversary of Lexington and Concord. Just a coincidence. Columbine was on the 20th.

Remind me to stay under cover...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

McVeigh deliberately chose the 19th of April as two years following the Branch Davidian incident in Waco. So far as I know, the Feds didn't choose the 19th of April as a commemoration of the anniversary of Lexington and Concord. Just a coincidence. Columbine was on the 20th.

Remind me to stay under cover...

Columbine was in "celebration" of Hitler's birthday.