There is just no end to the evil that is brewing on the right in our country.
I was led to a web post about the Hutaree Militia, by a reference to it at Daily Kos. They did not elaborate on it very much, so I would like to reprint a part of it, with exegesis. This is what, by the way, is regarded by Fox News et. al. as the right wing equivalent of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other moderately liberal Democrats. As I occasionally do, I will not link to it. Here we go. I apologize for the length- believe me, I left a lot of it out:
"The first thing that must be understood is that while the murder of any human being is the most serious crime one can commit, it is not necessarily a crime to kill a police officer.
Defensive use of lethal force against criminal aggression is morally legitimate and legally protected, especially when the aggressor is clothed in the habiliments of the state's punitive priesthood."
The punitive priesthood. The question is not if it is ever justified to kill a cop, it is whether it is justified to lie in wait to murder a cop, and then use the occasion of his funeral to blow to smithereens as many more cops as you can. I think that is a little bit clearer issue.
"Simply put: As a matter of law, a citizen has an unqualified right to use lethal force to defend himself against a criminal assault by a law enforcement officer. This is not "sedition"; it's stare decisis."
Unfortunately for this line of argument, it is also stare decisis that a murder involving lying in wait, or weapons of mass destruction against innocent third parties, does not quite come under the category of defending yourself. I guess this jerk didn't know that.
"The federal indictment against the Hutaree "Christian militia" describes the group's alleged preparations for potential armed conflict against law enforcement officers as a "seditious conspiracy." Whether this constitutes a criminal conspiracy of any kind depends entirely on whether the group planned to commit aggressive violence against individuals."
It being open to question, I guess, whether setting off roadside bombs constitutes aggressive violence.
"If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their actions-- while possibly conspiratorial in nature -- don't amount to a crime."
Unfortunately for the Hutaree militia, a claim of self defense must demonstrate that the perpetrator or others were in immediate danger. It would be difficult, it seems to me, to demonstrate an immediate threat posed by people at a funeral.
"Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence."
Really? Like, paving the roads, or putting out fires? Or running schools? That is nothing but the exercise of violence?
"Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion."
Lethal coercion? Everything? Like, they are going to shoot you for not paying your library fines, or for forgetting to put a stamp on your gas bill? Oh, that makes a lot of sense.
"If Hutaree was preparing for armed defense against criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless as a broken pencil. "
No it isn't, you stupid dick. Blowing innocent people up is not "armed defense," it's mass murder and terrorism of the plainest variety.
"As paraphrased by the Regime's media stenographers, the charges against Hutaree are digested into a "plot to kill law enforcement officers." This would allegedly entail murdering one policeman and then ambushing others who would attend the Soviet-style paramilitary ritual that occurs on those rare occasions a police officer is killed in the line of duty."
"Soviet-style paramilitary ritual;" i.e. a funeral. Now, innocent policemen are nothing but Communist KGB thugs. Remember a couple of years ago, when these people were all for the police doing whatever they wanted, and anyone who complained about the government was a traitor? Admittedly, that was before a black man was elected president.
"Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for "seditious conspiracy" prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression."
No, but it could provide a template for "seditious conspiracy" prosecutions against people who go around killing policemen. And a good thing, too, in my opinion.
"Indeed, the definition of "conspiracy" used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public."
Really? Can you point to a single prosecution of any kind in the whole history of our country for reading the Federalist papers out loud? This is a terminal example of the conservative "slippery slope" argument; e.g. "if you don't let us own machine guns, soon you are going to take away all of our kitchen knives." Here, apparently, the argument is that if you don't let us murder policemen whenever we feel like it, soon you won't let us read out loud. Not that that would be so bad for the Hutaree. I suspect that they are not really into reading.
"Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to "levy war" against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public -- in fact, it has been doing so for a long time."
Really? Too bad you never provided any evidence. Oh well, I guess a conclusion this obvious goes without saying.
"Apparently, it's sound public policy for the government to wage war against the citizenry, but a federal offense to take notice of that fact."
Oh, if only it were a federal offense to be a lying, vicious, unbalanced maniac.
If you believe that this kind of thinking is more than a couple of steps away from mass murder, you are very misled.
Liveblogging World War II: May 18, 1943
21 minutes ago