Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Defense: Feds 'manipulated' facts about militia

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:57 PM EST
us-news, us, barack-obama, fbi, militia, raids
Ed White, Associated Press

ADDS INFORMATION THAT ONE OF THE PEOPLE SHOWN IS NOT GOING ON TRIAL --This combo of eight photos provided by the U.S. Marshals Service on Monday March 29, 2010 shows from top left, David Brian Stone Sr., 44, of Clayton, Mich,; David Brian Stone Jr. of Adrian, Mich,; Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio; Tina Mae Stone and bottom row from left, Michael David Meeks, 40, of Manchester, Mich,; Kristopher T. Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; Joshua John Clough, 28, of Blissfield, Mich.; and Thomas William Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., suspects tied to Hutaree, a Christian militia. Jury selection is getting under way in Detroit federal court Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012, nearly two years after the dramatic arrest of people who authorities say belonged to a southern Michigan militia with a goal of rebelling against the government. The trial is expected to last weeks. It involves seven of the nine people charged with belonging to a group called Hutaree. The government says they conspired to try to kill a police officer and plotted

Advertise | AdChoices

DETROIT — Federal authorities worried about a perceived threat to the government and President Barack Obama "manipulated" facts and greatly overreached when they charged seven members of a Midwest militia with conspiring to rebel against the United States, a defense attorney told jurors Tuesday.

On the second day of trial, the jury heard opening statements from attorneys for three more defendants before prosecutors summoned their first witness, an FBI agent in charge of the two-year investigation that led to the March 2010 arrests of nine members of the southern Michigan-based militia, called Hutaree.

The defendants are accused of conspiring to someday ambush and kill a police officer, then attack the funeral procession with explosives and trigger a broader revolt against the U.S. government. Defense lawyer James Thomas said the startling allegations don't fit.

"A new president comes into office. The agencies that are sworn to investigate and protect him are very, very curious about what's going on out there," Thomas told jurors. "That premise — that somebody would be out there who is going to be a danger, either to the country or to the president of the United States — got distorted.

"It was a conclusion that was brought to be supported by facts, facts that were manipulated," he said.

On Monday, the government showed jurors automatic weapons, vests and other military gear seized when the nine group members were arrested in southern Michigan, Indiana and Ohio in March 2010. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Graveline said the group was looking for a conflict to trigger an attack — maybe a traffic stop, a search warrant or a dispute between authorities and another militia.

"They wanted to start an armed confrontation. ... The war to them meant patriots rising up against the government," said Graveline, who held up automatic weapons and other items

Graveline showed the jury a video clip of leader David Stone declaring, "Welcome to the revolution." The government placed an undercover agent inside the Hutaree and also had a paid informant. More than 100 hours of audio and video were recorded.

"They were ready, willing and able to go to war. They were preparing for war," the prosecutor said.

Todd Shanker, attorney for David Stone Jr., acknowledged there are "offensive statements" on the recordings but said the words were "almost fantasy" made among people who were comfortable with each other.

"These are extreme charges. ... They are going to fail and they are going to fail miserably," said Shanker, adding later that the Hutaree really was more of a "social club" than any organized militia.

William Swor, attorney for David Stone, said his client was a firm believer in the Bible's book of Revelation and the coming of an "anti-Christ."

"The anti-Christ as David Stone understands it will come from overseas, and the troops of the anti-Christ will take over America. That is the resistance that David Stone was preparing for," Swor said.

He told jurors the government was displaying weapons in court to "make you afraid." Swor said members lived hand-to-mouth and couldn't even afford transportation to a regional militia meeting in Kentucky, a trip that wasn't completed because of bad winter weather. He said it was the undercover agent who supplied the van, gas and a secret camera that captured Stone on video.

Of the original nine defendants, Joshua Clough, of Blissfield, Mich., is the only one to make a deal with prosecutors. He pleaded guilty in December to illegal use of a firearm, faces a mandatory five-year prison sentence and could be called as a witness to testify for the government.

Besides the Stones, the other defendants are Tina Mae Stone and Joshua Stone, both from Lenawee County; Thomas Piatek, of Whiting, Ind.; Michael Meeks, of Manchester, Mich.; and Kristopher Sickles, of Sandusky, Ohio. Jacob Ward, of Huron, Ohio, will have a separate trial. Besides conspiracy charges, all face at least one firearm charge and some have more.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Ed White's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Detroit
  • Public Discussion (177)
sobi

Ah, guilty of bad intentions. I suppose that's a reasonable step from thought crime, and bad feelings crime.

Our government is sick. Sick, sick, sick.

  • 10 votes
#1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:36 PM EST
tobiii

Anyone remember Ruby Ridge?

In October 1989, the ATF claimed that Weaver sold the informant two sawed-off shotguns, with the overall length of the guns shorter than the legal limit set by federal law

Perhaps Waco?

Koresh and his followers were accused of stockpiling illegal weapons

We all know the results of those "incidents".

At least these people weren't gunned down or burned to death.

  • 7 votes
#1.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:02 PM EST
radagast

These people didn't shoot back.

Lesson: don't shoot at government agents especially when you preach revolution, consider yourself a messiah, and are stockpiling weapons.

  • 14 votes
#1.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:05 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

And error on the side of caution? Obama does get lots of death threat and similarly rabid mail. Just like other presidents. I think Obama is a special case because he is like Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson in breaking race barriers. Joe and Jackie got racist remarks tossed at them everywhere they went. Obama broke the white house race barrier.

  • 15 votes
#1.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:11 PM EST
CCArm

well while we are remembering, how about Timothy McVeigh?????

These @!$%#s are guilty of being ignorant and armed. THAT should be against the law just by itself.

  • 16 votes
#1.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:11 PM EST
Tyler Durden-330839

Why didn't McVeigh shoot the cop?

That's the question I wanted to ask him.

Ps I've SEEN John Doe #2.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:20 PM EST
douglasq

Perhaps Waco?

I'm so @!$%#ing tired of the government being portrayed as the bad guys in Waco. Koresh could have let the women and children (or anyone who was a "non-combatant") go at ANY time. Instead, he chose to line his compound with flammable materials like hay bales and douse them with accelerants. The ATF was serving a warrant and was fired upon.

Koresh is to blame for the deaths in Waco. Koresh's apocalyptic teachings are to blame for the deaths in Waco. His lieutenants are to blame for the deaths in Waco.

Not the government. Not the ATF.

In the case of the Hutaree dumb@!$%#s, seriously? They are plotting to kill law enforcement officers and you are worried about "thought crime?"

If they were Muslims, you'd have rounded them up without a second thought. But because they are white rednecks, it is suddenly an oppressive government overreaching.

Give me a break.

  • 26 votes
#1.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:21 PM EST
sobi

The government was the bad guys.

  • 7 votes
#1.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:23 PM EST
Perception Dominates Reality

Seriously, if they have the defendents on tape saying they are planning on or just looking for an excuse to kill an officer of the law, then it's conpriracy to commit. Now I know some people would prefer we wait until that officer of the law is dead (sobi), but I'm not. I personally don't threaten anyone's lives on a regular basis, or at all. I guess I'm just completely sane not wanting to talk about destroying other people's lives just so I can look cool to my redneck friends.

  • 7 votes
#1.8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:33 PM EST
cannonballer

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Graveline said the group was looking for a conflict to trigger an attack — maybe a traffic stop, a search warrant or a dispute between authorities and another militia.

Well if they were looking for a reason for a conflict they sure as hell missed one when they were arrrested. Did they resist at all or did they cooperate and go peacfully?

I'm sure the feds will say that they were able to circumvent the security, if any, and surprised everyone all at once before they could react.

  • 5 votes
#1.9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:36 PM EST
sobi

I would prefer we wait until there is, at a minimum, a valid conspiracy. It would seem to me that a date, and some detail of logistics would have to be involved. Otherwise it is just talk. It is not crime. It is talk. Protected talk. Speech.

  • 4 votes
#1.10 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:41 PM EST
trex-138069

And when you look at those stupefied, Crystal Methed faces, does that surprise you one bit, Cannonballer? Maybe they were no real danger. Maybe they were drugged up enough and sufficiently convinced of their own paranoid rhetoric that they could have killed some innocent people before they were done. In any case, they're getting a fair trial in an American court, which is an improvement over Waco and Ruby Ridge, though alas, Guantanamo continues to be a stain on the national honor.

I agree that broadly speaking "the government" was to blame at Waco, but just what part of the government and in what way? It was very convenient at the time to lay the whole thing at the doorstep of Clinton and Janet Reno, but neither of them were at the scene. The ATF pulled a botched raid, mainly to improve their tarnished image with what they thought would be good publicity. Instead, it turned into a disaster for them, and they lost four officers. After that, it was a blood feud to the death between the over-testosteroned guys encamped outside the compound and the overtestosteroned guys inside. Janet Reno approved the raid because she naively believed the ATF officials who promised her that they would observe the rules of engagement. It wasn't until months afterward that it became evident they had blithely ignored that promise and gone right in for the fiery kill.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:46 PM EST
Nick46

Bush and company manipulated facts that killed thousands. This may be manipulation but for US law enforcement it's pretty standard operating procedure.

  • 2 votes
#1.12 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:48 PM EST
cannonballer

Odd didn't see any mention of drugs, I'll go look around and see if I can find anything.

  • 4 votes
#1.13 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:52 PM EST
Bill1488

CCArm,

These @!$%#s are guilty of being ignorant and armed. THAT should be against the law just by itself.

You are not locked I guess the government missed you on there raid of the ignorant.

Until Obama is out of office there will continue to be a crimes committed by his administration against the constitution. They should arrest Obama for his disregard of our constitution. I can see that's why people are up in arms about this president and his administration. It has nothing to do with color and everything to do with him trampling on our constitution, his failed policies, lack of leadership, as well as not knowing what the hell he is doing.

VOTE OBAMA OUT IN 2012 - OR WATCH MORE OF OUR JOBS GO TO CHINA.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:15 PM EST
Jimster

Folks, this is just a defense attorney blabbing to raise "reasonable doubt" for his clients.

It's also AP reporting nothing into something - once again

  • 6 votes
#1.15 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:17 PM EST
douglasq

These @!$%#s are guilty of being ignorant and armed. THAT should be against the law just by itself.

I would have gone with the one guy's mullet but that would have left me nothing to charge the other seven with.

  • 4 votes
#1.16 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:20 PM EST
Citizen Kane-473667

These @!$%#s are guilty of being ignorant and armed. THAT should be against the law just by itself.

If it was a lot of dumbasses would be in jail that currently wear badges. Should we start with the TSA? FBI? ATF? Marshall's Office? ICE? Military? How about the local city cops that shoot grandma's?

I'll wait until all the evidence is in and if what I see on their plea deal, it looks like it might be a fairly weak case considering we are going from possible treason to what...illegal use of a firearm?

Wouldn't that be like copping to a terroristic threat charge when your shoe bomb doesn't light or you scorched your pubic hair after trying to blow up a plane. If the case were really strong, they would be facing a firing squad...

  • 6 votes
#1.17 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:22 PM EST
blaze1024

Just like any other suspected terrorist sleeper cell it's time to send these "suspected" domestic terrorists off to Guantanamo bay for a proper interrogation.

    #1.18 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:59 PM EST
    Citizen Kane-473667

    And if they turn out to be innocent? How much would you want to be paid for YOUR pain and suffering if you were them...

    • 5 votes
    #1.19 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:44 PM EST
    douglasq

    And if they turn out to be innocent? How much would you want to be paid for YOUR pain and suffering if you were them...

    I don't see anyone calling for the death penalty for them. Now if they were black and in Texas and expert testimony against them turned out to be not so expert...but no one seems to have a problem with that.

    • 1 vote
    #1.20 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:27 AM EST
    Citizen Kane-473667

    How did we go from government sanctioned torture to Civil Rights violations? In the eyes of some, suspected terrorist have no Civil Rights.

    • 2 votes
    #1.21 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:44 AM EST
    douglasq

    How did we go from government sanctioned torture to Civil Rights violations? In the eyes of some, suspected terrorist have no Civil Rights.

    My bad. I took your statement as referring to the Hutaree conspirators.

    • 1 vote
    #1.22 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:53 AM EST
    Citizen Kane-473667

    I am. Weren't they arrested under the guise of plotting domestic terrorism?

    All the suspects are charged with seditious conspiracy, attempting to use weapons of mass destruction and possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. If convicted, they could face life in prison.

    • 2 votes
    #1.23 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:03 PM EST
    gatoralum

    They cannot be determined to be "innocent". They are either guilty or not guilty. This entire article is based on the comment of a defense attorney. If these defendants were black or foreign, everybody on here bitching about them being prosecuted would be demanding that we skip the trial and just lock them up. What hypocrisy.

    • 1 vote
    #1.24 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:00 PM EST
    sobi

    You toss race in there? Troy Davis was black. Oh, that would have meant reading before concluding guilt. Hypocrisy indeed.

    • 1 vote
    #1.25 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:23 PM EST
    gatoralum

    You want me to read better? Heed your own advice. Where did I say they were guilty? It is a short comment, go back and read it and them tell me where I said they were guilty. I said that they were either guilty or not guilty; that they cannot be found "innocent" under the law. Are you that ignorant of criminal proceedings that you did not know that there were only two verdicts possible? And what the @!$%# does Troy Davis have to do with anything. He was tried by a jury and convicted. He had several appeals. He even had an evidentiary hearing where his supposed evidence of actual innocence was presented and established to be woefully lacking. Did you read the transcript from those proceedings? I did. Did you read the Opinion of the trial judge who rejected the claim of innocence? I did. The more you comment about criminal matters, the more ignorance you reveal. Stop while you are behind.

    • 1 vote
    #1.26 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:32 PM EST
    sobi

    The guilt you concluded was that the objection to prosecutor abuse was not applied in the case of a black defendant--a position that has already been negated in this thread before you said it.

    • 1 vote
    #1.27 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:37 PM EST
    gatoralum

    Take a course on how to write so that people can understand what the hell you are trying to say. That last comment makes no sense.

      #1.28 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:20 PM EST
      sobi

      Go stick your head in a bucket of sand so you will be smarter than now.

      • 1 vote
      #1.29 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:28 PM EST
      California Militia

      Bush and company manipulated facts that killed thousands. This may be manipulation but for US law enforcement it's pretty standard operating procedure.

      i see the whole bush did it too statment soo much when dealing with this administration. you would think that obama is bush jr III.

      doesnt the second amendment protect these peoples rights to own firearms as much as the 14th makes children born to illegals citizens and the 4th makes it illegal to ask illegals if they are illegal.

      its a crazy world i tell you.

      • 1 vote
      #1.30 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:30 AM EST
      gatoralum

      The oxygen deprivation would cause brain damage. You should not do that anymore, Sobi.

        #1.31 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:49 PM EST
        gatoralum

        doesnt the second amendment protect these peoples rights to own firearms as much as the 14th makes children born to illegals citizens and the 4th makes it illegal to ask illegals if they are illegal.

        They have the right to keep and bear firearms as long as they do so consistent with the law. They do not have the right to use firearms to commit a crime. Is that something that really had to be explained to you? That the right to bear arms does not include the right to do so in the commission of a crime?

        • 2 votes
        #1.32 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:51 PM EST
        trex-138069

        Bill1488, what are some of those "crimes against the Constitution?" Can you name one, or do you just believe this because Rush Limbaugh and your crazy uncle who keeps forwarding e-mails keep saying so? You'll probably claim that the health care reform bill was unconstitutional, but that's for the Supreme Court to decide. The bill was passed by the procedures guaranteed in that Constitution you claim to fetishize, despite the attempts of the not-so-loyal opposition to sabotage those procedures.

        Saying that violence against the government is justified as long as you don't like the current President is the kind of logic that motivated Timothy McVeigh. It's also not too different from the logic of Osama bin Laden.

          #1.33 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:02 AM EST
          Belinda_Joy

          It's also not too different from the logic of Osama bin Laden.

          Exactly!

            #1.34 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:40 AM EST
            Reply
            Fifth Horseman

            They will be hung for having an weapon that can discharge more than one round when the trigger is pulled. If they had any explosive devices that also hangs them. If they do not like America then maybe the government should give them a choice go to jail here or send them across any border like Mexico.

            • 9 votes
            Reply#2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:37 PM EST
            Bill1488

            Fifth Horseman,

            You are distorting facts and putting your fiction on the story. Where does it say the where automatic weapons, where does it say that the had a bomb, it doesn't. Where does it say they Don't like America? What because the think Obama is wrong, that means they hate America? It says the are being accused for someone thinking someday that the my bomb a funeral procession, or kill a cop. Well even if you don't like what they are saying they have a right to say it under the USA Constitution. Show us the dates they planed to do this along with evidance that shows what they were going to use and how they would pay for it. It is funny now under Obama more and more of our constitutional rights are being striped from us.

            • 4 votes
            #2.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:29 PM EST
            elpkidd

            On Monday, the government showed jurors automatic weapons, vests and other military gear seized when the nine group members were arrested

            Bill, the article doesn't mention bombs but it does talk about automatic weapons that were seized they the group were arrested.

            • 1 vote
            #2.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:39 PM EST
            California Militia

            automatic weapons arent necessarily illegal. they can be legally owned when the individual gets a class 3 liscence for that weapon. same is true with suppression equipment and such. note that the statement doesnt say "illegally owned automatic weapons".

            who knows though. not enough information either way.

            • 1 vote
            #2.3 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:33 AM EST
            Reply
            Borncorn

            They have a jury of their peers that will sort it out. I could care less what the defense and prosecution allege. They have jobs to do.

            • 8 votes
            Reply#3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:58 PM EST
            MJMullinII

            In other words they should be found not Guilty solely because their initial conspiracy theories are true.

            You can't blame the defense attorney (he/she's just doing their job), but I would say this smells of desperation.

            • 7 votes
            Reply#4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:00 PM EST
            radagast

            End time conspiracy nutters preparing to fight the anti-christ = enemies of the human race.

            Lock them up and good riddance.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:03 PM EST
            greg81082-4115372

            It seems to me that when one gets to be a certain age, playing army is a bit weird. Militias should be taken seriously and, at least, be looked into. Homeland security and all that doesn't stop at airports and and ship docks.

            • 12 votes
            Reply#6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:04 PM EST
            California Militia

            all militia are not wacko's.

            LOL

            • 1 vote
            #6.1 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:36 AM EST
            gatoralum

            all militia are not wacko's.

            Of course not. The national guards in each state are not wackos. The privately created ones, however, are filled with the mentally deficient; the precise kind of wackos who should not have weapons.

            • 2 votes
            #6.2 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:53 PM EST
            Reply
            McSpocky

            Defense attorneys are usually willing to say ANYTHING to try and get their clients off. What the defense said is a non-story. Wait until the trial is over to get the real facts.

            • 13 votes
            #7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:08 PM EST
            sobi

            The same is true of the prosecution.

            • 2 votes
            #7.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:14 PM EST
            JoMan

            You are wrong, sobi, the prosecution is not allowed to introduce any history on the incident or any past history of the persons standing trial. Any hint at that the case is thrown out. They have to stick with the original case they are presenting. While the defense is allowed to make up all sorts of supposes and what ifs, trying to sway the jury or those deciding that there is any reasonable doubt that it might not have happened.

            Prosecution's only hope is to have actual facts and scientific evidence (which is good). While the defense is able to weave as many and variable tales just to infuse doubt and confuse.

            • 11 votes
            #7.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:22 PM EST
            sobi

            Gullibility is endless.

            The prosecution is comprised of people. The defence is comprised of people. The only way one side is morally superior is when viewed through biased eyes.

            • 2 votes
            #7.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:25 PM EST
            Fejj

            Is there anyone here even the least bit surprised by this at all? It's pretty sad that it doesn't because we just accept this "par for the course" activity by those who supposedly protect us. How much federal law enforcement do we actually need to feel safe and how much freedom is it costing us?

            • 3 votes
            #7.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:32 PM EST
            trex-138069

            I'm not a bit surprised that the defense is trying to portray their clients as political victims, no. That's the typical last resort of desperation.

            • 6 votes
            #7.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:54 PM EST
            MJMullinII

            The prosecution is comprised of people

            Overseen by a Judge.

            The defence is comprised of people

            Again, overseen by a Judge.

            The only way one side is morally superior is when viewed through biased eyes.

            Like the only way certain people can hide from reality is "they all do it" when things don't go the way they think they should.

            • 5 votes
            #7.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:59 PM EST
            gatoralum

            how much freedom is it costing us?

            IF by "us" you mean law abiding citizens, the answer is none. We have lost no freedom and you cannot identify a single freedom you have lost.

            If by "us" you mean stupid, angry and evil men who wish to do harm to others, then the freedom lost is the freedom to harm others.

              #7.7 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:03 PM EST
              Citizen Kane-473667

              IF by "us" you mean law abiding citizens, the answer is none. We have lost no freedom

              (..)

              • 1 vote
              #7.8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:20 PM EST
              tobiii

              What freedom have YOU lost, Kane?

              Please, do tell.

                #7.9 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:41 AM EST
                gatoralum

                It will be a short list and everything on it will be untrue.

                  #7.10 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:54 PM EST
                  Citizen Kane-473667

                  Short list.

                  Here's another short list for ya! <---Have fun trying to prove ANYTHING on that one wrong!

                  • 2 votes
                  #7.11 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:25 PM EST
                  gatoralum

                  None of the rights on the second list are infringed. As for the first list, as I said, every single example is complete bull@!$%#. And you start with a story about a guy who supposedly had his guns taken because of blog posting but who got them back. So how does an example of someone whose rights were ultimately protected prove that that freedom is lost?

                  • 1 vote
                  #7.12 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:07 AM EST
                  tobiii

                  What freedom have YOU lost, Kane?

                  Please, do tell.

                  Maybe he didn't understand the question??

                    #7.13 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:27 AM EST
                    gatoralum

                    The list he provided is laughable. Not a single one demonstrates a loss of a freedom.

                      #7.14 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:08 AM EST
                      Citizen Kane-473667

                      demonstrates a loss of a freedom.

                      How much are you getting paid? Where do I sign up? Since apparently a command of the English language is NOT a job requirement, I figured I would help you out:

                      2.

                      loss - gradual decline in amount or activity; "weight loss"; "a serious loss of business"
                      decline, diminution - change toward something smaller or lower

                      As you can see here, the mere act or process of losing is a loss in itself. While you may contend that no freedoms have been "lost" because no portion of the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments have been completely repealed, the mere fact that some rights are being curbed indicates that they are no longer as broadly defined asnd therefore some portion of them have indeed been "Lost".

                      "Denial" is not a river in Egypt!

                      • 2 votes
                      #7.15 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:10 PM EST
                      tobiii

                      What freedom have YOU lost, Kane?

                      A commanding use of the English language would enable one to answer the question in such a way that their response would begin...

                      ""I have lost....""

                      Instead of DEFLECTION and AVOIDANCE of answering the question.

                        #7.16 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:01 AM EST
                        Citizen Kane-473667

                        *Smirks*

                        Yeah that's what I thought; can't argue the facts can you? You really should read Orwell's "1984" before saying another word. Entertaining way to become educated on erosion and eventual loss of rights...

                        • 2 votes
                        #7.17 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:40 AM EST
                        gatoralum

                        You offered no facts. You linked to a right wing nut job website which used as sources WND and Alex Jones. Not a shred of credibility between them. You have not lost a single freedom and your inability to identfy one is resounding proof of that.

                          #7.18 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:52 PM EST
                          gatoralum

                          Lets tak a look at your "list" of lost freedoms:

                          A 55-year-old man in Arizona was recently ordered to turn in all his guns
                          because of things that he wrote on his blog. Fortunately, after WorldNetDaily covered the story there was an outpouring
                          of outrage and the order was overturned, but what would have happened if
                          WorldNetDaily had not covered the story?

                          No facts. No explanation of what he did. Perhaps he wrote on his blog that he was going to shoot his wife and she got a protection order which always require the confiscation of weapons if there was a threat. So, CK, you have a problem with removing guns from someone who threatens to use them to kill?

                          #2

                          According to Mike Adams of Natural News, the CDC is starting to call
                          parents all over the nation to question them about the vaccination status of
                          their children....

                          When you read the story linked you realize that this descripition is false. The CDC was conducitng a survey to determine what vaccinations children are getting. Purely voluntary and anonymous. You do not want to participate, you have the FREEDOM to decline.

                          Here the third one:

                          According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st
                          grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate "in
                          monthly anti-terrorism drills".

                          Just as they did when I was in elementary school 40 years ago, kids have drills so that they know what to do in an emergency. Because of the freedom that allows any moron to own an arsenal, schools have become targets so there are new emergencies that have to be considered. What freedom was lost here? The freedom for kids to die in a fire or other emergency because they did not know what to do becaues they never practiced it? Calling this an example of a lost freedom is moronic.

                          According to licensed private investigator Angela V. Woodhull, hospitals are
                          increasingly using "guardianship" to strip elderly Americans of their liberty
                          and to rapidly drain their bank accounts. The following is one story that
                          Woodhull included in a recent article....

                          Guardianships have existed for centuries. People who are incapable of caring for themselves and have no one able to do so are appointed guardian's to do so. THe incapacity has to be proven in a court of law with actual evidence from doctors. The person is given an attorney to represent them and the families can oppose the guardian. I have handeled several of these for a nursing home I represent and they often involve people who either have no family or have family unwilling to do anything for the person. Some have families who bleed them dry financially and then dump them in a nursing home. The only freedom lost is the freedom of elderly people to be neglected and abused

                          In a sign of just how far individual liberty in the United States has declined,
                          a judge in Wisconsin has actually ruled that citizens do not have a right to
                          grow and eat whatever foods they want to. The following is a short excerpt from his recent decision....

                          Of course, the decision said no such thing. It was about a dairy farmer who wanted to sell his milk without following any of the laws that protect us from spoiled or tainted foods. Been to a Chi Chi's lately? No. Cause they went out of business when several customers died from eating bacteria laden green onions. Anyone can grow what they want or eat what they want. They simply cannot sell it without making sure it follows the law designed to protect others from tainted foods.

                          I could go on and describe the other laughably bogus claims of lost freedoms (pat downs at football stadiums, private stadiums, TSA efforts to keep people from blowing up planes or turn them into missles, facebbook (another private company) using the data you permit them to track) All complete and utter bull@!$%# and none proving that any freedoms have been lost. We remain the freest nation on the face of the Earth. CK has the same inability to differentiate between freedom and lack of responsibility common to many libertarians. To them, freedom simply means not having to be responsible for anything they do.

                            #7.19 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:24 PM EST
                            Citizen Kane-473667

                            You have not lost a single freedom and your inability to identfy one is resounding proof of that.

                            Can I yell "Fire" in a theater? Can I carry a loaded gun on an airplane without a badge or a pilots license? Could I do those things legally in the past? If I haven't lost those former Rights to do so, then where are they? And that is just a couple of them. Every law passed that has criminalized a formerly legal action is a "lost" right.

                            9th Amendment to the Constitution, one of those known as The Bill of Rights, states:

                            The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                            ...and yet we so often hear that there is no Constitutional guarantee protecting any behavior from regulation or legislation don't we all the while court decisions legislate from the bench and legislators further strip rights from the U.S. Citizens?

                            Well, exactly WTF do you call that?

                            To my way of thinking, any Federal Law should be a Constitutional Amendment; with all of the inheirent difficulty that getting them passed entails.

                            Libertarian is nowhere near the dirty word Fascist is and THAT is indeed what your comment appears to endorse. Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin would be proud...

                            • 1 vote
                            #7.20 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:16 PM EST
                            gatoralum

                            You bemoan the fact that you cannot cause a panic in a crowded theater, likely causing death or injury to many; that terrorists cannot carry loaded weapons on any plane they like. Those are you allegedly lost freedoms? You were better with the link to that asinine list. At least then the stupidity of calling those examples of lost freedoms was the authors. Your examples are, amazingly, more insipid. And no, you never were allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. You do know that that was not a real case, right? That the Supreme Court used that as an example in describing the limits to free speech? That was also one hundred years ago and if you do not think we have less restrictions on speech now than we had then, you are woefully ill-informed.

                            • 1 vote
                            #7.21 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:23 PM EST
                            tobiii

                            What freedom have YOU lost, Kane?

                            Still waiting for YOUR answer to the question, Kane.

                              #7.22 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:30 PM EST
                              gatoralum

                              He answered. He can't yell fire in a crowded theater like he did when he was a kid in the late 1800's and he cannot take his AK on a flight. He is oppressed.,

                                #7.23 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:05 PM EST
                                Citizen Kane-473667

                                Still waiting for YOUR answer to the question, Kane.

                                tobii, Without at least the rudimentary comprehension skills that gatorlum has at least shown they possess, you will never get an answer.

                                gatorlum, you may want to consider that children can be charged with child pornography tor sexting pictures of themselves to their friends. How's that suit you taste for Freedom of Speech infringement? Better? Every seventeen year old should should be a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives for being stupid once, right? How about getting put in jail for threatening to kick someones ass? It started with cyber-bullying and now moves into verbal speech. Could you meet those requirements of never "threatening" anyone when you were a kid? Do it now and you could be hauled off from Junior High in handcuffs. Hell, you don't even have to threaten a person to be arrested.

                                Now that we've reached maturity we can be arrested for threatening to kick someone's ass online no matter whether or not there us any real intent to do so or any real possibility of locating the "victim" in the first place. Oh and if you are dumb enough to say it about the President, or even ask if he should be "taken out", expect a visit from the Dark Suits and Sunglasses types. To tell you the truth, with the passing of NDAA and the Patriot Acts definition of "support of Terrorism", just defending the rights of these people publicly is technically enough to have you locked up indefinitely without trial and the key thrown away!

                                • 1 vote
                                #7.24 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:34 PM EST
                                tobiii

                                you will never get an answer.

                                Exactly my point.

                                Throwing a tantrum acheives nothing when you, in fact, have lost NOTHING.

                                  #7.25 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:47 PM EST
                                  gatoralum

                                  Actually, they cannot be charged with child pornography. You go from wingnut sites to plain old making @!$%# up. And you cannot be arrested for saying you want to kick someone's ass. You can it you threaten them. The law making threat illegal has been around since the nation was founded. At Common Law, an assault included a threat to harm or kill someone. So, no, threatening to harm someone has always been a crime. Continue with your delusions if it makes you happy.

                                    #7.26 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:34 PM EST
                                    Citizen Kane-473667

                                    Try to keep up with the times.

                                    And you are wrong about threatening people being against the law since the nation was founded. It grew from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #7.27 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:10 PM EST
                                    gatoralum

                                    Try to keep up CK. Our legal system is based on English Common Law and Assault was and remains a crime. Here is the definition of common law assault.

                                    Common assault was an offence under the common law of England, and has been held now to be a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant.

                                    The civil rights act of 1964 has absolutley nothing to do with threats to do bodily harm being illegal. Of course I would expect one with views like your so consider laws that protect the rights of citizens who differ from you to be the font of all evils. When others finally have their rights protected you seem to thinki that someone diminishes yours. Still waiting for an example of some right of yours being diminished. Havin trouble coming up with one, aren't you?

                                      #7.28 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:16 AM EST
                                      gatoralum

                                      I guess you were right about the sexting. So, the freedom you have lost is the ability to see nude pictures of children? Can't cause a panic in a theater, can't bring a gun on a plane and can't look at nude children. Your life must be so dull now that these have been taken away.

                                        #7.29 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:22 AM EST
                                        Citizen Kane-473667

                                        So, the freedom you have lost is the ability to see nude pictures of children? Can't cause a panic in a theater, can't bring a gun on a plane and can't look at nude children.

                                        ROFLMAO!!! So you admit through your sad attempt at minimalization, denigration, and justification that indeed Rights are being lost!

                                        Thank you for at least admitting to the truth; that indeed shows the maturity needed to continue to re-examine the issues of other rights that are affected. The queation would be would you approach the discussion with an open mind or continue on with the thinly veiled contempt for the messenger for delivering the news you so desperately wish were not true?

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #7.30 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:59 AM EST
                                        gatoralum

                                        Yes, Your right to satisfy your urge to see naked children; your right to cause a panic by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater and your right to take a loades firearm onto a plane. Those things are not allowed. The right to yell fire in a crowded theater never existed. Did you miss that earlier? As for the right to carry a firearm on a plane, if that ever existed, it was correctly curtailed when people started using those weapons ti hijack those planes. As for child pornography, the single incident you cited resulted in the charged being dropped. That being said, there is no freedom to traffic in nude photogrpaphs of children and there never had been. Can you point to a time in our history when it was perfectly legal to trade in nude and sexually suggestive photographs of children? Got new for you, CK. if you were trading such phootgraphs in the past, you were breaking the law. Back to the original question you are having such a hard time answering. What freedom have you lost. You defiend lost above and it does involve something you once had being taken away. Do you think that you used to have the right to possess and trade nude photograpsh of underage boys or girls? Do you think you once had the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater? Do you think you once had the right to take a loaded firearm onto a plane? Your answer will let us know how truly delusional your version of history must be. Go ahead, Enlighten us with proof that these "freedoms" existed in the past.

                                        And I do not have "thinly veiled contempt" for you. I have rather obvious contempt for idiotic things you have posted in your pathetically failed attempt to share with us what freedoms you have lost. I have done nothing more than use YOUR examples of lost freedoms.

                                          #7.31 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:48 AM EST
                                          Citizen Kane-473667

                                          The right to yell fire in a crowded theater never existed.

                                          It was legal before it was illegal and because of pranksters doing so is what led to the ban in the first place. You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

                                          As for the right to carry a firearm on a plane, if that ever existed, it was correctly curtailed when people started using those weapons ti hijack those planes.

                                          Really? I would think that having armed passengers that exceeded the number of armed hijackers would be a much better deterrent. Dead passengers are worthless for negotiating with and being out gunned is a big detriment to using guns for an attack in the first place which is why we have armed air marshals and pilots now isn't it?

                                          As for child pornography, the single incident you cited resulted in the charged being dropped.

                                          LoL!!! Use Google to find more cases that haven't been if you want. Try "sexting" among teens.

                                          Can you point to a time in our history when it was perfectly legal to trade in nude and sexually suggestive photographs of children?

                                          Prior to 1982 actually. This is when the first Fedral ban on child pornography was passed. Before then it was up to the States and many did not have laws specifically banning pornography and when they did, it was only on certain acts.

                                          Back to the original question you are having such a hard time answering. What freedom have you lost.

                                          See all of the above and others linked to in previous comments. Whether you and I agree that pedophiles are the lowest scum on the earth doesn't matter. The FACT is they have lost the right to view that type of pornographic material now haven't they? The FACT is you or I cannot carry a loaded gun on a plane whether we want to or not. The FACT is we cannot yell "Fire" in a theater.

                                          Therefore, the FACT is the former rights to do those things have been lost! PERIOD!

                                          All of your dumbass arguments to the contrary are just that; DUMBASS arguments!

                                          The internet is a wonderful thing. If you use it, you can indeed "Get Smarter Here".

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #7.32 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:56 PM EST
                                          tobiii

                                          Therefore, the FACT is the former rights to do those things have been lost! PERIOD!

                                          You still haven't answered the question -

                                          What freedom have YOU lost, Kane?

                                            #7.33 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:06 PM EST
                                            gatoralum

                                            I don't know what I am talking about, huh. Here, educate yourself:

                                            "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a popular metaphor and frequent paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The paraphrasing does not generally include the fact that falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from that which is truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, such as distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

                                            Have someone explain what the word Metaphor means. If you really thought that there was some Supreme Court case where they were asked to address a real case where someone yelled fire in a crowded theater you are really not the one to suggesting that others don't know what they are talking about. Your ignorance of this basic principel of constitutional law is what would make someone laugh their ass off.

                                            Pornography was illegal before a series of Supreme Court cases in the sixties and seventies that expaned first amendment protections. The Supreme Court, since the Schenk decision, has expanded greatly what is protected speech. IF you think that before 1982 people were free to possess and view child pornograpy that would be another example of how truly uninformed you are.

                                            As for your suggestion that having everyone armed with a firearm on planes would a good thing, that is beyond stupid. Do you know what a pressurized cabin is? You want morons packing heat on planes so when they shoot at the Catholic Priest they mistook for a muslim because they had five Jack and Cokes?

                                            The only dumbass arguments are the ones you have offered on your having knowledge of American Constitutional history that would embarass a fifth grader. Tell me, what state was it that allowed you to possess all of the videos of children having sex before 1982? Obviously, your knowledge of what states allowed this and which one's didn't is based on some personal experience, correct? I love drawing you "libertarians" out into taking the most absurd positions on freedom. I helps others understand that to Libertarians, freedom means doing what I want, when I want and never having to be responsible for the consequences. You want to look at two toddlers having sex? You think you should have that freedom regardless of the fact that the demand you create for it leads to some monster abusing children. That is not "your responsibility". You want to yell fire in a crowded theater? Fine. It is not your responsibility that in doing so you will create a panic that will lead to people being trampled to death. Not you responsibility. As long as you get your jollies off in these perverted ways, that is all that matters: your freedom to do what you want, is more important than the harm what you do causes to other people.

                                              #7.34 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:29 PM EST
                                              Citizen Kane-473667

                                              From the link you supplied:

                                              Literal examples

                                              People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall (London) in 1856, in Harlem in 1884,[1] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead.

                                              And from the linked citations, here is a case where someone was arrested, convicted, and served time for doing so. Now where exactly did I mention a Supreme Court case arising from it? Although again your link does prove that it has been mentioned in a Supreme Court decision limiting Free Speech and therefore removing the Right to do so.

                                              IF you think that before 1982 people were free to possess and view child pornograpy that would be another example of how truly uninformed you are

                                              Nowhere did I say ALL people were free to do so. As a matter of fact I even pointed out that it was based upon STATE laws prior to that. You say it was illegal in every state? Prove it. Oh and BTW, up until 2011, it was legal in Oregon to view child pornography online!

                                              Do you know what a pressurized cabin is?

                                              Yes I do. The question is, did you know that a window being shot out in one resulting in people being sucked out of it by a bullet hole has been proven an urban myth?

                                              As long as you get your jollies off in these perverted ways, that is all that matters: your freedom to be a prick is more important than the harm what you do causes to other people.

                                              Can't beat the facts, you are going to resort to personal attacks? Nowhere have I defended ANY behavior that is harmful to others. I have only pointed out, and rightly so, that when laws are passed that curb anti-social behavior, somone loses the freedom they had previously to engage in such behavior.

                                              In other words, I have more than proved my contention that Freedoms have indeed been lost to Facism. You have lost the debate. Will you "Man up" and admit it? It would indeed be the honorable thing to do.

                                              Or will you just continue on with the personal attacks until they are reported enough times to earn you a suspension:

                                              Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #7.35 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:08 PM EST
                                              gatoralum

                                              What personal attacks. You were asked what freedoms YOU lost. You mentioned the ability to view vidoes or photograpsh of children beiung victimized sexually. That is a freedom YOU lost. THat would certainly imply that is an activity you engaged in prior to the loss of this freedom. You also mentioned that YOU lost the freedom to cause a panic by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. When I pointed out that your belief that thee was a supreme court case that suddenly outlawed this practice was rather stupid, you come up with silly examples that have nothing to do with this nation and our freedoms. You have proven nothing by that you are about as well informed on this topic as my dog. And then you take quote that does not include the word "prick" and edit to include that. Rather dishonest of you. So, if you do not want to look at kiddie porn, do not want yell fire in a crowded theater and have no intention to taking a firearm on your next flight, tell us, what freedoms have YOU lost. What were you able to do, say, ten years ago, that you are not allowed to do today. THe key word in that sentence would be YOU.

                                                #7.36 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:05 PM EST
                                                gatoralum

                                                How about another question. Do you think people should be allowed to view child pornography? Do you think that people should be permitted to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater? Do you think anyone should be allowed to bring a concealed weapon onto a commercial flight?

                                                  #7.37 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:08 PM EST
                                                  Citizen Kane-473667

                                                  Allowed? Yes. Do? NO! Well maybe the guns on an aircraft I'm okay with....

                                                  But then I'm all for actually embracing Liberty and Freedom instead of Fascism. I'm not your momma or your daddy. Neither is Uncle Sam.

                                                  P.S. Ten years ago I could sit in a bar or restraunt smoking a cigarette in the Smoking Section. Pretty much banned everywhere--Whether The Owner Wants It Or Not!

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #7.38 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:00 AM EST
                                                  gatoralum

                                                  So you see no problem with people viewing the rape of children? That is the freedom you have lost. You see no connection between the fact that people are willing to pay to watch children being raped and the willingness of others to rape those children on camera. huh? Is has been really interesting watching your mind work its way through to this conclusion. Watching children get raped? Fine. Doing the raping? Not so good. Do you have children? Grandchildren? If they were kidnapped and their abuse videotaped, you would defend the right of anyone to watch this, right? Attempts to protect children from sexual exploitation by making it illegal to profit from this exploitation is, according to you, facism. What other steps taken to protect children do you consider facism? Child labor laws? Laws that prohibit abuse of children? Car seat laws? Products liability laws? Judging by your "moral" (hic) compass, you probably find all of these fascistic.

                                                    #7.39 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:38 AM EST
                                                    tobiii

                                                    But then I'm all for actually embracing Liberty and Freedom

                                                    This coming from the guy who can't list ONE freedom he claims to have "lost"?

                                                    Hilarious.

                                                      #7.40 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:09 PM EST
                                                      Citizen Kane-473667

                                                      tobii, you can deny all you want but the case has been presented and neither you nor gatorlum have been able to refute it. Matter of fact, gatorlum is now trying to twist it so that by not being the Facist that some people are, I'm the bad guy! I've pointed out several "Rights" that have been abridged which neither of you can deny.

                                                      Face it--you lost. I don't have to justify what I believe is or is not proper behavior in order to prove that someones Rights have been taken away. When I can smoke my cigarette while sitting in my own bar because the SCOTUS has overturned state mandated smoking bans, get back to me...

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #7.41 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:59 PM EST
                                                      gatoralum

                                                      Pathetic. We have denied both. Your claim that you lost the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater is a moronic lie. You never had that freedom. You also never had the freedom to view child pornography. Another pathetic attempt to mislead. As for guns on planes, I really don't know if at some point in time, when commercial travel began, people could take guns on planes. Allowing that today would be incredibly stupid. Frankly, CK, I expected more from you than this. You are slipping.

                                                        #7.42 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:26 AM EST
                                                        Citizen Kane-473667

                                                        You never had that freedom.

                                                        Please provide your proof.

                                                        It is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense.
                                                        —Noam Chomsky

                                                        The same can be said about any Rights.

                                                        Until a law is passed forbidding you to do something, it is legal to do so. Can anyone argue this fact? (Remember Ecstasy? The incense now on the market getting smoked by people to get high? Huffing?)

                                                        Until something is invented, discovered, or theorized and used in a particular way which is then later banned, it is legal to do so. Can anyone argue this point? (Are Phazers banned? How about Ewoks; are they a protected species? Is it illegal to fly over the dark side of the moon without your lights on?)

                                                        Once something has been made illegal to do, you no longer have the Right to do it. Can anyone argue this fact? (If I have to give examples of this, then you really don't need to be using your mothers computer without her permission!)

                                                        It is easy to refuse to accept the ideal behind the case I present; but you cannot deny that it is indeed a logical and factually presented argument.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #7.43 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:30 AM EST
                                                        gatoralum

                                                        You are the one making that asinine claim that one could knowingly and intentionally cause a panic in a public place by falsely claiming that there was a fire. You prove this idiotic assertion. If you can't, you are lying. Now you quote Noam Chomsky? Do you have any idea who he is and what he stands for. You and he are on polar opposites of just about any issue you might imagine. His absolutist position on free speech, with which I agree, does not include the freedom to do an act intended to cause harm. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you cannot engage in a criminal conspiracy, you cannot solicit another person to kill someone. These are all things one can do with speech and they are all illegal and have been since before this nation was founded. Since then, the right to free speech has expanded. Fifty years ago, most states had laws making blasphemy a crime; they had laws requiring children to pray or say the pledge of allegiance; they had laws making membership in the communist party a crime. Dirty words, let alone depictions of descriptions of sex acts, were illegal. You could be arrested and convicted for using words we use freely now. Here is a partial list of cases that, for the most part, expanded free speech. http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/cases.html Here is another that shows that there were MORE restrictions on free speech in the past but that, gradually, the Supreme Court, particularly the Warren Court, overturned the previous restrictive decisions and expanded the scope of free speech. http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases

                                                        It is simply astounding that an educated person today; with the ability to learn the truth through the click of a mouse, can be so profoundly ignorant of things like this. You need to take the time to learn before you speak.

                                                        Now the freedoms you have lost are based on things that don't exist. Ewoks? Phasers? Pretty clear who is the child here pretending to have a clue about these adult topics.

                                                          #7.44 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:58 AM EST
                                                          Citizen Kane-473667

                                                          I noticed you refuted none of my statements with case law. How come? Because all of your arguments have been based upon personal opinion of what you would LIKE the case to be; not what is the reality of the situation. If you bothered to look up the case law, you would find the dates when they were passed. This would prove you wrong which is why you won't do it.

                                                          You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you cannot engage in a criminal conspiracy, you cannot solicit another person to kill someone. These are all things one can do with speech and they are all illegal and have been since before this nation was founded.

                                                          Again; prove your claim. Everything is legal until it is made illegal. PERIOD!

                                                          Once it becomes illegal, you do not have the right to engage in that activity any longer.

                                                          PROVE ME WRONG!

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #7.45 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:41 AM EST
                                                          tobiii

                                                          Face it--you lost. I don't have to justify what I believe

                                                          You never answered the question.

                                                          Not hard to figure out where the fault lies. You couldn't come up with ONE freedom that YOU have lost. Not ONE.

                                                            #7.46 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:28 PM EST
                                                            gatoralum

                                                            I cited numerous cases to you. Try reading them. Everything is legal until it is made illegal. That is your premise? WHat a brilliant deduction. What is next. Everything is free until it is priced; everything is alive until it is dead? So, when they finally got around to making murder illegal I sure earlier incarnations of people like you decried the tyranny of the government taking away their previous right to kill others. In your view, then, every law that prohibits anything is an act of tyranny and erosion of liberty? Brilliant. You should be the Libertarian nominee for President. I am sure that these last several posts of yours, equating absolute anarchy with libertarianism will make you a hero. Thanks for the laughs at your tortured attempts to get yourself out of the hole you have dug for yourself. I hope we can continue this. Your posts are entertaining.

                                                              #7.47 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:34 PM EST
                                                              gatoralum

                                                              Tobii: He has come up with thousands. Every criminal law represents a denial to him of the freedom to do the act that is criminal. He cannot look at videos of children being sexually exploited anymore. He cannot go into crowded public venues and cause panics; he cannot phone in bomb threats to schools or hospitals. All of these are tyrannical infringements on his rights. Without the freedom to anything he wants without there being any consequence, he is oppressed.

                                                                #7.48 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:37 PM EST
                                                                Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                Hallelujah!! At least one of the two have indeed learned something!

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #7.49 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:32 PM EST
                                                                gatoralum

                                                                We both learned something. You are clueless. You make asinine claims about lost freedom and, over the course of several days, can come up with not a single non-ridiculous example of one freedom lost. All you have is that you are not allowed to do things that no sane, rational, moral person would want to do in the first place.

                                                                You also miss the sarcasm. You have lost nothing because the specific examples you gave, in addition to being specious, were false. You never had the right to view child pornography and you never had the right to falsely yell fire to cause a panic.

                                                                  #7.50 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:44 PM EST
                                                                  Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                  ou are clueless.

                                                                  A second personal attack? And still trying to deny the undeniable.

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #7.51 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:33 PM EST
                                                                  gatoralum

                                                                  Not a personal attack. Simply stating that you are unable to tell us what freedoms you have lost because you have yet to find a clue. As soon as you are able to locate those clues, I am sure you will come here and give us something other than your lost ability to watch children be raped on a videotape or to cause a panic by falsely yelling fire in a crowded public place; freedoms that could not be lost cause you were never free to do either. You certainly may have gotten your jollies doing both in the past, but you were breaking the law then.

                                                                    #7.52 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:43 PM EST
                                                                    Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                    You certainly may have gotten your jollies doing both in the past, but you were breaking the law then.

                                                                    Third personal attack. Keep up the good work!

                                                                    From the Guidelines:

                                                                    Consider, then address specific arguments and ideas put forth by others, intelligently, rather than taking the easy route and attacking them personally. A "personal attack" is defined as directly or indirectly insulting another user (or group of users), oftentimes by name-calling, labeling, making sweeping generalizations or putting words into their mouth.

                                                                    Sound familiar?

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #7.53 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:38 PM EST
                                                                    gatoralum

                                                                    I did not put a single word in your mouth. They were all, regrettably, your words. The freedoms you described as being lost to YOU. I have addressed your arguments directly. I have asked you to clarify. I have asked you direct questions you ignore. You have flopped about like a fish out of water trying to find that elusive freedom you have lost and the best you have come up with is that everything that is illegal now (murder, rape, treason) was, at some prior time, legal and that proves that laws take away freedom. Hilarious.

                                                                      #7.54 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:04 PM EST
                                                                      Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                      Whatever dude. I'm going to watch my kiddie porn of my kids playing together in the tub when they were 4 and 6 years old, throwing bubbles at each other, smack the sailboats down so hard it splashes me while I was filming it. Meanwhile, I'll smoke a cigarette since Prohibition Era laws banned marijuana, and while I'm at it, maybe I'll just call my oldest son and threaten to kick his ass for not getting home on time. Maybe I'll even tell him the next time he drinks and drives I'll kill him when he gets home. Oh wait, all that's illegal, huh?

                                                                      Yes, when we take away the rights of the pervs and @!$%#s, we also surrender our own...

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #7.55 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:31 PM EST
                                                                      gatoralum

                                                                      "When we take away the right of pervs and _________, we also surrender our own..." Wow. That will go down in history with other great defenses of free speech and expression. Right up there with "I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" and "...freedom for the thought we hate." Your contention that a video tape of your children taking a bath constitutes kiddie porn is moronic. It is not porn. It is not illegal anywhere. It says a lot about you that you see no difference between family videos of children taking a bath and videos of children forced into sex acts. And telling your son you will kick his ass for not getting home on time is also not a crime, certainly not because of the 1964 Civil Rights act, as you so cluelessly argued above. Of course, killing him would be a crime. Another freedom taken away by the fascists, right? You should certainly be allowed to smoke pot. Of course, that would not be a freedom you lost, unless you are in your 90's. Keep on plugging, there. I am sure you will eventually make a thoughtful and intelligent observation about some lost freedom somewhere. I am patient.

                                                                        #7.56 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:51 PM EST
                                                                        Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                        It is not porn.

                                                                        Yeah, right.

                                                                        And telling your son you will kick his ass for not getting home on time is also not a crime, certainly not because of the 1964 Civil Rights act, as you so cluelessly argued above.

                                                                        Still twisting words? No matter, you are still wrong.

                                                                        You should certainly be allowed to smoke pot.

                                                                        But not cigarettes right?

                                                                        I am sure you will eventually make a thoughtful and intelligent observation about some lost freedom somewhere.

                                                                        Have already done so and my last comment showed how those lost freedoms came about on the heels of well-intentioned but ill-defined legislation that criminalized relatively benign behavior of law-abiding people.

                                                                        Now since you continue to resort to personal insults both overtly and implied, I will leave you to continue your denials of the facts presented.

                                                                        Enjoy the echo chamber...

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #7.57 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:49 PM EST
                                                                        gatoralum

                                                                        You can link all you want to sites like stupidity.com (a frequent visitor to that site, I'll bet) with isolated examples and it still proves nothing. The reason those stories are out there is because they are out of the ordinary. I would provide you with the actual child porn statutes and explain what elements have to be proven, but that would just confuse you. I could explain to you the difference between a joking threat to kick your son's ass and the kind of conduct that is abusive of children and should be illegal, but you are deaf to anything but your strange ideas. I have not heard an echo in this discussion. Just a lot of empty and pathetic rhetoric. Not gonna answer the original question, though, are you? Just scurrying away with your tail between your legs, falsely claiming victory.

                                                                          #7.58 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:56 PM EST
                                                                          gatoralum

                                                                          Went to your link about threatening your child.

                                                                          So, you think Oregon law interferes with your freedom.

                                                                          Oregon law defines physical abuse as an injury to a child that is not accidental. Most parents do not intend to hurt their children, but abuse is defined by the effect on the child, not the motivation of the parents.

                                                                          Physical abuse includes:

                                                                          Bruises or cuts

                                                                          Head injuries

                                                                          Poisoning

                                                                          Fractures, sprains

                                                                          Burns or scalds

                                                                          Internal injuries

                                                                          Electrical shocks

                                                                          Death

                                                                          You have a problem with a law that prohibits parents from doing these to their children? That is just sick.

                                                                            #7.59 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:01 PM EST
                                                                            Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                            I notice you conveniently ignoring the verbal threats being illegal aren't you? Of course you are because you specifically stated:

                                                                            And telling your son you will kick his ass for not getting home on time is also not a crime,

                                                                            It is your word against your kids to an agency inclined to believe theirs over yours as the linked stories proved. And I suppose that had the couple not had the $75,000 to defend themselves in court and the year it took to het their kids back, it would be okay that they got @!$%#ed over because they deserved it for having pictures of their kids developed.

                                                                            Now back to your original question: Can I name one Right that I have lost? I have named several rights that have been lost. Whether I support the reasons behind the laws are immaterial to the fact that they have indeed been taken away.

                                                                            My case has been proven. Unless you can prove that a Right does NOT exist until it is granted by legislation, then this is an argument you cannot win.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #7.60 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:02 AM EST
                                                                            gatoralum

                                                                            Your case is bull@!$%#. One example of one child welfare agency screwing up is not proof of anything other than one welfare agency screwed up. The fact that they won proves that your claim that there is a systemic destruction of rights is garbage. The Courts protect rights when the human beings that work in these systems screw up or overstep their bounds. More importantly, you have no @!$%#ing idea what the facts were in that case. You have no idea if they were taken away improperly or not. You have a news story. Nothing more. You know what you have in Court? Evidence. Sworn testimony, documents. In other words, proof.

                                                                            You cannot even identify the "right" you claim was lost, let alone how it was lost. You ignore the fact that your claim that you once had a right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater to cause a panic is a stupid lie. No one ever had that right. Likewise, your claim that possession of child pornography was a right is false. The laws that specifically identified child pornography were in response to court decisions that ruled unconstitutional the laws that existed that attempted to ban all pornographic materials. In other words, the Courts expanded free speech rights with regard to pornography and the legislation was enacted to clarify just where the line was drawn. Depictions of children actually engaged in sexual acts has always been illegal. Of course, you will continue to claim, falsely, otherwise. Your belief that you have "proven" anything stems from your complete and utter ignorance of the history of supreme court decisions on free expression and pornography and your complete inability to read and understand the laws involved.

                                                                            You cannot even name the rights you claim were lost, let alone explain how they were lost.

                                                                              #7.61 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:34 AM EST
                                                                              Sally

                                                                              We both learned something. You are clueless.

                                                                              Come on now, gatoralum. You should know better by now. You are suspended for a month for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.

                                                                              Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

                                                                              Last chance.

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              #7.62 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:12 AM EST
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              Ladyinred1

                                                                              Obama = Kenyan, = Muslim terrorist = socialist = the Anti Christ. Remember? So, likely as not to these "terrorists" that conclusion makes it perfectly all right to start a war, assassinate the President, etc., etc.

                                                                              And somebody above called the government sick? This is a mere social group that stockpiles automatic weapons and grenades to what? Show each other their newest toy? To target shoot? Oh, please people. Think, really think!!!

                                                                              • 7 votes
                                                                              Reply#8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:14 PM EST
                                                                              MJMullinII

                                                                              Ah right-wing word associations! I love this.

                                                                              My favorite however is--

                                                                              "Elitist" = uppity

                                                                              and "Muslim" = black.

                                                                              Once you get that one down, everything else said by the right-wing (like one of those "magic eye" puzzles where the blur of colors suddenly becomes a spaceship when viewed just right, etc.) comes into focus.

                                                                                #8.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:02 PM EST
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                JoMan

                                                                                "It was a conclusion that was brought to be supported by facts, facts that were manipulated," he said.

                                                                                So says the defense attorney who is given a license to lie and say anything to get the criminals they represent off.

                                                                                I wonder why in our court system the prosecution is able only to give half the facts and none of the history on an incident or the people brought to stand trial and yet the defense is able to lie and weave all sorts of fantasies to set that person free.

                                                                                It's better than the alternative, I guess, but not when the criminals are the only ones that know how to play the system.

                                                                                  Reply#9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:17 PM EST
                                                                                  sobi

                                                                                  The prosecution is limited to the elements of the crime. The government is not suppsed to be able to jail people for personalities.

                                                                                  There is more leniency for the defence because it is a Goliath vs David scenario. Battling the government with its immense and sometimes limitless resources is not exactly equal walking in.

                                                                                  • 3 votes
                                                                                  #9.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:56 PM EST
                                                                                  elpkidd

                                                                                  Graveline showed the jury a video clip of leader David Stone declaring, "Welcome to the revolution." The government placed an undercover agent inside the Hutaree and also had a paid informant. More than 100 hours of audio and video were recorded.

                                                                                  Todd Shanker, attorney for David Stone Jr., acknowledged there are "offensive statements" on the recordings but said the words were "almost fantasy" made among people who were comfortable with each other.

                                                                                  Welcome to the revolution? More than 100 hours of audio and video? Almost fantasy? Even the defense attorney isn't sure it's not fantasy?

                                                                                  He told jurors the government was displaying weapons in court to "make you afraid."

                                                                                  The automatic weapons seem more like evidence to me. The attorney is right though, automatic weapons and people talking violence should scare any peace loving person.

                                                                                  • 3 votes
                                                                                  #9.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:10 PM EST
                                                                                  sobi

                                                                                  Ready, willing, and able is not criminal. A conspiracy is a real plan, not wishful speech.

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  #9.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:15 PM EST
                                                                                  elpkidd

                                                                                  Having automatic weapons is a crime, unless you are military on duty or a law enforcement officer. Conspiracy starts with plans to come up with a plan.

                                                                                  The defendants are accused of conspiring to someday ambush and kill a police officer, then attack the funeral procession with explosives and trigger a broader revolt against the U.S. government.

                                                                                  Sounds like they had a plan, but were just waiting for the opportunity to act on it.

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  #9.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:26 PM EST
                                                                                  sobi

                                                                                  One might as well say conspiracy begins at birth.

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  #9.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:36 PM EST
                                                                                  Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                  It is legal to own full-auto weapons if you have the right permit(s) including non-military and non-LEO citizens.

                                                                                  How to apply for a license for a fully automatic weapon.

                                                                                  Here is the list of weapons which must be registered with the BATF to own.

                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                  #9.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:12 PM EST
                                                                                  JoMan

                                                                                  I'm starting to think a few of the posters on here have their own anti-government militia group started up. Remember, it's ok to meet together and have your little hobbies... it's your intent that matters. Keep a grip on your paranoid fantasies and don't act them out in our real world please.

                                                                                    #9.7 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:09 PM EST
                                                                                    sobi

                                                                                    No amount of disdain will keep you safe from excessive government. It will take armed neighbours. You should be more respectful--just in case, huh? It isn't like government is growing more liberal and more protective of your civil rights on a daily basis--it is the other way around.

                                                                                    Who is the bumpkin is up for debate.

                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                    #9.8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:14 PM EST
                                                                                    JoMan

                                                                                    No amount of disdain will keep you safe from excessive government. It will take armed neighbours

                                                                                    If you don't mind the people in this photo, with these weapons or those ideals living next to you, (Hutaree has been linked to a number of violent crimes and illegal activity) you are one of them (or fishing for more nut cases and then I thank you). If I need guns it will be to protect myself from the likes of you. I hope NONE of you live next to me... in my one level 1200 ft home. I am of humble means and hard working days, I enjoy my American freedom and civil rights... but I'm not a crazy f*ck.

                                                                                      #9.9 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:03 PM EST
                                                                                      sobi

                                                                                      Debatable. I don't employ the histrionic terms, but I do prefer thinking people.

                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                      #9.10 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:23 PM EST
                                                                                      gatoralum

                                                                                      There are specific elements of the crime of conspiracy that must be proven:

                                                                                      1. An agreement.
                                                                                      2. An unlawful object (ie, a criminal offense).
                                                                                      3. Knowledge and intent.
                                                                                      4. An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

                                                                                      The agreement must be to commit a crime. To be guilty, you must share the intent to commit the crime. There must also be an overt act. Some step taken towards the culmination of the conspiracy. If two people agree that they will bait a police officer and kill him when he responds and one of them secures the weapon to do so, that is all the proof needed to establish the conspiracy.
                                                                                      That being said, this may be a dificult case for the government to win absent proof of more than the statements by the defendants about what they want to do, rather than what they were actually planning to do. The Judge precluded the government from using an expert to testify about conspiracy theories generally shared by these kind of mental defects (They were Alex Jones, fans. A sure sign of profound mental illness). Here is that Opinion: http://ia700309.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.mied.247447/gov.uscourts.mied.247447.632.0.pdf

                                                                                        #9.11 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:16 PM EST
                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                        john-482021

                                                                                        Sounds like another typical moron fake christian group living in delusion. I doubt if rehab would work. At least half the people in our country are fake christians like this. They are just a production of our christian church living the way they are taught. Fake christianity is all about hate and bigotry and delusion and control. Terrorism begins in the church. These folks just had a delusion of being the next right wing hero like Tim Mvveigh or the abortion doctor killer.

                                                                                        • 6 votes
                                                                                        Reply#10 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:19 PM EST
                                                                                        Mary-471639

                                                                                        that the Hutaree really was more of a "social club"

                                                                                        Yeah, okay. we wear bullet proof vests, with our automatic weapons at my knitting club too. sarc/

                                                                                        • 8 votes
                                                                                        Reply#11 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:22 PM EST
                                                                                        Susan-649485

                                                                                        Yes, my club too. But I have to register my knitting needles as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        #11.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:09 PM EST
                                                                                        Mary-471639

                                                                                        LOL Susan, is your social club the one behind the Valentines Day Knitting Needle Massacre?

                                                                                        • 4 votes
                                                                                        #11.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:19 PM EST
                                                                                        Susan-649485

                                                                                        I must confess that I was the leader of the massacre.

                                                                                        They'd dissed my hand-knit socks. What else could I do?

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        #11.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:24 PM EST
                                                                                        Mary-471639

                                                                                        Uh, did I tell you, how beautiful your hand knitted socks are? They are, they really are. lol

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        #11.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:30 PM EST
                                                                                        Susan-649485

                                                                                        LOL

                                                                                        Thank you!

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        #11.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:32 PM EST
                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                        Spike Eng2

                                                                                        Top row far right..is that a male or female ?

                                                                                          Reply#12 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:24 PM EST
                                                                                          sobi

                                                                                          Female. Look at jawlines. You will see a difference between the facial structure of males vs females.

                                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                                          #12.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:27 PM EST
                                                                                          Reply
                                                                                          EJCanavan

                                                                                          I guess I will just wait for the facts. Considering the undercover officer provided the transportation and the means does make it seem as though it was baited, or questionable at least. I sure hope none of you are accused of something, have the charges embellished and then found guilty all before you stand trial. I am curious how they plotted this without even a mode of transportation !

                                                                                          • 5 votes
                                                                                          Reply#13 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:32 PM EST
                                                                                          roadhead

                                                                                          I agree with you EJC, in the fact that the UCO provided the means to assist a possible crime, sure does sound like entrapment. If the authorities were watching this group closely enough to get all the evidence they purport to have, why didn't they wait till these people actually had a real plan?

                                                                                          Talking crazy or ignorantly is not a crime or we would have half the current political parties and their backers locked up, along with a @!$%# load of radio and TV nut jobs. If there was evidence of an actual crime, these people would be charged with such, not just vague gun charges and even vaguer conspiracy charges.

                                                                                          I may not agree with their actions but the governments actions were even worse. Until these people had an actual plan ready to place in motion, it is nothing more than hate talk, which even though offensive is still allowable under the first amendment. The government jumped the gun on this group for whatever reason. To instill fear, to justify their jobs, to lead to favorable press to push an agenda of limiting freedoms, or any other possible scenario, must bring into question the governments motives.

                                                                                          That the group was being watched so closely and they still didn't have any actual plan to commit crimes, just boasting and bragging of revolution, means the government can use this group to advocate for their stand on limiting freedoms. Just because there are so many people in this country who are afraid of shadows, boogie men, and any other possible conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that anyone who says something that we don't like or agree with should be locked up.

                                                                                          Locking up this group, with as little evidence of true malicious intent as the government appears to have, is a slippery slope that can have anyone arrested just for saying something that TPTB don't like. I look at this as kind of a prequel as to what the NDAA can do to any of us if the government deems us as unfriendly to their beliefs or wants. I'll take my chances of getting shot or blown up, over giving up even more freedoms and liberties because too many people are scared of every boogie man that the government says is out to get us.

                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                          #13.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:51 AM EST
                                                                                          trex-138069

                                                                                          Well, that raises the ethical question that comes up so often in cases like this. If you have evidence of violent intent, do you wait until someone gets hurt to do something about it? People who are harassed and threatened by stalkers were frequently told by police that "we can't do anything about it until he hurts you." After a few incidents like the murder of Rebecca Schaefer, state legislatures started rethinking that one. If there had been good evidence of what Timothy McVeigh was planning, would it have been wrong to lure him into a fake weapons deal and then arrest him when you had enough evidence, before he blew up the Murrah building?

                                                                                            #13.2 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:12 AM EST
                                                                                            Reply
                                                                                            Philip Grant

                                                                                            Hello, is anyone there?

                                                                                            They're defense attorneys. What did you expect them say, "my clients are as guilty as sin?"

                                                                                            • 5 votes
                                                                                            Reply#14 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:33 PM EST
                                                                                            Belinda_Joy

                                                                                            The US government did exactly what they should have. I say, better to err on the side of being perceived as overly aggressive by some, than have something horrific happen and be accused of not being aggressive enough by all.

                                                                                            People like this, those that have fringe ideas about how our government should be are annoying. Quick to call others socialists, communists and the like, yet they behave as if THEY are from Russia. It's always the ones that shout the loudest about how horrible our government is, that refuse to leave and move to another country. You could offer them a one way plane ticket to any country in the world and they would turn it down.

                                                                                            Curious isn't it.....

                                                                                            • 4 votes
                                                                                            Reply#15 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:35 PM EST
                                                                                            sobi

                                                                                            Conformists who would toss liberty out the window are annoying. And dangerous.

                                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                                            #15.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:42 PM EST
                                                                                            trex-138069

                                                                                            And conformists who are convinced that their religion orders them to do so are the worst. These guys are nearly indistinguishable from the Taliban, although obviously a lot less competent in military skills.

                                                                                            • 8 votes
                                                                                            #15.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:57 PM EST
                                                                                            tobiii

                                                                                            The US government did exactly what they should have.

                                                                                            You mean drop all charges?

                                                                                            Just like they did with the Black Panther voter intimidation case because of the possibility of "bad press"?

                                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                                            #15.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:33 PM EST
                                                                                            trex-138069

                                                                                            Actually, the charges against the New Black Panthers was dropped because there was no case. And it was Bush's Justice Dept. that drew that conclusion. Those guys were obviously NOT intimidating voters -- just look at the video. Do you see a single person prevented from entering the polls? No, you see people going in and coming out looking perfectly unconcerned. The NBP guys were obviously there to try to PREVENT voter intimidation, because they were afraid of the tactics that were used for years and years in the Jim Crow South to keep black Americans from exercising their rights to vote. It was a stupid thing to do, as they found out, but their worries about voter suppression were not unjustified.

                                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                                            #15.4 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:10 AM EST
                                                                                            gatoralum

                                                                                            There were no "charges" against the New Black Panthers in teh first place. THe BUSH DOJ brought a civil action that was later dropped against the organixation but resulted in an order against the individuals to refrain from any anti voting activity.

                                                                                              #15.5 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:52 AM EST
                                                                                              Reply
                                                                                              Alan-2157132

                                                                                              Revolting against oppressive government is one thing. But to plot terrorist activities to further your agenda is quite another and should be dealt with severely.

                                                                                              • 5 votes
                                                                                              Reply#16 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:37 PM EST
                                                                                              Multiplayer.

                                                                                              I see those photos and banjo music comes to mind. I don't know why though. :)

                                                                                              • 3 votes
                                                                                              Reply#17 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:42 PM EST
                                                                                              Rizzo311

                                                                                              Yeah the one lady there is probably all of their momma/cousin, momma/sister or aunt/cousin.

                                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                                              #17.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:06 PM EST
                                                                                              Reply
                                                                                              trex-138069

                                                                                              Of course the defense attorneys are going to try to present their clients' activities in the most benign possible light. DUH! I assume that when the prosecution presented their case, they characterized the Hutaree as the spawn of Satan. The jury will have to sort it out. That's what they're for.

                                                                                              • 3 votes
                                                                                              Reply#18 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:49 PM EST
                                                                                              MarkD-555

                                                                                              Guilt or innocence I will pass on commenting on, but I just wanted to point something out:

                                                                                              ---

                                                                                              William Swor, attorney for David Stone, said his client was a firm believer in the Bible's book of Revelation and the coming of an "anti-Christ."

                                                                                              "The anti-Christ as David Stone understands it will come from overseas, and the troops of the anti-Christ will take over America. That is the resistance that David Stone was preparing for," Swor said.

                                                                                              This is the DEFENSE ATTORNEY talking. Delusions of prophesy, paranoia, monsters, and coming war = A-ok if it's from the Bible. This is him attempting to make him look good.

                                                                                              • 7 votes
                                                                                              Reply#19 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:49 PM EST
                                                                                              trex-138069

                                                                                              And did he mention whether or not Stone thinks that President Obama comes from "beyond the seas?" Actually, he does, but Hawai'i is a state of the union. Birthers, of course, are capable of believing at least as much garbage as fundamentalists who think they understand the Book of Revelation.

                                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                                              #19.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:53 PM EST
                                                                                              Reply
                                                                                              rational thought-3748544

                                                                                              They are going to fail and they are going to fail miserably," said Shanker, adding later that the Hutaree really was more of a "social club" than any organized militia.

                                                                                              A social club, really? At the least they were stockpiling illegal weapons. There must be a basis for the charges or the govt. wouldn't be trying them. After all the govt, had and infiltrator and an informant in their group. Of course, the defense is going to downplay the actions of this group. That's their job.

                                                                                              • 5 votes
                                                                                              Reply#20 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:58 PM EST
                                                                                              voxrationis

                                                                                              That is such BS. They are simply extending their conspiracy theories into the courtroom. These type of people need to be locked up. They always want to be taken seriously until someone calls them on it.

                                                                                              • 3 votes
                                                                                              Reply#21 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:01 PM EST
                                                                                              sobi

                                                                                              Sometimes I think we are doomed. The indoctrination is so pervasive and stubbornly fixed. It is like reasoning with the tide. .

                                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                                              #22 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:02 PM EST
                                                                                              crazyrooster1946

                                                                                              sobi: Is it your opinion that these people are guilty of no crime? Do you think the Govt. should have waited till they had sufficient dead bodies to charge them with a crime? How, if you were in charge, would you have dealt with this case? Other than objecting to the charges against these people, what is your position in this case? Do you have first hand knowledge you wish to share with us? Please take a moment and explain your reasoning! Thanks in advance for your honest response!

                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                              #22.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:21 PM EST
                                                                                              sobi

                                                                                              It is not illegal to be angry with one's government. It is not illegal to prepare for war. It is not illegal to do both simultaneously.

                                                                                              Unless there was a specific plan, complete with dates, targets, etc., the government overstepped. As inconvenient as the government may find it, it is supposed to wait until a crime is committed before charging people with a crime.

                                                                                              I can say who sounds backwoods to me are the people who assume that government is somehow acting in benevolent intent and without ever permitting ambition to impact their decisions. That is so unaware as to be frightening.

                                                                                              • 3 votes
                                                                                              #22.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:34 PM EST
                                                                                              Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                              Is it your opinion that these people are guilty of no crime?

                                                                                              Not until the trial is over and guilt is proven...

                                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                                              #22.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:43 PM EST
                                                                                              crazyrooster1946

                                                                                              Citizen Kane: If they are convicted of crimes due to this case, will you then think them guilty? Or will you actually think that it was a conspiracy by the Govt. that caused them to be falsely convicted?

                                                                                              sobi: If they were in possession of illegal weapons, would that in your mind make them guilty of a crime? I am just trying to understand the logic that you are using in your defense of the people that have been accused? At this point, I don't know how much guilt of any crime these people are accused of is accurate. I am just trying to understand how you can be so adamant about their innocence unless you have access to information that the general public does not.

                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                              #22.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:32 PM EST
                                                                                              sobi

                                                                                              You misread me. It is the government that I consider the greater threat, and thus properly compelled to submit a valid indictment--not a prediction.

                                                                                              • 3 votes
                                                                                              #22.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:57 PM EST
                                                                                              rational thought-3748544

                                                                                              If believe the govt. is being nefarious in this case, why are they bothering with having an open trial for these individuals? Under the Patriot Act these individuals could be legally held indefinitely without charges and tried in a secret military court. Think about it.

                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                              #22.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:32 PM EST
                                                                                              Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                              Citizen Kane: If they are convicted of crimes due to this case, will you then think them guilty?

                                                                                              Yes.

                                                                                              Or will you actually think that it was a conspiracy by the Govt. that caused them to be falsely convicted?

                                                                                              Yes again.

                                                                                              I know it sounds confusing but I have witnessed trials where pertinent information was not brought forth both by the prosecution AND the defense because they feared it might undermine their case for various reasons . Had the jury had access to the information and the judge, it might have drastically altered the final outcome.

                                                                                              On the other hand Troy Davis is a name that has come to memorialize prosecutorial misconduct.

                                                                                              For those reasons, even a verdict of "guilty" would leave room for doubt--even though I would also believe them guilty.

                                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                                              #22.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:54 PM EST
                                                                                              tobiii

                                                                                              a name that has come to memorialize prosecutorial misconduct.

                                                                                              No, that name has come to identify why appeals to emotion are totally pointless and useless when it comes to the law and the actual case.

                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                              #22.8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:23 AM EST
                                                                                              Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                              Opinion of guilt does not change fact the trial is infamous for allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

                                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                                              #22.9 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:36 AM EST
                                                                                              tobiii

                                                                                              opinion of guilt

                                                                                              "Opinions" have ZERO weight when every Courtroom from the County Courthouse all the way up the US Supreme Court found him GUILTY.

                                                                                              He was found guilty, sentenced, and executed. The fact that it took 22 years (and untold millions of dollars) before his execution demonstrates why capital punishment is hardly considered "punishment" anymore.

                                                                                                #22.10 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:44 AM EST
                                                                                                Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                                (..)

                                                                                                Yep he was guilty alright...of being railroaded! Witnesses recant testimony, admit to being pressured to finger Davis, his picture being shown to them before he was put into a lineup, exculpatory evidence suppressed by the D.A..

                                                                                                Perfect example of exemplary conduct by police and prosecutors.

                                                                                                All appeals were denied because they were based on legal challenges to the original trial. Each time it was denied upon appeal the judge ruled that the evidence presented would not have changed the original jury members minds. Yet when some of the jury members were asked if the evidence presented would have changed their minds about the murder conviction, they said it would have.

                                                                                                You really should study up on the case, subsequent investigations, and news reports a little more. I have an advantage of living in Georgia where we got bombarded by local news covering the whole thing.

                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                #22.11 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:19 PM EST
                                                                                                tobiii

                                                                                                I have an advantage of living in Georgia where we got bombarded by local news covering the whole thing.

                                                                                                Relying on the media's appeal to emotion. Got it.

                                                                                                Nevermind all the Courts, the Judges, the decisions, all the way up to the Supreme Court - He was innocent because you "heard it on TV".

                                                                                                That would be due to the media's "appeal to emotion", Kane.

                                                                                                Anyhoo, we've wandered off on a rabbit trail here. Back on topic with the thread.

                                                                                                  #22.12 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:00 PM EST
                                                                                                  sobi

                                                                                                  There is some reason an example of prosecutor abuse is off topic? Do tell,what might that be?

                                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                                  #22.13 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:16 PM EST
                                                                                                  tobiii

                                                                                                  sobi -

                                                                                                  That's not an example. That's an appeal to emotion.

                                                                                                    #22.14 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:34 PM EST
                                                                                                    sobi

                                                                                                    That it has the capacity to arouse emotion in no way negates that it is one of extreme prosecutor abuse. The same subject as here.

                                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                                    #22.15 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:37 PM EST
                                                                                                    tobiii

                                                                                                    Had it been prosecutor "abuse", sobi, it would have been identified in any one of the MULTIPLE appeals over the span of twenty two years - it wasn't.

                                                                                                      #22.16 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:05 PM EST
                                                                                                      sobi

                                                                                                      Sure it was. Appeals are limited to what was available knowledge at the original trial. That precludes nothing.

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      #22.17 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:26 PM EST
                                                                                                      Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                                      tobii, Easy to see that you haven't bothered to read any links provided or do any research of your own. I suppose I should thank you and people of your particular mindset for protecting society from these monsters too...

                                                                                                      I'm sure they ALL appreciate your impartiality.

                                                                                                      I know I do! /s

                                                                                                      sobi. some people have already made up their minds before they open their mouths. Some are too stupid or stubborn to consider any evidence that doesn't agree with their particular beliefs. Sometimes it is because they have a personal stake in the situation like bad cops on steroids defending their Bothers in Blue or prosecutors willing to break laws to rack up wins regardless of whether or not a person is actually guilty or innocent of the charges levied against them. At other times they may be family members or friends who are just looking for somebody to pay for the crime--anybody. If it fits their personal boogie man a la black criminal type or white KKK member, all the better.

                                                                                                      On the other hand, sometimes there is no personal stake. Some people are just @!$%#s by nature and cannot carry on an intelligent debate to save their own life. Commonly referred to as "Trolls" on the internet, they pop into hot button topics and sling inflammatory statements without anything really to stake their claims upon; just to get a rise out of the community.

                                                                                                      All of the above are useless to try to convince to change their minds or even to open their minds to differing opinions or evidence which may not agree with their preconceived convictions. Anyone who was trully here to "Get Smarter" would take the time to open their minds and examine the contradictory evidence before they end up making a complete ass of themselves...

                                                                                                      Don't waste your time.

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      #22.18 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:57 PM EST
                                                                                                      sobi

                                                                                                      Yes. I had no delusions about suddenly opening minds. It is just occasionally necessary that I remind people that we perceive them as non-thinking primates. It makes me happy.

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      #22.19 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:31 PM EST
                                                                                                      gatoralum

                                                                                                      Sobi and CK. When either one of you have actually read the federal court opinion addressing the bogus claims of Davis that witnesses had recanted or that he was the victim of police and prosecutorial misconduct, or the transcript of the hearing where these supposedly recanting witnesses testifed, you can talk about having an open mind. Since your conclusions about that case prove you did neither, your talk of open minds is hypocrisy.

                                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                                      #22.20 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:57 PM EST
                                                                                                      sobi

                                                                                                      Correction Delusional primates.

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      #22.21 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:56 PM EST
                                                                                                      gatoralum

                                                                                                      Would delusional include believing facts about, say, what evidence was offered at a hearing in a criminal case, without ever bothering to learn what that evidence was? Is that delusional or just being close minded?

                                                                                                        #22.22 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:44 PM EST
                                                                                                        Citizen Kane-473667

                                                                                                        Closed minded would be to insist that he was either guilty or innocent, which neither sobi or I have done, and to this I would agree with you.

                                                                                                        And do you really think I would be arguing for something I hadn't looked into? From the Georgia State Supreme Court decision:

                                                                                                        The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded this way:

                                                                                                        Particularly in this death penalty case where a man might soon be executed, we have endeavored to look beyond bare legal principles that might otherwise be controlling to the core question of whether a jury presented with Davis’s allegedly-new testimony would probably find him not guilty or give him a sentence other than death. In that spirit, we have chosen to focus primarily on one of the required showings for an extraordinary motion for new trial, the requirement that the new evidence be “so material that it would probably produce a different verdict.” In weighing this new evidence, we do not ignore the testimony presented at trial, and, in fact, we favor that original testimony over the new. At least one original witness has never recanted his in-court identification of Davis as the shooter, which included a description of his clothing and the location he was in when

                                                                                                        (Bolding is mine)

                                                                                                        1. Judge admits they disregarded whether or not his appeal fit the legal requirements neccessary to have a new trial ordered.
                                                                                                        2. Judges decide the new evidence would not have changed the outcome; which has been proven false.
                                                                                                        3. Again the judge admits that they will ignore any other presented evidence and chooses to focus on only the ONE aspect which has been proven false; whether or not it would have changed a jurors mind at the trial.
                                                                                                        4. The judge openly admits that eye witnesses have indeed changed their minds and recanted their testimony.

                                                                                                        Now all of this is seriously straying off topic since it has moved away from the defendants in question to focusing on Troy Davis.

                                                                                                        Shall we agree to disagree and get back on topic?

                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                        #22.23 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:36 PM EST
                                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                                        Belinda_Joy

                                                                                                        I'm betting all I own that they are all relatives AND lovers.

                                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                                        Reply#23 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:50 PM EST
                                                                                                        sobi

                                                                                                        The suspects, or the FBI?

                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                        #23.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:53 AM EST
                                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                                        Flashypaws

                                                                                                        looks to me like they could just lock em all up for possession of meth.

                                                                                                          Reply#24 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:41 AM EST
                                                                                                          nospin1

                                                                                                          Feds manipulating facts. Never happen under the Obama admin /sarc

                                                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                                                          Reply#25 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:14 AM EST
                                                                                                          Leave a Comment:
                                                                                                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                                          FUN STUFF:
                                                                                                          • Leaderboard |
                                                                                                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                                          • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                                          • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                                          • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                                          • The Greenhouse
                                                                                                          COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                                          • Code of Honor |
                                                                                                          • Company Info |
                                                                                                          • Contact Us |
                                                                                                          • Jobs |
                                                                                                          • User Agreement |
                                                                                                          • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                                          • About our ads
                                                                                                          LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com