Domestic Terrorism

Adelante · **Posted:** Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:48 pm

Quote:

Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say

The threat of domestic terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week's fatal bombing and assault in Norway is significant and growing, analysts said Monday.

The greatest threat of large-scale attacks come from individuals and small groups of extremists who subscribe to radical Islamic or far right-wing ideologies, said Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START. ...

Such groups are among the fastest-growing extremist organizations in the country, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in February. Right wing anti-government groups grew by 60% in 2010 over the previous year, the center reported, attributing much of the growth to militia groups. ...

But a divisive political climate, often coupled with personal disappointments and a personality receptive to extreme views, can help turn believers into dangerous actors willing to use violence to further their ideological beliefs, Levin said, adding that he believes the greatest threat is not from large organized groups but rather individuals or small cells. ...

"Some people believe we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to domestic right-wing extremists," [Ackerman] said.

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:04 am

This is an interview at SPLC with the analyst who wrote the controversial DHS report on right wing extremism, about how it all went down. The administration really went wrong on this one, imo.

Inside the DHS: Former Top Analyst Says Agency Bowed to Political Pressure

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:55 am

I only see this reported by Fox, so far.

Quote:

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Military Serviceman Arrested in Alleged Attack on Fort Hood

At least one U.S. military serviceman has been arrested after raising concerns over another possible attack on Fort Hood, Fox News has learned exclusively.

According to an Army source, one AWOL soldier is in the custody of the Killeen Police Department near Fort Hood. He was not captured on base. According to another source, two other U.S. soldiers were also arrested earlier today after authorities recovered weapons and explosives.

Fox News has obtained the names of the three suspects, but is currently withholding that information.

Sources say the AWOL soldier in custody is from Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

It's unclear if any possible attack was merely aspirational in nature.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:52 am

So why won't the SPLC come on RC Radio? I have called and all they do is put me on their mass email list to beg for money.

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:30 pm

Statesman

Quote:

Soldier had bomb-making materials in Killeen motel room, officials say ...

Employees at Guns Galore, a popular Killeen firearms shop, alerted police to Abdo after he made a purchase there, officials said. Guns Galore is the same store where Maj. Nidal Hasan purchased the gun, ammunition and laser sights that witnesses testified he used during the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting massacre at the post.

Abdo, whose hometown is Garland, entered the Army in March of 2009 and was assigned to the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky., when he went AWOL on July 4, Wright said.

While serving at Fort Campbell, Abdo told ABC News that “no Muslim should serve in the U.S. military” and said his faith had pushed him to file for conscientious objector status. His scheduled deployment to Afghanistan was deferred, an Army spokesperson told ABC News at the time.

George Wright, an Army spokesman, said Abdo was granted conscientious objector status shortly before he was charged with possession of child pornography in May. Abdo underwent an Article 32 pretrial evidentiary hearing in June and was recommended for a general court-martial. But before the trial began, Abdo went AWOL, Wright said.

Wright said he was not aware of anything linking Abdo to a larger plot among soldiers against Army installations.

Adelante · **Posted:** Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:42 pm

Reuters

Quote:

WACO, Texas (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors on Friday charged a U.S. Army soldier suspected of hatching a terror plot against the military with illegal possession of a firearm.

The charge, filed in federal court in Waco, Texas, was the first of what could be other accusations against Naser Jason Abdo, arrested on Wednesday in possession of suspected bomb-making materials.

Abdo had gone missing over the July 4 weekend from his home base of Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Police said on Thursday that his detention in Killeen, Texas may have foiled an attack on the nearby Fort Hood base.

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:25 pm

TPM Muckraker

Quote:

FBI Expanding Interaction With Local Agencies To Combat Militia Extremists

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has expanded their interaction with other federal and state agencies to combat militia extremists, the bureau said in a blog post this week.

"In addition to our lawful use of sophisticated investigative techniques, we've expanded our work with other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and with our state and local partners," the FBI said in the blog post.

"And we use intelligence and analysis to help identify gaps in our knowledge, emerging tactics and trends, and effective investigative strategies," the post states.

Using the case against nine members of the Michigan-based Hutaree militia as an example, the FBI writes that militia extremists "usually go after the government itself -- including law enforcement personnel, representatives of the courts, and other public officials, along with government buildings."

"Militia extremists often subscribe to various conspiracy theories regarding government," the FBI's blog post says. "One of their primary theories is that the United Nations -- which they refer to as the New World Order, or NWO -- has the right to use its military forces anywhere in the world (it doesn't, of course).

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:35 am

tpm:
First Defendant To Plead Guilty In Hutaree Militia Plot

Quote:

Ryan J. Reilly November 2, 2011, 3:55 PM

Joshua Clough, one of nine members of the Hutaree militia in Michigan arrested by federal authorities in the spring of 2010, will be the first militia member to plead guilty.

Clough — also known as “Mouse” — has a plea hearing scheduled for Nov. 8, according to a court notification first reported by the Detroit Free Press. The details of his guilty plea weren’t clear and his lawyer did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment.

The Detroit Free Press reports that another defendants, Jacob Ward, has been declared incompetent to stand trial. The cases against the other defendants is set to go to trial on Feb. 7.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpb

It sounds like Mouse made a deal to testify against the others.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9335

The latest twist in the Hutareetard saga is that the prosecution's "conspiracy expert" has failed to pass muster in a Daubert hearing.

From the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Quote:

District Court Judge in Hutaree Case Rejects Government’s Conspiracy Theory Expert
Eugene Volokh • February 3, 2012 3:12 am

An interesting opinion in United States v. Stone (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2012); this isn’t my field, so I can’t opine on it with confidence, but the decision strikes me as likely right. Here’s an excerpt:

Quote:

On November 30, 2011, the Government notified Defendants that it intended to call an “Academic Expert,” Professor Michael Barkun, to testify concerning his research into conspiracy belief and theories. In response to Defendants’ motion to preclude Dr. Barkun’s testimony, the Government admitted that a hearing pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ( “Daubert hearing”) was necessary to test the admissibility of Professor Barkun’s testimony.

Before the hearing, the Government provided Defendants with a longer, more concrete Rule 16(a)(1)(G) summary of Dr. Barkun’s proposed testimony, containing notice that Dr. Barkun will testify about conspiracy subcultures, beliefs and theories; and theories such as “stigmatized knowledge,” “New World Order” and the “Illuminati.” The Government also intends to ask Dr. Barkun questions to elicit conspiracy theorists’ beliefs about the history behind Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) detention centers and the role of the internet in spreading conspiracy belief literature and thought. Dr. Barkun also plans to testify about significant events in conspiracy belief and how conspiracy theorists view these events. The events listed in the Rule 16 summary include: Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks.

I also tend to agree with the ruling, but haven't read it all. I am suspicious of this kind of "expert." While I don't doubt there is serious scholarship in this area, I don't see how it tends to make the defendants more or less guilty.

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:57 pm

Michael Barkun is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. He has published a number of books, most by reputable university presses:
Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, University of California Press, 2003
Religion and the Racist Right, University of North Carolina Press, 1997
Crucible of the Millennium, Syracuse University Press, 1986
Disaster and the Millennium, Yale University Press, 1974
Law Without Sanctions, Yale University Press, 1968

SPLC has articles by him and about him. i believe that I have referenced his work at least once, perhaps from this editorial drawing upon his work: The Paranoid Style: Conspiracy Theories Gain Traction. I have no reason to believe that he is not qualified to testify on conspiracy theories.

What I think had yet to be demonstrated was whether the Hutaree have anything to do with conspiracy theories. I link them with Posse Comitatus and the Sovereign Citizen movement (which does have elements of conspiracy theory). About Sovereign Citizens, Barkun is said to have written:

Quote:

Although hard numbers don't exist, Michael Barkun, a Syracuse University professor who has studied right-wing extremism in the U.S. for more than 20 years, says anecdotal evidence suggests that there are tens of thousands of followers of sovereign-citizen ideology in the United States. In a 2007 paper for The Journal for the Study of Radicalism, Barkun described the movement as "a stubbornly resilient subculture, a community of the alienated unlikely to disappear any time soon, and a troubling irritant to the rule of law at a time when we scarcely need any additional challenges."

Because The Journal for the Study of Radicalism is published by Michigan State University Press, there is some reason to grant it respect. However, I can find no evidence that it is a peer-reviewed journal. It does have an editorial board, which may be responsible for peer review. This can lead to dangerous gaps in knowledge and inbreeding of ideas.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9335

TollandRCR wrote:

SPLC has articles by him and about him. i believe that I have referenced his work at least once, perhaps from this editorial drawing upon his work: The Paranoid Style: Conspiracy Theories Gain Traction. I have no reason to believe that he is not qualified to testify on conspiracy theories.

These defendants are not on trial for believing in conspiracy theories, but for specific acts that, if proven, would amount to seditious conspiracy, among other offenses. With the exception that Barkun is an actual expert whose testimony, if relevant and probative, would be admissible, I am reminded of other cases in which experts on bad kinds of thought, like Satanism, were used to convict by prejudicing the jury.

The argument appears to be that bad people, like Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh, believed in conspiracy theories, and then committed horrible crimes. These people are accused of plotting horrible crimes. They believe the same conspiracy theories. Therefore, they're guilty.

It appears to be an attempt to use an expert to introduce inadmissible propensity testimony.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:40 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

TollandRCR wrote:

SPLC has articles by him and about him. i believe that I have referenced his work at least once, perhaps from this editorial drawing upon his work: The Paranoid Style: Conspiracy Theories Gain Traction. I have no reason to believe that he is not qualified to testify on conspiracy theories.

These defendants are not on trial for believing in conspiracy theories, but for specific acts that, if proven, would amount to seditious conspiracy, among other offenses. With the exception that Barkun is an actual expert whose testimony, if relevant and probative, would be admissible, I am reminded of other cases in which experts on bad kinds of thought, like Satanism, were used to convict by prejudicing the jury.

The argument appears to be that bad people, like Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh, believed in conspiracy theories, and then committed horrible crimes. These people are accused of plotting horrible crimes. They believe the same conspiracy theories. Therefore, they're guilty.

It appears to be an attempt to use an expert to introduce inadmissible propensity testimony.

Is there a clear distinction between propensity and motive? I can see how it would be improper to argue that conspiracy beliefs make people more likely to commit criminal acts. At the same time, I can also see why a prosecutor might want an expert's help to explain why normal-looking people might plan insane terroristic actions. It strikes me as a potentially difficult area.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9335

Mikedunford wrote:

Is there a clear distinction between propensity and motive? I can see how it would be improper to argue that conspiracy beliefs make people more likely to commit criminal acts. At the same time, I can also see why a prosecutor might want an expert's help to explain why normal-looking people might plan insane terroristic actions. It strikes me as a potentially difficult area.

I don't think there is a really clear distinction between propensity and motive. There are some clear cases, but the interesting ones are not. A fairly common example is a criminal case where the prosecution is seeking to introduce evidence that the accused is a drug addict and needed money to buy drugs, so had the motivation to rob a store. The defense is going to argue this is impermissibly arguing that since the defendant is a drug addict, he's a criminal. Often, this kind of dispute ends up in a limiting instruction telling the jury only to use the evidence for a permissible purpose and not an impermissible purpose. This, of course, is completely ineffective, but there's a legal fiction that juries actually follow these instructions.

borealis · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:31 am

Here's an update on the Hutaree Social Club.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/hutaree-militia-social-club_n_1275922.html

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:15 pm

Quote:

Texas state senator's office firebombed

Published: March. 20, 2012 at 9:47 PM

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 20 (UPI) -- Police in Forth Worth, Texas, said they were searching for a suspect who tossed two firebombs outside the door of a state senator's office Tuesday.

Two members of state Sen. Wendy Davis' staff were in the office when the attack occurred about 4 p.m., WFAA-TV, Dallas/Fort Worth, reported. One of the employees jumped over flames to get to a fire extinguisher in another room, the TV station said.

[snip}

Davis, a Democrat, played a high-profile role last week in arguing against plans by Texas state officials to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, saying such a move could deprive 130,000 Texas women of healthcare services including cancer screening and contraception, WFAA-TV said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/ ... 332294425/

Edit: Adding pic of the door.

http://lockerz.com/s/194324383

borealis · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:40 pm

The Hutaree case was dismissed??? WTF???

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-usa-crime-militia-idUSBRE82S1EX20120329

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:08 am

Quote:

... government prosecutors had failed to prove that they were doing anything more than talking about their hatred for authority.

That's legal. Maybe there wasn't as much evidence as we were led to believe :?:

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:37 am

Foggy wrote:

Quote:

... government prosecutors had failed to prove that they were doing anything more than talking about their hatred for authority.

That's legal. Maybe there wasn't as much evidence as we were led to believe :?:

they talked of killing police and others.

I suppose this means they were just dreaming of how wonderful it would be. :sarcasm:

I do kinda mean that though. I guess they were just blabbing about killing, but short of making any kind of plan. Legal, I guess. Sick, yeah.

borealis · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:25 pm

mimi wrote:

Foggy wrote:

Quote:

... government prosecutors had failed to prove that they were doing anything more than talking about their hatred for authority.

That's legal. Maybe there wasn't as much evidence as we were led to believe :?:

they talked of killing police and others.

I suppose this means they were just dreaming of how wonderful it would be. :sarcasm:

I do kinda mean that though. I guess they were just blabbing about killing, but short of making any kind of plan. Legal, I guess. Sick, yeah.

I think they also planned to kill one of their own members in Bloomington IN for narcing on the group a few years ago unless I got my groups confused.

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:57 pm

Most judges are really, really, really extra careful about making a ruling like that, is sorta what I'm saying.

I trust the judge. He's taking a hell of a risk. The judge knows that if the Hutaree kill some police officers next week, he's going to be hung out to dry by the press and public. He'll be the subject of national Tee Vee and radio shows. His life will get ugly enough this week, for letting them go. Imagine if they do a cop murder!

So when the judge rules, reluctantly I guarantee you, that "government prosecutors had failed to prove that they were doing anything more than talking about their hatred for authority," trust me when I say that the government prosecutors were given the full authority of the law to obtain witnesses and evidence and plenty of chances to convince the judge that they had proved a serious crime.

That's the general rule, I know there are probably some exceptions. But most honest, hardworking, cautious judges will think long and hard before making a ruling like that one.

Estiveo · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:33 am

But all that hardware booked into evidence? That usually takes forever, or never, to actually get released back to the crazy douchebags, yes/no?

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:24 am

From that post:

Quote:

In the recordings, David Stone Sr. described law enforcement as the enemy, discussed killing police officers and argued for the need to go to war against the government.

Defense attorneys had argued that what the seven did was just talk, protected by their free speech rights.

Quote:

Speaking to reporters, David Stone Sr.'s wife Tina Mae Stone, who was among those acquitted on Tuesday, said: "We weren't dangerous. We couldn't overthrow F-Troop."

Nine were arrested. One was found not competent to stand trial. Three pleaded guilty to weapons charges.

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:28 am

Estiveo wrote:

But all that hardware booked into evidence? That usually takes forever, or never, to actually get released back to the crazy douchebags, yes/no?

If the hardware is legal and the owner isn't prohibited from owning it 'cuz of something like probation or parole, then yes they should be able get it back, not in the speediest manner you can imagine.

But nothing illegal, of course.

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:31 am

Foggy wrote:

Estiveo wrote:

But all that hardware booked into evidence? That usually takes forever, or never, to actually get released back to the crazy douchebags, yes/no?

If the hardware is legal and the owner isn't prohibited from owning it 'cuz of something like probation or parole, then yes they should be able get it back, not in the speediest manner you can imagine.

But nothing illegal, of course.

Quote:

Judge Roberts warned both men [David Brian Stone Sr. and Joshua Stone] they can never possess firearms again as a result of the guilty pleas on the weapons charges.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5244

Meh. Its not like substitute penises guns are hard to get in America. Hell they will probably get them as gifts from their fellow idiots for beating the goverment.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Domestic Terrorism

Who is online