|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 2, 2011 11:41:02 GMT -5
There are no victims from planning anything. Actually doing something, sure. But planning something is not the same as doing something, nor is it even the same as having the intent to do something. So we have to wait for people to die before taking action on something we know is being planned? "Sorry all those people died, but we had to be sure they were super duper serious about using the equipment they were buying to kill people before we did anything?" Freedom of speech is over rated any way. There are limits on the freedom of speech. Threats are one those things that are limited. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 2, 2011 15:38:30 GMT -5
They had plans and had already started gathering materials to carry out those plans. How does that not demonstrate intent? They were also investigated by the FBI, whose job is to figure out if groups like them have the actual intent or not, and it was determined through more evidence than was presented in the article that it was indeed there.
People still have the freedom to talk about making plans, or figuring out if something would be possible, without getting in trouble for it. It just means they can't go through the actions of also acquiring the materials to carry out such a plan, as that then demonstrates intent. So you see, freedom of speech is still fully protected, and it's the actions (of preparing to carry out what was said) that is then what makes an "innocent" discussion into a crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 2, 2011 16:37:44 GMT -5
There are no victims from planning anything. Actually doing something, sure. But planning something is not the same as doing something, nor is it even the same as having the intent to do something. So we have to wait for people to die before taking action on something we know is being planned? "Sorry all those people died, but we had to be sure they were super duper serious about using the equipment they were buying to kill people before we did anything?" I think horseman's argument is that speech isn't conspiracy; you can get people for amassing guns or bombs or whatever, but not just for getting together in a coven and talking about blowing up something. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Nov 2, 2011 16:44:57 GMT -5
So we have to wait for people to die before taking action on something we know is being planned? "Sorry all those people died, but we had to be sure they were super duper serious about using the equipment they were buying to kill people before we did anything?" I think horseman's argument is that speech isn't conspiracy; you can get people for amassing guns or bombs or whatever, but not just for getting together in a coven and talking about blowing up something. That's true, but it's obvious that argument doesn't apply here. They went to someone in order to acquire ricin - that's not sitting around and saying, "You know, sometimes I wish I could just buy some ricin, you know?" The only possible way this could not be damning for them is if the FBI guy was guilty of entrapment. Otherwise, it's pretty clear they had intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Nov 2, 2011 17:03:28 GMT -5
Their dementia must be setting in.
I mean, not even the Joker is psychotic enough to fuck with the IRS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 2, 2011 17:40:19 GMT -5
I think horseman's argument is that speech isn't conspiracy; you can get people for amassing guns or bombs or whatever, but not just for getting together in a coven and talking about blowing up something. Like meeting with someone you believe to be a black market arms dealer to negotiate the purchase of weapons? Like these guys, y'know, allegedly did? |
|
|
|
Post by id82 on Nov 2, 2011 18:21:07 GMT -5
They're right wing? So these guys are patriots right?
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 2, 2011 19:03:24 GMT -5
I think horseman's argument is that speech isn't conspiracy; you can get people for amassing guns or bombs or whatever, but not just for getting together in a coven and talking about blowing up something. Like meeting with someone you believe to be a black market arms dealer to negotiate the purchase of weapons? Like these guys, y'know, allegedly did? Maybe Horseman didn't understand the case. I don't know, I'm not his PR guy. You should probably ask him. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 19:46:42 GMT -5
There are no victims from planning anything. Actually doing something, sure. But planning something is not the same as doing something, nor is it even the same as having the intent to do something. So we have to wait for people to die before taking action on something we know is being planned? "Sorry all those people died, but we had to be sure they were super duper serious about using the equipment they were buying to kill people before we did anything?" Buying equipment would be prima facie evidence that they actually had intent to commit a crime. Merely talking about it, isn't. If there are limits on speech, it isn't "free", is it? I think horseman's argument is that speech isn't conspiracy; you can get people for amassing guns or bombs or whatever, but not just for getting together in a coven and talking about blowing up something. That's true, but it's obvious that argument doesn't apply here. They went to someone in order to acquire ricin - that's not sitting around and saying, "You know, sometimes I wish I could just buy some ricin, you know?" The only possible way this could not be damning for them is if the FBI guy was guilty of entrapment. Otherwise, it's pretty clear they had intent. I think entrapment is an interesting consideration to raise too. If the FBI hadn't produced a guy saying "hey, I know where to get some ricin from", I doubt that coming up with a viable nerve agent and delivery system is within the technical means of most senior citizen militia members. I stand to be corrected, of course. Maybe they were all retired industrial chemists and dispersal specialists, but like I say, I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 2, 2011 19:49:06 GMT -5
*Notes that LHM is in favor of libel, slander, and false advertising*
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 19:54:55 GMT -5
*Notes that LHM is in favor of libel, slander, and false advertising* All of which are crimes in their own right, for good reason. These are demonstrably false. Talking about wanting to kill someone or damage something isn't, nor should it be, since such talk is only the voicing of personal opinion. Chalk and cheese, again. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 2, 2011 20:08:06 GMT -5
I stand to be corrected, of course. Maybe they were all retired industrial chemists and dispersal specialists, but like I say, I doubt it. They may have decided to change weapons, and used a gun or some kind of explosive. Perhaps one of them was a farmer, and they could get their hands of anfo? It's not as hard to launch a terrorist attack as I'd like. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 2, 2011 21:00:44 GMT -5
*Notes that LHM is in favor of libel, slander, and false advertising* All of which are crimes in their own right, for good reason. These are demonstrably false. Talking about wanting to kill someone or damage something isn't, nor should it be, since such talk is only the voicing of personal opinion. Chalk and cheese, again. Except it's not, 'cause having laws against libel, slander, and false advertising are limits on speech, so therefore it isn't free. So, tell me, how are those any different than people making detailed plans of terrorism again? Oh, and then remind me how them contacting a person who claimed to be a black market weapons dealer from whom they obtained a silencer (which, from what I know, is illegal to have unless you have a very special license) and were then arranging to get ricin from is only "free speech." |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:10:24 GMT -5
I stand to be corrected, of course. Maybe they were all retired industrial chemists and dispersal specialists, but like I say, I doubt it. They may have decided to change weapons, and used a gun or some kind of explosive. Perhaps one of them was a farmer, and they could get their hands of anfo? It's not as hard to launch a terrorist attack as I'd like. Its not hard at all. The fact that there are so few of them proves, to me at least, that most talk about them is just that... talk. All of which are crimes in their own right, for good reason. These are demonstrably false. Talking about wanting to kill someone or damage something isn't, nor should it be, since such talk is only the voicing of personal opinion. Chalk and cheese, again. Except it's not, 'cause having laws against libel, slander, and false advertising are limits on speech, so therefore it isn't free. So, tell me, how are those any different than people making detailed plans of terrorism again? Oh, and then remind me how them contacting a person who claimed to be a black market weapons dealer from whom they obtained a silencer (which, from what I know, is illegal to have unless you have a very special license) and were then arranging to get ricin from is only "free speech." Asked and answered. I will, however, go on to point out that even owning illegal weapons does not, in and of itself, prove one has the intent to do anything with them. There are a lot more illegal weapons of various types out there then there are illegal weapons being used. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 2, 2011 21:14:52 GMT -5
Its not hard at all. The fact that there are so few of them proves, to me at least, that most talk about them is just that... talk. Which means that when people make the move from talk to action, such as buying weapons on the black market and arranging to buy more, direct action is needed. I remember right after Obama was elected the FBI investigated a crazy number of threats against the President. I'm sure that there is a method to distinguish between utter crack pots and people who'll take action. I will, however, go on to point out that even owning illegal weapons does not, in and of itself, prove one has the intent to do anything with them. There are a lot more illegal weapons of various types out there then there are illegal weapons being used. You really do want people dead before the government acts, don't you? At what point does the group that gets together to plan terrorist attacks and buy illegal weapons do enough to warrant arrest? "Look, I know he said he was going to kill his ex-wife, bought an illegal hand gun, and was talking to a hitman, but none of that proves he was actually going to murder her. He has free speech!" |
|
