I stumbled across a post that should encourage a little more thought about those that the government deems to be “dangerous.”
I am providing the link only, as I think the entire piece and comments both pro and con should be read without my highlighting anything said.
Given the relatively peaceful manner in which the Michigan Hutaree group surrendered to authorities, I wonder if indeed they were planning an offensive action as reported. And given the stream of abuses of the truth by our reporting media, do we really KNOW what was being planned or why?
The stated “plan” as has been plastered all over reports was luring police, killing police, and bombing funeral activities where more police are present. I would be curious to find out what can be proved on these statements, especially now as they have been pretty much tried and convicted already in the court of public opinion.
If it was an active plan, and timetables were set, coordination had been agreed to, these men will go to prison. An offensive attack against public or private citizens is a morally unjustifiable position, and is contrary to the law. A conspiracy to perform such an act should be viewed as punishable.
However, if as the author Griggs contends, they were merely preparing to defend themselves against what they thought might be an illegal imposition by authority (ie: re-education camps, constitutional suspension, suspension of due process) then they have broken no law.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.