Ship of Fools: Active duty US military plot to kill the US President

Thread: Active duty US military plot to kill the US President Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023821

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

This is why Conservative political rhetoric is dangerous.
Four active duty soldiers and former soldiers have been arrested in a terrorism plot to take over the American government and assassinate their president. They planned bombings, poisonings and assassination.
Does this seem as insane to you as to me?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Does it seem as in keeping with the current no-hyperbole-is-too-outrageous message of Fox News and other GOP mouthpieces to you as it does to me?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

ISTM that, in the same spirit that it is desireable for political rhetoric to cool down to reality, it is desireable to not blame free speech for criminal actions.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The usual rule for such nutcases is that they are just wacko until they buy guns or other weapons. Then it's criminal.

I see their is a Georgia case, but no military one. They conducted their actions off-base and off-duty, and as long as they didn't steal weapons, I can't see the Army getting involved.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

As far as I know, all active-duty US military personnel are under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no matter if it's on or off the base.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that, in the same spirit that it is desireable for political rhetoric to cool down to reality, it is desireable to not blame free speech for criminal actions.

--Tom Clune

Imagine a crowd of people chanting "Let's kill Obama! Let's kill Obama!"

Then one of them goes and does it.

Let's not blame free speech for criminal actions, maybe. But let's not be stupid either. If you can't see a causal link in the scenario I have just painted, you need new glasses.

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The usual rule for such nutcases is that they are just wacko until they buy guns or other weapons. Then it's criminal.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe conspiracy to commit murder is a felony even if no gun is purchased.

[ 28. August 2012, 00:24: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that, in the same spirit that it is desireable for political rhetoric to cool down to reality, it is desireable to not blame free speech for criminal actions.

--Tom Clune
Imagine a crowd of people chanting "Let's kill Obama! Let's kill Obama!"

Then one of them goes and does it.

Let's not blame free speech for criminal actions, maybe. But let's not be stupid either. If you can't see a causal link in the scenario I have just painted, you need new glasses.

Exactly. It's speech that legitimises the actions and makes it conceivable. It's validation when you hear someone else say the same thing that's in your head.

Certainly, when MULTIPLE people are involved in a plot, there's clearly some speech going on. It is not as if each of these people discovered by telepathy that they had colleagues with the same mindset.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Speech matters. We wouldn't care about our right to free speech if it didn't. It's not blaming free speech for criminal actions to say that the outrageous untruths propogated by some on the right help to normalize some of the ideas that go into a plot to assassinate the president and overthrow the US government. But other things go into this that worry me a lot more: the racism that is still engrained in our society, the notion of redemptive violence that we have embraced, and the high level of distrust of government, for starters.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

What Ruth said.

In my own state, a bunch of teabaggers with an overwhelming Republican majority in the state House managed to pass so many new gun laws it's terrifying. It's now perfectly OK for state legislators to pack heat in the legislative chambers.

And behind it all seems to be this lurking notion, "I might need my gun at any moment to defend myself from my government."

These idjits ARE the government. A big chunk of it, anyway. And they want, apparently, to use guns INSTEAD of speech.

[ 28. August 2012, 01:57: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

The article says the Army isn't filing charges, and that they refuse to reveal what unit these guys were in and what their jobs were. That seems really odd to me, but maybe that's normal procedure. Or did I misread something?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

From the article

quote:
Fort Stewart spokesman Kevin Larson said the Army has dropped its own charges against the four soldiers in the slayings of Roark and York. The Military authorities filed their charges in March but never acted on them.

The article is too short and not brilliantly written. It is all I have seen at the moment.

[ 28. August 2012, 02:24: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
The article says the Army isn't filing charges, and that they refuse to reveal what unit these guys were in and what their jobs were. That seems really odd to me, but maybe that's normal procedure. Or did I misread something?

They are typically fairly close-mouthed.

That said, a couple posters on Reddit's military board claim to have served w/ these bozos and offer a touch of insight.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

The Posse Comitatus Act may have something to do with this.

I have liked that phrase ever since I saw some movie with An Army type guy talking about "pussy communists."

eta: Never you damn well mind.

[ 28. August 2012, 03:35: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Huff Post's take on the story.

Hopefully, the quotes from the Army are just a cover until they figure out what to do (or do something that requires no media attention, like tracking down more of these creeps). Otherwise, the Army seems rather disinterested. Since these soldiers were planning to kill their commander-in-chief (the pres), they darn well should be tried under military law, in addition to civilian.

I wonder if these guys are birthers? There was at least one soldier who got in trouble because he didn't recognize the president's authority, for birther reasons, and wouldn't report to duty.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In my own state, a bunch of teabaggers with an overwhelming Republican majority in the state House managed to pass so many new gun laws it's terrifying. It's now perfectly OK for state legislators to pack heat in the legislative chambers.

Can't you see that the problem will likely be self-correcting... [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
It's now perfectly OK for state legislators to pack heat in the legislative chambers.

FWIW, this has been established law in a lot of states for quite a long time- I don't think I've ever heard of it being an issue either way, really. It certainly hasn't here- and it's been legal (for anyone with a permit, not just legislators), as far as I know, for as long as we've been a state...

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

On what planet is soldiers' plotting to assassinate the President and take over a military base not considered treasonous?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
On what planet is soldiers' plotting to assassinate the President and take over a military base not considered treasonous?

I'm not sure what this is in response to.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

In my reading, it's a response to the discussion of who will be charged with what by whom, and what makes a conspiracy, and so forth. These guys did a ton of bad stuff, including first degree murders, but the root of it all was setting up their coup.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes "contempt toward officials" a court-martial offense, not to mention mutiny and sedition. So I would very much like military authorities to explain why they're not charging these guys.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

What would be the point - surely there is no point in two parallel justice processes, I am guessing the civil has priority because it is related to an actual murder case.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Apparently the alleged leader of the alleged plot allegedly attended the 2008 Republican National Convention as a page. As the article notes it's possible (though statistically unlikely) that "there could be two Isaac Aguiguis who look startlingly alike".

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What would be the point - surely there is no point in two parallel justice processes, I am guessing the civil has priority because it is related to an actual murder case.

Often the decision is made (either between the military and civilian courts, or state vs. federal courts) based on the perceived likelihood of conviction and the available penalties.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Apparently the alleged leader of the alleged plot allegedly attended the 2008 Republican National Convention as a page.

Even worse, it is rumored that he once ate at McDonald's!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, the humanity...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What would be the point - surely there is no point in two parallel justice processes, I am guessing the civil has priority because it is related to an actual murder case.
Often the decision is made (either between the military and civilian courts, or state vs. federal courts) based on the perceived likelihood of conviction and the available penalties.

My guess (and it's just a guess, based on how some other cases have been handled) is that the Army will wait for the civilian courts to complete their process, and then act. If the defendants are in prison for long terms, the consequences will be somewhat moot except for losing pensions and veterans benefits.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

AIUI, sometimes people are tried in multiple ways in multiple ways to give the greatest chance of conviction. I don't know if that happens with military vs. civilian jurisdictions.

Tangentially, I'm concerned about the possible ripple effects of the upcoming TV series, "Last Resort". From the ads, it's about military personnel who survived a deadly attack by the US gov't on its own forces...and they're out for vengeance/justice. IIRC from past news stories, a lot of military folks haven't been at all pleased with Obama. (Of course, many--at least of the rank and file--weren't fond of the previous guy.) But there are lots of militias out there, military and civilian; and folks who are worried that we're going to sell out to the UN; and folks who think we should get back to (their interpretation of) the Constitution; and folks who are sick of the entanglement of gov't and big business, and the resulting corruption; and the Occupy folks; and the self-proclaimed anarchists who are too cowardly to hold their own demonstrations, and instead disrupt others; plus the economy; plus lots and lots of free-floating anxiety and rage, looking for a target...

If that fuse ever gets lit...
[Paranoid]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Multiple trials to increase chance of conviction strike me as unjust.

And if you know, for example, that one type of court is more likely to convict on the same evidence then you have a problem with one or other court system.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Multiple trials to increase chance of conviction strike me as unjust.

And if you know, for example, that one type of court is more likely to convict on the same evidence then you have a problem with one or other court system.

It's definitely a way of gaming the system and avoiding the letter of double-jeopardy, if not the spirit.

What are your thoughts about jurisdiction-shopping based on potential sentence? It's not unheard of for a state without the death penalty, for example, to hand over prosecution to the Federal courts, which can impose the death penalty.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

That's disgusting. And also anti-democratic I would think, as presumably the state's laws at some level are supposed to reflect the will of its people.

But then I still don't understand how any sane person can think a system based on plea-bargaining is just.

(Fundamentally, and this applies to both the UK and the US, I do not understand the need for a separate military justice system. Surely, one could simply add a set of offenses defined as "doing x whilst a soldier" to the civil code - in the same way there are specific rules in regard to professions working with vulnerable people. Psychological research shows that who are willing to commit to the death sentence are more likely to convict on the same evidence. This is usually put down to people having more faith in authority, giving more wait to establishment figure's testimony etc. ON this basis I suspect it is likely that court martials have higher conviction rates.)

[ 29. August 2012, 17:39: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I read that report several times. Where did it say they were plotting to take over the government. Where did it say they were planning on killing the president? I know it is late here and I may have missed it.

It is true all active duty military personnel are under the auspices of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but were a former military servicemen and his fiancee were killed of base, the military will generally defer to the civilian authorities.

I remember one case near were I grew up where a military serviceman killed his girlfriend. The military deferred to the county prosecutor to try the man. However, the prosecutor was not able to get a conviction. The military then tried the man under the UCMJ and got the conviction. The man was sentenced to life in prison.

If the servicemen in question were not convicted in civilian court, the military would have proceeded with their own trial.

To threaten the president or to plot to kill him is a federal crime. While the state got convictions for the murder of the civilians, if it can be established they had in fact plotted to kill the president, they could face an additional ten years in Federal Court, I believe.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I think the point is that the civilian law enforcement agencies would be better placed to investigate crimes that occurred off-base where the victims were civilians (as in the murder case here). And plots to assassinate the president are generally investigated by the Secret Service. After all that is dealt with, if there are still offenses that are unique to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they would be dealt with by the military courts. It wouldn't be double jeopardy, though it would be stacking charges, a sometimes unfortunate practice in US jurisprudence (i.e., a single act violates several different laws, so the defendant is charged under every possible statute and receives multiple sentences for what any common sense interpretation would regard as a single crime).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I read that report several times. Where did it say they were plotting to take over the government. Where did it say they were planning on killing the president? I know it is late here and I may have missed it.

From the article.

quote:
The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Just a quick bump for new news on this subject that's been lost in the current news of the mideast and the Romney campaign's reaction thereto.

Apparently five more people have been indicted in connection with this plot, "bring[ing] to 10 the total number of people charged in connection with the militia group".

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0