Thought Legislation

First off, let me state emphatically that I do not condone murder. I doubly so do not condone murdering somebody so that you can set an ambush at their funeral. That's not acceptable.

It's also not acceptable to classify acts as crimes based on if you like somebody or not.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Falvey Jr. said that while there is nothing wrong with owning guns or hating the government, it is illegal when "people with dark hearts and evil intents" gather to discuss ways to commit violence.

By now, we've all heard about the para-military nut jobs who were arrested in Michigan. The world is a better place with them out of the way. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be arrested. What I'm saying is that an Assistant U.S. Attorney ought to know that life isn't a Tom Cruise movie. You can't know some body's heart or intent.

What about the non terrorist, Nidal Malik Hasan? He pulled off an operation similar to what the nut jobs wanted to do, but instead we're told, not that he had a dark heart, but that he had Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder. What's the difference between the two cases?

I want to know who makes the "dark hearts and evil intents" call, Bill Ayers? I mean, he founded a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings. That took some planning and discussion. Since he isn't locked up, I've got to assume that his strength is as of ten men, because his heart must be pure. Plus, he's buds with the Big O, so he seems like the logical choice to make the call.

After Sept. 11 I remember all sorts of theories being thrown out there. They were going to use crop dusters to poison out water supply. Tanker trucks would be rigged to blow us all up. Obviously, some people were discussing these things. Were Falvey Jr. and Ayers on hand making sure their hearts weren't darkened by shadow?

I read a post last year about the failures of the president's security team, and remember a comment on how our foes were unserious, or else they could field a few Beltway sniper style teams and really make things tough for us. Oh my gosh, I just realized something. I'm sure I read that on a right wing blog. Since The Great Enlightened Hopeful One is left wing and must certainly have a heart free of darkness, does that mean that right wing people have dark hearts? So was a crime committed when he contemplated that way to commit violence, or is it only when there is a group discussion that a crime is committed?

I just realized something else. After I read that post, I can remember a discussion with another guy about how easily anybody with a welding machine or a gas powered chop saw could derail trains, and how, with a little coordination, several such groups could derail a lot of trains at once. I was in a gathering of people who discussed ways to commit violence. Should I turn myself in to Falvey Jr. and Ayers to await judgement, or just throw myself upon the mercy of The Great O?

In other news...

While I was reading about Obama's drilling decision, I came across this: Texas Town on High Alert as Mexican Town Across Border Braces for Cartel Gun Battle.

This isn't the first time violence has spilled across the border. During one of the Mexican Revolutions Rangers from across the state had to neglect other duties to be stationed in El Paso just in case violence spilled across. It was actually considered a form of entertainment to sit on roofs and watch the battle for Juarez.

Back then, the various factions all wanted to be recognized by the United States as Mexico's legitimate government. That gave them a reason to not piss us off. Nowadays, the cartels have been listening to our talk for a while. It seems like they're heeding it less and less.

Where is Captain McNelly when we need him?

(It's not like there was a lull over the last hundred years or so. There were just to many to link too. Go ahead and google it)

What are you willing to do?

It seems that a California meth ring/motorcycle gang is booby trapping police officers who have cracked down on them. I know my answer to this problem, and Jimmy Malone agrees.

Keep 'em close by

Bob makes a good point.

While we're on the subject

I've got safety issues with this story also.

Four were injured and traffic was stopped for four hours Tuesday near San Diego after the border patrol agents fired shots at the vehicles across nine lanes of highway.

Ok, as I understand it, traffic was heavy enough that the vans could not advance, so the feds opened fire across nine lanes of the nation's busiest border crossing. The vans were running into other vehicles, who I have to assume at the very least had drivers in them. And the feds shot at the vans, which likely had these other vehicles on the other side of them. I am all for controlling the borders and stopping crime. I am not for opening fire in an environment rich in non-targets if it can be avoided.

What happened to Rule IV, be sure of your target and what is behind it? I could understand if the vans had been spouting off gunfire like there was no tomorrow, but according to the article there was no return fire. The vans posed a potential threat to American citizens, but not the sort of immediate danger I'd like to see before shots are fired. I realize that the agents on the ground had some fast decisions to make. They had no way of knowing what was in the vans. Obviously, they thought it was important to stop them, and rightly so. My problem is with how they went about it. If that was the only possible way to stop the vans, then there needs to be a policy change. Maybe park a couple patrol cars a little ways down the road. Radio ahead, get them to stop the vans. Remote control spike strips or barricades. Anything to avoid the potentially tragic consequences of opening fire in such a place.