Does the state have a legitimate interest in monitoring armchair or weekend revolutionaries?

[BurtWorm]

I'm talking about the types of guys who like to pretend they're going to overthrow the government, as the Ft. Dix jihadists appear to be. Is there a difference between the Ft. Dix jihadists and the Michigan militia beyond religion and ethnicity? Does the government have a legitimate interest in prying into either groups' activities, to the point of fishing for a federal case against them?

(Please pardon the bias in my language against thinking so. I'm truly interested in a rational answer to the question and am open to being persuaded to considering the legitimacy of the state's interest.)

[leftofthedial]

1. of course

the "state" exists to preserve, protect and promote the wealth of the elite.

the only true threat to the elite is revolution

[valerief]

2. Well stated. nt

[BurtWorm]

3. You mean it's legitimate in the sense that the state gets to define legitimacy?

But what about in a government supposedly ruling allegedly only with the consent of the governed? Where is the line drawn between freedom to fantasize and pretend and the state's right to prevent harm to itself?

[leftofthedial]

4. the consent of the governed?

you don't still believe that, do you?

you have exactly the rights that the wealthiest capitalists want you to have. no more, no less.

[BurtWorm]

5. I hear your cynicism, but I'm not looking for a critique of the system as is.

Unless you share the views you're arguing. I'm looking for something deeper. If you asked an FBI field director or even bureau chief why he had an interest in infiltrating the make-believe world of weekend jihadists, he would not be answering, "Because the wealthiest capitalists would want me to." I'm looking for any possible legal reason for breaching an individual's right to fantasize revolution.

[leftofthedial]

7. The field agent does what the Assistant Director tells him or her

The Assistant Director does what the Director tells him or her to do

The Director does what the wealthy elite tells him to do

Everyone in the justice department knows that rooting out jihadist-terrorists is the political sweet spot and the career maker in the present political environment

It doesn't matter whether the field agent thinks about the politics on a minute-by-minute basis. The entire security apparatus is serving the political interests of the elite.

[BurtWorm]

9. So Mueller does what Gates tells him to do?

When do they have their meetings?

:popcorn:

[leftofthedial]

The entire organization has an agenda that is set by the ruling cabal.

field agents execute that agenda.

Surely, this reality does not escape you.

[BurtWorm]

18. Clearly the wealthy have inordinate influence on the government because of their wealth.

But the "ruling cabal" language has a little of the paranoid stink of Henry Fordism about it.

It's very easy to cede all interest and stake in persuading the government because of the conviction that the rich own it and that's that. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. If all less-than-wealthy Americans had that attitude, you wouldn't have to wonder if your paranoia was justified.

[leftofthedial]

21. did I say anything about ceding anything to anyone?

ignoring the reality that the current system is corrupt and broken does no one any good either

[BurtWorm]

22. Well thank you for pointing that out to me.

I would never have known otherwise.

:sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

23. you're welcome

you ask about "legitimate" security interests of government.

I'm just saying the current government and its security interests are illegitimate to start with.

Do I think it is "legitimate" for an agent of the government to infiltrate, inflame and inspire criminal activity among a group? No.

Do I think that "weekend revolutionaries" are a potential threat to a hypothetically legitimate government? Yes.

[BurtWorm]

24. I am not asking about the current government's interests.

Theirs, I would agree with you, are illegitimate from the word go.

We're getting somewhere finally. :toast:

If you think weekend revolutionaries are "potentially" a threat, do you think a legitimate government has a legitimate interest in infiltrating them to ascertain their threat? Do they have a legitimate interest in outlawing armchair, weekend or paint-ball gun wielding revolutionaries?

[leftofthedial]

25. the wording of "weekend" and "armchair" is a problem for me

I think many potentially RW militia members, for example, are "weekend warriors." So, yes, I guess.

I think what is illegal and what is not is probably pretty well spelled out in most cases. I think it is completely wrong for law enforcement to engage in the kind of enticement and entrapment that the Miami and Ft. Dix cases seem to have involved. I also think that a corrupt, anti-democratic agenda breeds corrupt, anti-democratic practices that filter down and begin to permeate organizations like the FBI.

[Odin2005]

26. What a bunch of Marxist crap.

[Donnachaidh]

6. hell -- when are they going after Free Republic?

They've had 2 episodes - one with powdery letters, another with a guy assaulting a minority woman and keeping an arsenal at his home!

They've been spying an anti-war groups. WHY no research into RW extremists? :evilgrin:

[BurtWorm]

8. RW extremists, I would think, would be more of a threat to the state

than paintball-armed jihadists. I mean the former are enabled by the "right to bear arms" to load up on all the Fed murdering equipment on the market. They're enabled by the First Amendment right to tell millions of radio listeners the best area on the body to aim for when a Fed comes toward your house. They enabled by the right to assemble hundreds of potbellied, semi-automatic armed militants in the woods on weekends. They would seem a lot more dangerous than weekend jihadists or Unitarian pacifists.

[Donnachaidh]

10. I think the envelope issue puts them under the Feds

but we can agree to disagree.

[BurtWorm]

11. I don't follow you.

What envelope issue and who do you mean by "them?"

[Donnachaidh]

12. the envelopes with powdery substances sent to KO

and others just recently. Even if the substance was non-toxic, the implied *threat* was very real. Rember the Chad guy from FreeRepublic?

[BurtWorm]

13. I do. That guy is in deep shit, if I remember correctly.

I don't think because of him all of FR should be under scrutiny, of course.

My point is, if the state can tolerate a militarized right wing, it ought to be able to tolerate a flabby little group of make-believe jihadists. In ordinary times, it probably would not be wasting resources on such bullshit.

Mind you, I do think if any group comes under suspicion for behaving in a threatening way toward the government, it ought to face the consequences of being potentially infiltrated and dispensed with according to legitimate rules of procedure. But the government should not be wasting taxpayer money trying to fool dopes into being enemies of the state.

[Donnachaidh]

14. Gotcha -- fooling dopes - isn't that What Fox News does nightly?

:evilgrin:

[BurtWorm]

15. Dopes fooling the dopes.

:patriot:

[Odin2005]

27. What became of that Chad charater, anyway?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. If they didn't, and these people did wind of killing someone, would you not

hold the government responsible?

People training to use weapons who say they want to kill people should be a concern to law enforcement. Even if the suspects are bumbling amateurs, they still may wind up trying to carry out their plans.

[BurtWorm]

19. Yes they should be a concern if the government has probable cause to think so

which they apparently did. But then they paid someone to talk these guys into going further than they were actually prepared to go. These guys were no more harmful than the Michigan militia--in fact they were apparently less dangerous. Shouldn't there be a point at which people can be allowed the freedom to pretend to be revolutionaries? They're allowed to arm themselves to the teeth as though they're real revolutionaries. They're allowed to tell each other on commercial talk radio how to kill Federal agents. Why can the government tolerate that but not a bunch of make-believe jihadists?

[TahitiNut]

17. The very meaning of the word "legitimate" yields a tautological 'Yes.'

legitimate

Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law
1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth {a legitimate child}
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false {a legitimate grievance} {a legitimate practitioner}
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements {a legitimate government} b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right {a legitimate king}
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards {a legitimate advertising expenditure} {a legitimate inference}
5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy {the legitimate theater}
synonym see LAWFUL

[BurtWorm]

20. But some actions of the government are not legitimate, right?

Like the war in Iraq, for example?