Comments on: Alaska Judge Dismisses Electronic Surveillance in Alaska Militia Case http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/ Hatewatch is a blog of the Southern Poverty Law Center Fri, 17 May 2013 21:41:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: George http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-340366 George Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:57:50 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-340366 Some of you folks commenting, need to learn how to read....you are so eager to spout your anti-FBI, anti-government rhetoric that you are missing the whole point of the article....nobody here "stood up to the FBI"....the FBI did not violate anyone's rights here. Under FEDERAL law, what the FBI did is PERFECTLY LEGAL. The judge here is throwing out the STATE'S portion of the case because the STATE investigators involved did not obtain a warrant, which is required under STATE law. Instead, they relied upon the FBI's recordings, which is a technical violation of Alaska state law because they were warrantless recordings. The Federal portion of the case still stands, and the recordings are absolutely admissible in Federal Court. The Alaska Troopers screwed up by not going to a state judge to obtain a warrant before relying on the FBI's tapes.... Some of you folks commenting, need to learn how to read….you are so eager to spout your anti-FBI, anti-government rhetoric that you are missing the whole point of the article….nobody here “stood up to the FBI”….the FBI did not violate anyone’s rights here. Under FEDERAL law, what the FBI did is PERFECTLY LEGAL. The judge here is throwing out the STATE’S portion of the case because the STATE investigators involved did not obtain a warrant, which is required under STATE law. Instead, they relied upon the FBI’s recordings, which is a technical violation of Alaska state law because they were warrantless recordings. The Federal portion of the case still stands, and the recordings are absolutely admissible in Federal Court. The Alaska Troopers screwed up by not going to a state judge to obtain a warrant before relying on the FBI’s tapes….

]]> By: ModerateMike http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-337362 ModerateMike Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:25:35 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-337362 Jonas, I agree with some of your points about the erosion of civil liberties and the now-overwhelming political power of corporations; Hispanic residents of Arizona and Alabama can certainly vouch for the first point, and the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission attests to the second. But getting back to the original point, it seems to me that even a totally non-hierarchical, egalitarian culture would have limited options if one member of their group were determined to kill another. I don't know enough about the complex interplay of social environment and biology that motivated Cox to act as he did, and it is reasonable to think that if he had grown up within a small egalitarian band, he might have become a different man. However, that is just speculation, and as I re-read the original SPLC report on Cox, I became convinced that he was not the sort of person with whom one could "work things out." Yes, he has the same rights as the rest of us, but then, so do the police officers whom he was allegedly plotting to kill, and given that sovereigns have previously murdered police officers, I firmly believe that the FBI acted responsibly in this case. Jonas,
I agree with some of your points about the erosion of civil liberties and the now-overwhelming political power of corporations; Hispanic residents of Arizona and Alabama can certainly vouch for the first point, and the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission attests to the second.
But getting back to the original point, it seems to me that even a totally non-hierarchical, egalitarian culture would have limited options if one member of their group were determined to kill another. I don’t know enough about the complex interplay of social environment and biology that motivated Cox to act as he did, and it is reasonable to think that if he had grown up within a small egalitarian band, he might have become a different man. However, that is just speculation, and as I re-read the original SPLC report on Cox, I became convinced that he was not the sort of person with whom one could “work things out.” Yes, he has the same rights as the rest of us, but then, so do the police officers whom he was allegedly plotting to kill, and given that sovereigns have previously murdered police officers, I firmly believe that the FBI acted responsibly in this case.

]]> By: Jonas Rand http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336867 Jonas Rand Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:44:13 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336867 The absence of a government which has the power to rule by force does not necessitate the imposition of the dichotomy you described (namely, vigilante violence vs. allowing the risk of violence). Are you assuming that anarchy (the absence of hierarchical social structures, from the state on down) means that no institutions exist? If there was no government, this Schaeffer Cox thing couldn't have happened exactly the way that it did, because social circumstances would be different. For starters, there would be no police officers to kill in an anarchist society, because police officers are representative of state authority. Even if someone did whack out and try to kill someone, there could still be a non-violent way (formal or informal) to try to work things out with her/him (rather than treating him/her as a problem, civil dialogue and communication could be a first step). Chances are, however, that whatever factors led him to believe this was the right course of action would be absent or severely diminished if there were no state (by this I mean a system that monopolizes official violence/authority, whether that is lynch mobs, a junta or a Federal Government). Moreover, the militia movement (to which Schaeffer Cox belongs) do NOT advocate no government and they are not anarchists. They are truly minarchists, meaning that they support a weak, impotent government (which can be 'bad' or 'good' depending on your perspective), but not a total abolition of state authority. Their complaints about the government practicing "socialism" seem to conflate "socialism" with totalitarianism in general, as it is obvious that the US is not a socialist country. However, it seems that since Bush II (or maybe since Reagan, but that was before I was born so I don't know), America has been devolving into a corporate police state which sacrifices transparency and civil liberties for "national security" (protecting imperialist wars), moralistic crusades against sex and drugs, and the ability for politicians to feel good about themselves. That isn't socialism, it is a form of authoritarianism that has been adopted by so-called "socialists", capitalists, and fascists alike. Truthfully, I think the militias are a bunch of nuts (with racist elements), but some of them have a good point about the erosion of civil rights in this country if you overlook the "socialist" name-calling and historical revisionism. The absence of a government which has the power to rule by force does not necessitate the imposition of the dichotomy you described (namely, vigilante violence vs. allowing the risk of violence). Are you assuming that anarchy (the absence of hierarchical social structures, from the state on down) means that no institutions exist?

If there was no government, this Schaeffer Cox thing couldn’t have happened exactly the way that it did, because social circumstances would be different. For starters, there would be no police officers to kill in an anarchist society, because police officers are representative of state authority. Even if someone did whack out and try to kill someone, there could still be a non-violent way (formal or informal) to try to work things out with her/him (rather than treating him/her as a problem, civil dialogue and communication could be a first step). Chances are, however, that whatever factors led him to believe this was the right course of action would be absent or severely diminished if there were no state (by this I mean a system that monopolizes official violence/authority, whether that is lynch mobs, a junta or a Federal Government).

Moreover, the militia movement (to which Schaeffer Cox belongs) do NOT advocate no government and they are not anarchists. They are truly minarchists, meaning that they support a weak, impotent government (which can be ‘bad’ or ‘good’ depending on your perspective), but not a total abolition of state authority. Their complaints about the government practicing “socialism” seem to conflate “socialism” with totalitarianism in general, as it is obvious that the US is not a socialist country. However, it seems that since Bush II (or maybe since Reagan, but that was before I was born so I don’t know), America has been devolving into a corporate police state which sacrifices transparency and civil liberties for “national security” (protecting imperialist wars), moralistic crusades against sex and drugs, and the ability for politicians to feel good about themselves. That isn’t socialism, it is a form of authoritarianism that has been adopted by so-called “socialists”, capitalists, and fascists alike. Truthfully, I think the militias are a bunch of nuts (with racist elements), but some of them have a good point about the erosion of civil rights in this country if you overlook the “socialist” name-calling and historical revisionism.

]]> By: Dick Lancaster http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336757 Dick Lancaster Sat, 22 Oct 2011 01:04:45 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336757 Well, Jonas, I have to say that's the first time I've ever agreed with an anarchist. But who's coming to help when you call 911? Well, Jonas, I have to say that’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with an anarchist. But who’s coming to help when you call 911?

]]> By: ModerateMike http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336681 ModerateMike Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:02:52 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336681 The irony of this is that in giving the financial industry the "small government" that it wanted over the last few decades, the federal governnment planted the seeds that led to the economic crisis, and yet so many of the people who were hurt as a result were driven to movements that claim that the government is too powerful. The irony of this is that in giving the financial industry the “small government” that it wanted over the last few decades, the federal governnment planted the seeds that led to the economic crisis, and yet so many of the people who were hurt as a result were driven to movements that claim that the government is too powerful.

]]> By: ModerateMike http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336641 ModerateMike Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:46:46 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336641 The state investigators may have screwed up, but if Cox is let go and ultimately ends up killing someone, that person will not be "less dead" just because Cox's rights were violated. What if there were no government to respond to the actions of someone like Cox? The people in the community would either have to take justice into their own hands (i.e. form a lynch mob), or just allow him to hurt whomever he wanted. Neither of those options seems very attractive. The state investigators may have screwed up, but if Cox is let go and ultimately ends up killing someone, that person will not be “less dead” just because Cox’s rights were violated.

What if there were no government to respond to the actions of someone like Cox? The people in the community would either have to take justice into their own hands (i.e. form a lynch mob), or just allow him to hurt whomever he wanted. Neither of those options seems very attractive.

]]> By: Jonas Rand http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336532 Jonas Rand Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:54:34 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336532 Well Dick, I don't know about your definition of liberal, but if you took it upon yourself to assume that no one who commented above was left of center, you were mistaken. I'm only speaking for myself, but my views are to the left of liberalism, and I don't support any government (big or small). The unwarranted FBI surveillance is an appalling violation of civil liberties, and, in my opinion, it is good that Alaska has at least some respect for those liberties. Well Dick, I don’t know about your definition of liberal, but if you took it upon yourself to assume that no one who commented above was left of center, you were mistaken. I’m only speaking for myself, but my views are to the left of liberalism, and I don’t support any government (big or small).

The unwarranted FBI surveillance is an appalling violation of civil liberties, and, in my opinion, it is good that Alaska has at least some respect for those liberties.

]]> By: Dick Lancaster http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336333 Dick Lancaster Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:49:41 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336333 Five comments thus far and no liberals? One clarification is warranted. I don't know if the anti-government has grown substantially in recent years but I do know that the anti BIG government movement is. Five comments thus far and no liberals? One clarification is warranted. I don’t know if the anti-government has grown substantially in recent years but I do know that the anti BIG government movement is.

]]> By: Libertymike http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336120 Libertymike Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:21:37 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336120 This time, the court got it right. Perhaps we should focus upon the hate directed at those who are anti-government. Being anti-government is not, in and of itself, a bad thing; however, those who reflexively demonize individuals who do not worship the state, are themselves vessels of hate. This time, the court got it right.

Perhaps we should focus upon the hate directed at those who are anti-government. Being anti-government is not, in and of itself, a bad thing; however, those who reflexively demonize individuals who do not worship the state, are themselves vessels of hate.

]]> By: Mike http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-336098 Mike Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:43:38 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-336098 I'm all for shutting down terrorists and malitias that plot to overthrow , kidnap , and murder but please do it legally . I’m all for shutting down terrorists and malitias that plot to overthrow , kidnap , and murder but please do it legally .

]]> By: Jonas Rand http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-335717 Jonas Rand Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:42:44 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-335717 "I guess no one is afraid of the terrorists anymore." As much as I would like the panic over <em>OMG! teh TERRISTS!!1!</em> to have gone away, it hasn't. Unfortunately, the FBI and other "security forces" are allowed to use such surveillance as evidence against most accused "terrorists", because the law prohibiting it is only in Alaska, which isn't exactly the most common spot where terror plots are uncovered. I'm glad, though, that at least one state takes privacy and civil liberties seriously. “I guess no one is afraid of the terrorists anymore.”

As much as I would like the panic over OMG! teh TERRISTS!!1! to have gone away, it hasn’t. Unfortunately, the FBI and other “security forces” are allowed to use such surveillance as evidence against most accused “terrorists”, because the law prohibiting it is only in Alaska, which isn’t exactly the most common spot where terror plots are uncovered. I’m glad, though, that at least one state takes privacy and civil liberties seriously.

]]> By: Leslie http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-335704 Leslie Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:56:52 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-335704 I guess no one is afraid of the terrorists anymore. I guess no one is afraid of the terrorists anymore.

]]> By: Jonas Rand http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/10/18/alaska-judge-dismisses-electronic-surveillance-in-alaska-militia-case/comment-page-1/#comment-335618 Jonas Rand Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:51:51 +0000 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?p=8025#comment-335618 Hooray for civil rights! No to unwarranted search and seizure! Thankfully, this court stood up against the FBI and defended dignity and personal liberty against the Surveillance State. Hooray for civil rights! No to unwarranted search and seizure! Thankfully, this court stood up against the FBI and defended dignity and personal liberty against the Surveillance State.

]]>