On Friday, I pointed out that there were ten alleged or convicted terrorists linked to the Occupy movement. I mentioned this to expose the double standard being applied to the Tea Party. Occupy has never been portrayed as “scary” or “violent” and yet they have ten alleged or convicted terrorists connected to their movement (including one man whose continuing criminal conduct I have covered extensively) as well more than fourteen rapes in their camps. By contrast, if any Tea Party member had ever committed a violent act, I hadn’t heard of it (and we know we would have heard of it), and yet between the two, the Tea Party was the one being stereotyped as filled with violent people. The media bias had never been clearer.
Well in that breakdown, only two were convicted terrorists and eight were merely alleged to be terrorists, on Friday. And as of today, we can add one more to the list of convicted terrorists: Anthony Hayne. Here’s a picture of the terrorist on the right."I don't think any of these guys intended harm to human beings," [Hayne’s Attorney, Michael] O'Shea said. "I think they just thought this was a way of making some sort of political statement. But I'm relatively confident none of these people had any desires to actually hurt anybody."
Of course in the same article we get further details of the bomb plot and bluntly it is a misnomer to call it a “bomb plot.” The correct term is “attempted act of terrorism:”
The five were charged with plotting to bomb a bridge linking two wealthy Cleveland suburbs by placing what they thought were real explosives at the site and repeatedly trying to detonate them using text messages from cellphones, according to the FBI affidavit.
The FBI said the suspects bought the explosives — actually fake — from an undercover employee and put them at the base of a highway bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, about 15 miles south of downtown Cleveland.
After leaving the park, they tried to initiate the explosives using a text-message detonation code, and they called the person who provided the bombs to check the code when it failed, according to the FBI affidavit.
So they actually placed what they thought was a bomb on the bridge and then tried to detonate it, according to the FBI, but Hayne’s lawyer has the nerve to say that his client didn’t desire to hurt anyone. Well, then that is a confession that his client is one of the dumbest people alive, because no reasonable person would think that destroying a bridge would be a safe act. And since the law presumes you intended to bring about the obvious consequences of your actions, these men should also be charged with attempted murder on the state level, among other charges.
And for the love of God, please charge these guys on the state level. That way if the Feds completely drop the ball in terms of justice, you will have a second chance in the state courts to get it right.
And finally, the next time the media rushes to blame an act of violence on the Tea Party, you can remember Occupy’s ties to domestic terrorism—with now three convicted and seven accused domestic terrorists so far. To be blunt, you are more likely to be blown up by a member of Occupy than the Tea Party.
Now that all being said, remember that the other four men allegedly involved in this attempted terrorism are innocent until proven guilty. Admittedly that is complicated by the fact that Mr. Hayne has pled guilty to a plot involving the other four, but in fairness they are still innocent until proven guilty.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to donate and help my wife and I in this time of need, please go to this donation page. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed communication. I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him. Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report. And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. As you will see by the time I am done telling my story that this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.
I don't see in any of the articles what time it was when they tried to blow it up. I'd say their defense is an accurate statement if it was done late at night, they took steps to verify the bridge was empty at the time and no one was underneath it, and they were prepared after the explosions to block traffic so that no one drove off the wreckage. In that case I'd say they didn't explicitly try to hurt anyone.
ReplyDeleteIt still wouldn't really be a valid defense, though, just an accurate one.