Judge asks feds to show militia did more than talk

Judge asks feds to show militia did more than talk

 

Apr 28, 8:35 PM (ET)

By ED WHITE

DETROIT (AP) – A federal judge challenged prosecutors Wednesday to show that nine members of a Michigan militia accused of plotting war against the government had done more than just talk and should remain locked up.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts heard nearly 10 hours of testimony and arguments over two days. She did not make a decision about whether the nine will remain in custody, saying only that a ruling would come soon.

The members of a southern Michigan group called Hutaree have been in custody for a month. An indictment accuses them of weapons violations and a rare crime: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government by first killing police officers.

Prosecutors say the public would be at risk if the nine are released. But defense lawyers claim the government has overreached with a criminal case based mostly on hateful speech.

An undercover agent infiltrated the group and secretly made recordings that have been played in court. While there is talk about killing police, it’s not specific. In one conversation, there are many people talking over each other and laughing.

Roberts pressed that point more than once as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet argued in favor of keeping the nine in jail. The judge suggested she didn’t hear or read in the transcripts any indication that violence was imminent.

“Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. … How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?” Roberts said.

Waterstreet said the government is not required to show all its evidence at this early stage of the case. He referred to the words of militia leader David Stone, 44, of Clayton, Mich., who was recorded by the undercover agent while they drove to Kentucky earlier this year.

“It’s now time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny. Time is up,” Waterstreet said, quoting a transcript.

Later, putting the transcript aside, the prosecutor said: “The theme is the brotherhood is the enemy – all law enforcement.”

Defense lawyers urged the judge to look at each defendant individually. Although all are charged with conspiracy, they were not always together during critical meetings cited by the government.

“‘What if’ is not the standard. … None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime,” said Stone’s attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.

Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to what’s said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

“Millions of people” are talking about “taking our country back,” Weiss said.

The judge also heard from relatives of some of the defendants who pledged to be responsible for them if they were released from jail.

Islamic Influence in U.S. Prisons

. Islamic Influence in U.S. Prisons

by Hillel Fendel

Douglas J.Hagmann, Director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, has written of “extensive” Islamic infiltration into American prison systems.  Excerpts from his most recent article on the topic:

“Most recent statistics available show that one out of three African-American inmates in U.S. prisons convert to Islam while incarcerated.  The type of Islam to which they convert teaches the same ideology as the 9/11 hijackers, which is the ‘Wahhabi’ or ‘Salafi’ form of Islam that originated in and is continually being exported from Saudi Arabia…  [T]he ideology behind this ‘fundamentalist’ form of Islam is completely incompatible with the culture, politics, and social fabric of the West.  Nonetheless, it is being embraced by numerous groups, agencies and individuals inside the United States.

“The high rate of conversion of inmates to Islam, and specifically the Wahhabi brand of Islam is no accident.  The lack of oversight of teaching materials brought in to prisons to facilitate their conversion is no accident.  The influx of Wahhabi chaplains into our prison system and military is no accident.  The entire process is by design, and consists of a sophisticated combination of personnel placement, funding, and an active support structure of numerous interrelated entities and individuals.

“The indoctrination of American inmates is a well known strategy detailed in al Qaeda training manuals.  The manuals state that non-Muslim prisoners should be eyed for conversion to ‘religious jihad’ as they are likely to be ‘disenchanted with their country’s policies’ and feel disenfranchised from society.  They also can make perfect operational assets for Islamic terrorist groups because of their ability to more easily blend into American society.”

In 2003, when Muslims comprised well under 1% of the American population, it was estimated that 17-20% of the prison population was Muslim.  An oft-quoted statistic states that 80% of the prisoners who “find faith” in prison convert to Islam.

This month, this phenomenon led to violence.  A man who converted to Islam in a U.S. prison before he was freed has confessed to killing his wife and three others in Chicago because she refused to wear Muslim garb and adopt his new-found faith.

The confessed murderer is James A. Larry, 31, who confessed to the crime and expressed no remorse.  During his most recent prison term, between 2002 and 2007, he began receiving visits by imams through the Islamic prison outreach program.  “He became increasingly radicalized with orthodox Islamic beliefs,” a detective on the case said, “ultimately demanding compliance to fundamentalist Islam by his wife and family.  He [allegedly] killed his wife because she would not wear Muslim attire, and would not follow his beliefs.  It was an honor killing, pure and simple…”

In addition to shooting his 19-year-old pregnant wife to death, Larry also stands accused of murdering three other relatives, all aged 16 and under, as well as injuring his mother and nephew and shooting at his niece.

“Prisons are Recruiting Grounds for Islamic Fundamentalism”
“This didn’t have to happen,” the detective said.  “But it did, and it will probably happen again in another community, to another family.  The reason it happened here and the reason it will happen again is that we’ve allowed our prisons to become recruiting grounds for Islamic fundamentalism that teaches this twisted [expletive deleted].  And our system has become too lenient, too ‘PC,’ and too afraid to confront this problem, so now we have nearly an entire family murdered by a guy quoting Allah and the Qur’an.”

In a 2004 report, the Justice Department faulted the prison system for failing to protect against “infiltration by [Muslim] extremists.

Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens

Lead Story

Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 28, 2010 12:36 AM


This is what a “police state” looks like

My syndicated column today responds to Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s demagoguery on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Calderon has a long history of bashing the U.S. — and then getting rewarded for it with billions of dollars in foreign aid (see here, here, and here).

I reported on Calderon’s aggressive meddling on behalf of illegal aliens through his government consulate offices in America here. Heather Mac Donald published a thorough investigation of the Mexican government meddle-crats here. Allan Wall has reported on it for years. Mike Sweeney, an Arizona Republic letter-writer underscores my column theme today:

“Having traveled into Mexico last year to various cities on the Baja Peninsula, a distance of more than 1,000 miles round-trip, we were stopped more than 20 times at various checkpoints. At most of those stops, we were told to exit the vehicle and we were subjected to rigorous inspections. Where does Mexican President Felipe Calderón get off with his hypocritical outrage at our Senate Bill 1070?” 

Where indeed?

***

How Mexico treats illegal aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in “Nazi-zona” last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.

The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators “Smash the State,” and holding signs that proclaimed “No human is illegal” and “We have rights.”

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing — a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here’s the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.

“International Regime”: Obama Seeks To Control International Banking

“International Regime”: Obama Seeks To Control International Banking

April 26th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

r3451109101

Financial Times:

The US is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to a push for a tough new international capital regime after the weekend’s G20 and International Monetary Fund meetings glossed over differences between leading economies.

Tim Geithner, US Treasury secretary, met Mario Draghi, chairman of the Financial Stability Board, on Sunday to discuss the contours of a system that would decide the safety and profitability of banks for decades to come and could eclipse the arguments over bank taxes and regulation.

But the different positions of senior central bank and government officials from several countries expressed to the Financial Times on the sidelines of the G20 meetings in Washington suggested that a final international agreement remains a challenge.

The G20 communiqué on Friday said: “We recommitted to developing by end-2010 internationally agreed rules to improve both the quantity and quality of bank capital and to discourage excessive leverage.”

But participants said little time was spent on the issue and that officials were gearing up for a battle at the June meeting over the direction of the new standards, which would prevent banks from relying on short-term funding and disqualify some assets from counting towards core regulatory capital, the highest-quality loss-absorbing part of the capital structure.

The most important fault line runs between a bloc of countries that includes the US, the UK and Switzerland and one that includes Germany, France and Japan.

The first group is enthusiastically behind a substantial increase in capital ratios coupled with a more conservative assessment of what counts as capital, tough liquidity rules and a new simple leverage ratio.

The second group is more attached to the pre-eminence of the current risk-based approach and wants the leverage ratio to have a much less important role in governing banks’ balance sheets.

Officials in the US and Europe are now starting to discuss the quantity of an increase in ratios among themselves. Some want a dramatic increase in the minimum level of capital over risk-weighted assets – perhaps to as much as 25 per cent from 8 per cent today – to be on the table while others want a more modest revision of capital rules.

“In the US right now there’s an absolute paranoia about a future bail-out,” said Douglas Elliott, fellow at the Brookings Institution think-tank. “In Germany and France, where they haven’t had to do this to the same extent and there’s more of a feeling that the state should be involved in the banking system, they’re not as concerned. The more you’re comfortable with the public sector as the potential backstop, the less private capital you need.”

Initial proposals from the Basel committee that sets capital rules met a robust response from banks which complain – with the sympathy of some officials in France and Germany – that some proposals are too unsophisticated to take account of the real asset risk, and credit would become scarcer and more expensive as a result of a move towards tangible equity capital and an increase in capital ratios.

JPMorgan Chase, in a response to a request for consultation, said: “To maintain the same level of profitability, pricing on products would have to increase by 33 per cent.”

One participant at a US Federal Reserve meeting this month to discuss the new regime said “full and frank” did not do justice to the furious response from some industry delegates.

The reaction from capital hawks was that a blunt backstop might be better than an overreliance on the sophistication of risk models and regulators. They also said banks would be given plenty of time to adjust to the new system, perhaps several years, to minimise the immediate impact on credit provision.

Technocrats said they were stepping up the pace of their work, drawing up impact assessments for new regimes. But they were under contradictory pressures, not only over content but also timing, with countries including France recommending a slower, more deliberative approach while the US urges more speed.

For all the technical work, there is an increasing belief that governments and central banks will supersede the Basel officials in the next few months and engage in contentious meetings over the summer.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.