Thursday, October 29, 2009

Is there a constitutional dog in this fight?


Back in the 90s, when we were first getting the constitutional militia movement together in this part of Alabama, we did a lot of talking about our own rules of engagement. There was a widespread perception among groups that an attack on one was an attack on all, but there were wrinkles and permutations that were troubling. For example, someone raised this question:

"What if the ATF/FBI pulled a Waco on a Klan group?"

Well, we rolled that one around for a bit and the consensus was that pinhead green-teethed racists had constitutional rights too, and so we would be compelled to come to their assistance. Finally, somebody offered: "Hey, I know. Why don't we just show up late and avenge their deaths?" We had a big laugh and moved on to the next topic. Fine joke. In theory. But the world is a real place full of obscure and difficult choices.

So when I read the story below, I had to wonder, "is there a constitutional dog in this fight?" You've got the FBI versus a group of armed ex-cons. You know, one gang going after another gang.

My problem is I no longer believe a word the FBI says. I've had too much personal experience which persuades me that they routinely lie like dogs when it suits their purpose (a phrase which I always thought was a vicious slander on dogs for they are among God's most honest creatures).

Ideally such law-breakers (the Islamic radicals, not the FBI) would be handled by local or state law enforcement. (Well, OK, the premise of Absolved is that the Feds should be dealt with by state and local authorities as well. Like I said, at most levels, gang activity is recognizable regardless of the origin of the gang or the colors they fly. By their works ye shall know them.)

But that is not the world we live in, thanks to 75 years of federal encroachment on the constitutional rule of law.

I'd like more information on this case. Some of the rationales cited in the story by the Fibbies will be applied to me, when and if they decide that game is worth the candle:

"He regularly preaches anti-government and anti-law enforcement rhetoric . . . Abdullah and his followers have trained regularly in the use of firearms, and continue to train in martial arts and sword fighting."

Oh, my! So maybe they're training without firearms because they're ex-cons and are denied firearms. And maybe those who are training with firearms are the legit ones. Like I said, I no longer believe anything the FBI says.

On the face of it, these are Islamo-fascists who seek to set up sharia law in the US contrary to the Constitution. (When I read this story, I also thought of John Ringo's Detroit Imam in The Last Centurion.)

So, again, I wonder if there is a constitutional dog in this fight or if I should just put it down to an internecine fight between gangs.

What do you think?


Feds: Islamic Radical Killed in Mich. Raid


DETROIT (Oct. 28) — A man described as a leader of a radical Sunni Islam group in the U.S. was fatally shot Wednesday afternoon while resisting arrest and exchanging gunfire with federal agents, authorities said.

Agents at a warehouse in Dearborn were trying to arrest Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal possession and sale of firearms. Ten followers listed in a criminal complaint were also being rounded up in the area.

Abdullah refused to surrender, fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.

In a court filing, the FBI said Abdullah, also known as Christopher Thomas, was an imam, or prayer leader, of a radical group named Ummah whose primary mission is to establish an Islamic state within the United States.

No one was charged with terrorism. But Abdullah was "advocating and encouraging his followers to commit violent acts against the United States," FBI agent Gary Leone said in an affidavit.

"He regularly preaches anti-government and anti-law enforcement rhetoric," Leone said. "Abdullah and his followers have trained regularly in the use of firearms, and continue to train in martial arts and sword fighting."

Leone said members of the national group mostly are black and some converted to Islam while in prisons across the United States.

"Abdullah preaches that every Muslim should have a weapon, and should not be scared to use their weapon when needed," Leone wrote.

It was not immediately clear how many of the other 10 suspects were in custody.

The group believes that a separate Islamic state in the U.S. would be controlled by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, who is serving a life sentence in a federal prison in Colorado for shooting two police officers in Georgia in 2000, Leone said. Al-Amin, a veteran of the black power movement, started the group after he converted to Islam in prison.

"They're not taking their cues from overseas," said Jimmy Jones, a professor of world religions at Manhattanville College and a longtime Muslim prison chaplain. "This group is very much American born and bred."

The movement at one time was believed to include a couple of dozen mosques around the country. Ummah is now dwarfed in numbers and influence by other African-American Muslim groups, particularly the mainstream Sunnis who were led by Imam W.D. Mohammed, who recently died.

By evening, authorities still were working the scene near the Detroit-Dearborn border and the warehouse was surrounded by police tape.

The U.S. attorney's office said an FBI dog was also killed during the shootout.

Abdullah's mosque is in a brick duplex on a quiet, residential street in Detroit. A sign on the door in English and Arabic reads, in part, "There is no God but Allah."

Several men congregated on the porch Wednesday night and subsequently attacked a photographer from The Detroit News who was taking pictures from across the street. Ricardo Thomas had his camera equipment smashed and had a bloody lip from the attack.

Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Dearborn, said the FBI had briefed him about Wednesday's raids and told him they were the result of a two-year investigation.

"We know that this is not something to be projected as something against Muslims," Hamad said.


RWE-III said...

I, too, as a resident of SE Michigan would like more facts on this, especially as Dearborn is home to the largest Arab population outside of the Mideast in the USA. However, there are some things that strike me as odd....

Cross jurisdictional issues:

1 - As much as they screw things up, why didn't the BATFE arrest this man if there were illegal weapons possession and sales charges? Isn't that BATFE's mission?

2 - He 'fired a weapon' and was killed.

Where? Into the ground, the air, at an agent? Certainly grounds for arrest on local ordinances against discharging weapons in city limits, but without aiming it at an agent, certainly not justification for killing a suspect.

First Amendment issues: "Regularly preaches anti-government and anti-law enforcement rhetoric..."

So does half the law abiding citizenry in the US.

"This group is very much American born and bred."

Ok, then also under the first Amendment, they have Freedom of Association/Assembly.

Second Amendment issues: "Abdullah preaches every Muslim should have a weapon and should not be scared to use it when needed."

What other purpose does the Second Amendment have than to ensure the citizenry is armed and not afraid to use their weapons when needed?

So, a lot more facts need to be provided on this one...

As it stands, I see the standard 'demonization' of anyone up against the feds in play here...but I could be just paranoid.

Anonymous said...

".. they routinely lie like dogs when it suits their purpose (a phrase which I always thought was a vicious slander on dogs for they are among God's most honest creatures)."

ahh... gosh mike, here i always sorta thought it was about them doggies snoozing all the time, generally right where you want to walk. we all know the pure little critters never ever tell lies, knock over your beer, steal food, piss on the wife's petunias, dig up your garden, chew up your boots, or any thang like that... but i have to agree comparing fbi dupes to dogs in any way is an insult to our dear friends, maybe you can just use the other iteration of that saying: '... lies like a rug' to keep thangs pure from now on. maybe we should also change other sayings like: 'lie down with feds and get fleas... or get buggered is probably more like it, especially with this admin...


MPA dragon said...

The interesting part of the story is that a Fibbie Dog was killed instead of the Citizen Dog, as is usually the case..

Ok, there may be more salient points, but that one struck me.

Chris K. said...

That libel will be applied to all of us soon enough. Imagine what they would have said had Montana decided that it wanted out like they suggested before Heller.
I think in this instance is best to sit back, let the chips fall where they may and take copious notes.

Anonymous said...

Seeing as the radical Islamists have said they want to kill us (ordinary, everyday Americans), I would side with the FBI on this one. Those Islamists are exactly the types of guys the Feds SHOULD be going after!

But instead, you find the Fed types going after honest, law-abiding gun owners such as you and me.


Anonymous said...

For the moment, it sonds like Sharia "law" (rule of man) vs Fibbies. Leave this sleeping dog lie - for the moment, anyway. Until you have further proof to the contrary.
And proof (truth) will always come out.

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

He regularly preaches anti-government and anti-law enforcement rhetoric....

I see how they are going to lump us all together....

thedweeze said...

I saw an earlier edition that didn't mention Dead Guy firing a weapon, and so it really stood out that they would shoot the leader and then take the followers into custody.

And I, too, have been wrestling with the problem of 'allies' who might be also against Gummint overreach but who otherwise I would want nothing to do with. Thanks for pointing out the difference between "rescue" and "avenge". :)

AlphaWolf said...

Greetings from Wyoming,
being one that is not beholden to radical Islam, for my own reasons, i read this , with some reservations, there is indeed a constitutional dog in this fight in my views , that of freedom of religion , like it or not , freedom of speech, like it or not , and the right to bear arms , remember arms are not confined to just fire arms. the question that was first posed was , should we come to the aide of those that we are diometrically opposed to ideoically, because an attack on one is really an attack on all, be they be for good or bad.
All i can say for myself , is , if the individuals are acting within the law , have broken no laws , which if you believe the fibbers, is not the case here, then yes. the islamics rights , constitutional rights were trampled, we are now in gray areas since they supposedly "broke " laws , is aide required? we have to wait and see what unfolds as to those supposed charges of illegality, but on the face , they exercized their freedom of speech , religion , and right to bear arms, as an oathkeeper , i have to stand on that, not that i agree with what they say , but they have a right to say it under our Constitution as to coming to their aid, nothing says i have to rush right over and fight the fivbbers , but i can decry the use of force on those that were exercizing their rights , as to the supposed illegal activities that brought on the raid , does illegal activity , negate , the other rights ? its a fine line because if thats the case , no one is safe from anyone really , and since there are only alligations so far , and no conviction , the innocent , until proven guilty still applied in our systems of law , no matter what the persons backgrounds may be, so please readers , do not take this as a defense of islam , but a defense of what the Constitution says , some times , to defend it , you have to include things you dont agree with , or like , simply because if you take any rights from one , you take them from all.i leave this for your contermplation , and wishing all well.


Anonymous said...

I don't think there is a constitutional dog in this fight, given that the people involved (gosh, on both sides!) would see the Constitution buried and legitimized tyranny (albeit of differing flavor) erected in its place.

The greater the mutual destruction between these two enemies of ours, the better, IMHO.

Lastly, if the FBI can beat their chest at having taken out this group, that's one less line item they can use to justify a bigger budget. "Mission accomplished" with existing resources. (Not that they won't get whatever they request anyway, but...)

As a frequent "boiled frog argument" commenter on this fantastic blog, believing as I do in the remarkable apathy, passivity, and cluelessness of the American public (inculcated since the 60s), I've raised the question of what's going to happen if the government keeps a tight lid on domestic paramilitary operations and sticks to economic rape solely.

Of late, in my daily attempts to intuit the trends in this nation and the world at large, I am tending to the point of view that conflagration is inevitable.

The domestic economic picture and the dynamics of oil production / delivery, I believe, are due to deteriorate within the next year or two to the point that the feds will be under acute pressure to whip up threat hysteria as justification for domestic control and foreign energy adventures.

But would a conflagration at home have sufficient critical mass to spread and wash away the federal scum, or would it come late enough in the day that federal/mercenary forces will be so numerous and so well pre-positioned that we'll see disjoint fires that are overwhelmed and extinguished?

While we are cautiously avoiding Ft. Sumter, will the feds strike at their ideological opponents in sequence, perhaps following specific false flag events?

We cannot allow ourselves to be destroyed singly, or to wait so long that there's a camera/microphone on every street corner lamp post, 24/7 drone coverage over the whole country, and sufficient number of shock troops on standby that would make patriot life very dangerous indeed.

So, while I personally cannot stomach defending islamo-fascists, nor to give feds rhetorical ammunition to link constitutionalists with them by association, I worry that rigidly waiting until next Waco may be a losing proposition in the end.

In the immediate future, I think it is wise to work on subversive or liberating, depending on your colors, technology for the masses. Mike's book(s) are superlative examples of the above. Secure/resilient/multimodal telecommunications technology would be very useful. There's no short supply of libertarians who are adept with digital technology, and it is high time to put that to serious use. I think that universal high tech surveillance is to be a major component of the usurpers' strategy, and I believe we need to work very seriously at minimizing the lethal effects thereof.


SamenoKami said...

I can promise you that if this guy was a true believer of islam that he had it in for everybody that wasn't a true believer. They wanted to create an islamic state within the US borders w/the former H.Rapp Brown as the leader.

I far as the freedom of religion argument goes, I think you draw a line w/a violent, anti-constitutionalist, anti-freedom religion aka islam. islam is more of a political system than a religion anyway. The case could probably be made to outlaw it in the US since its whole being is seditious in its practice.

Anonymous said...

I concur. The ability to destroy, jam, or hijack the enemies surveillance resources is important. But I am an analog kinda guy. So I leave the fancy hi-tech solutions to others. I am just thinking that it will be a major advantage that we should try and take away as much as possible.


Anonymous said...

Maybe there's a little Oath Keeper in all of them?

Anonymous said...

What's odd to me about this whole thing is that there's been barely any uproar about it.

A muslim radical is shot dead by federal agents, and a FBI dog is also killed in the shootout.

Under Bush, 24-7 coverage, with press conferences. Under Obama, a quiet, low-key, low-detail story, almost in passing.

One thing that's amusing, though, is the reaction of the followers to the reporter taking pictures at the scene.

A smart group would be engaging the reporter, giving him their side of the story. And the reporter, eager for said story, would happily work that angle.

That behavior, right there, makes me far less sympathetic to their plight. They are thugs, using religion as an excuse for thuggery.

Just like the fictional imam in the John Ringo story, who gets his just desserts in the end.

jon said...

i'll put it this way: even if this guy were serious about being a threat, i wouldn't consider him a serious threat. i wouldn't consider 10,000 of his sort a serious threat. aren't the street and prison gangs we already have that big, or bigger? and they're only "successful" because they exist to make money, one way or another.

Shy Wolf said...

First they came for the books... but I don't read.
Then they came for the writers... but I don't write.
Then they came for the Jews...
but I'm not a Jew...
We all know the story. It's "us against them" and "they" are the enemy. Still, I find it hard to reconcile that the enemy of my enemy is my friend when that friend wants to kill me as well. Yet these people are Americans under attack regardless their religious affiliation. My duty is to them and the Constitution, their rights under it, not to the dotfedgov attacking them. So it's between a rock and a hard place. Dammit, Mike! you make things so complicated at times.
No wonder we love ya.

Anonymous said...

I don't have the story in front of me now, but I recall several mentions of stolen property. Also that it was a two year investigation that led to the raids.
I think the references to weapons and ideology is added more to paint future opponents (i.e. us). All the easier to demonize us later, by the association.

Chris K. said...

It might have been worth being there for the aftermath to help this guy:

Anonymous said...

If I substitute Sipsey Street into this "news" report, it reads like something I would expect to find in the paper. The government tells you that employment is up, national debt is irrelevant, and the Federal Reserve smooths out bumps in the economy. Why would you believe the government when they say person Y is a terrorist?

"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them"
-- Solzhenitsyn

"I can promise you that if this guy was a true believer of X that he had it in for everybody that wasn't a true believer. They wanted to create an X state within the US borders with Y as the leader.

I far as the freedom of religion argument goes, I think you draw a line with a violent, anti-constitutionalist, anti-freedom religion aka X. X is more of a political system than a religion anyway. The case could probably be made to outlaw it in the US since its whole being is seditious in its practice.

The comment reads fine if I substitute X with: Islamic Sharia, Big Federal Government, the Mafia, Christian Identity, Radical Green Econut, or any other kind of fundamentalism.