Since when is "naïvety" sufficient cause to deny bail? The traditional reasons to deny bail are because of a flight risk or a community safety risk. An Alaska state judge approved bail; how is it that a federal judge in the same case could disapprove bail? Although Judge Bryan cited Barney's willingness to offer safe harbor to militia leader Schaeffer Cox and allegedly help facilitate Cox's departure from Alaska as an example of a willingness to use flight to avoid prosecution, Cox is in custody and Barney cannot help him depart Alaska. Alaska Dispatch offers more analysis as to what may have influenced the judge's decision.
The intransigence of the federal government in this case reveals who the real driver is. The federal government is the driver; the state of Alaska merely the passenger in this case. As a result, Alaskan public opinion continues to slowly turn in favor of the Schaeffer Cox Six. The federal government is proving itself to be its own worst enemy. Here's a sampling of some comments and their sources (after the jump):
MomForLiberty wrote on Friday, Jul 29 at 11:16 PM (News-Miner):
"Bryan further said Barney’s relationship with Cox shows he is 'naive and likely to be manipulated by others into illegal acts.'"
What a bunch of bull, for someone with no criminal history the opposite is more realistic after such a fiasco! I'm certain he's learned his lesson. If anything he'd be LESS likely to be manipulated by others into illegal acts.
The two main issues with bail are: flight risk and potential harm to others. Mr. Barney satisfied the question of both in such a manner as to prove neither would be an issue. The real reason the Fed doesn't want him out is because they know he would prove their "scare tactic stories" false and it would weaken their case. He is a political prisoner.
MomForLiberty wrote on Saturday, Jul 30 at 11:10 AM (News-Miner):
I am amazed at the impudence so many people have in claiming to know Mr. Barney and any of the other “Schaeffer Cox 6” to be “dangerous” and deserving of not seeing “the light of day for a long long time”. I’d say that 99.9% of those people are the same who only know of the SC6 thru the news reports or the Fed’s set up tactics. Which is biased. The DA tried to put forth claims during the hearing to make those in attendance question support for Mr. Barney. None of what the DA said was shocking, all of it was preemptively and reasonably explained by Mr. Barney, and it would be interesting for that DA to ask any one of those there if they thought Mr. Barney was a two-faced liar (as portrayed by the DA). The answer would be no. The real issues with this whole thing are the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, IRS getting their $$$$$$, and the law enforcement agencies flexing their muscle. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
The way media coverage is on this thing most people have already judged the SC6 guilty without considering ALL the evidence/facts. Those in power want the citizens to feel in danger so they can quash out natural rights in the name of safety. Watch what you wish for in terms of entitlement. They won’t hesitate to step on anyone (in crowd or not) that goes against the machine. BTW name calling is juvenile and useless in a persuasive discussion, so is drawing illogical conclusions like, “it looks like Barney should have went to church more or a different church. My church doesn't promote killing government officials because your buddies have issues with them.” Barney’s church doesn’t and this false assumption is based on incomplete information disseminated by the media. It’s all hearsay, put forth by a proven liar informant. Barney did not lie on the stand, it was used against him but it also proves that he is not a liar and anything else he says should be taken as the truth therefore the most serious charges are trumped up.
Pearl=W wrote on Saturday, Jul 30 at 11:16 AM (News-Miner):
It's kind of off-the-wall to be comparing these people [the accused] to the mass-murderer in Norway. In our free society, we do not imprison people for what they *might become*. That kind of paranoid imagining, expanding what these people have actually been accused [which seems to me to be something of an act of imagination in itself, especially considering fraudulent nature of at least one of the 'CS' that the prosecution's case is based on] for into a huge panorama of imaginary but horrendous and atrocious catastrophes, is what induces people to give up their freedom in the [impossible] hope of ultimate security and protection from the uncertain, unpredictable nature of life itself.
I disagree with the Judge's ruling on bail. I don't see Barney as either a flight risk, or as posing any risk to others, were he released on bail [although there is sound reason to deny Cox bail, obviously]. However, in all fairness, it must be remembered that the Judge must base his decision on the information from BOTH sides of the argument, and at this point he has heard/seen none of the actual evidence in the case. He can not, as an impartial party, dismissed the prosecution's claims entirely, as overblown or hysterical verbage, when he has not yet seen or weighed the evidence.
by SPECKLEFOOT | July 30, 2011 - 12:36pm (Alaska Dispatch):
I have a different answer. The Judge, like all judges, works for the government, and the government is bent on "making an example" of these folks, so it stands to reason that they won't accept a bail arrangement.
I hope that the government loses it's case big time. And then I hope that the people who have been accused and defamed by these actions file suit against the judges and the prosecutors and take their bonds and put at least that many of the rats out of business.