Replies

Can they be more specific? Or is there actually a crime called 'opposing by force the authority of the US government'?

"Seditious Conspiracy" is really an Orwellian charge. Conspiracy is two or more people getting together and planning, however obliquely, something illegal. Even mere conversation, with no actions taken to move it forward, could potentially be a conspiracy.

Sedition is opposing the authority of the state. So, putting the two together, it is not potentially illegal to discuss opposing the authority of the state. Now: combine them. Any conversation about lessening or opposing the power of the state is potentially "seditious conspiracy". Consider "The Free State Project", for instance.

Here is the Wikipedia history of Sedition in the USA. It's intersting that Obama is now using laws that were last used against Communist conspirators against the Patriot Movement.

There have been 24 attempts in the United States to regulate speech that has been deemed seditious. In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress, but specifically not the Vice-President.
This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency. He had been the Vice-President at the time of the Act's passage.
In the Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 made it a crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the American army and navy with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended Sedition Act of 1918, which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the Government of the United States.
These Acts were upheld in 1919 in the case of Schenck v. United States, but they were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign espionage in the United States and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial.
Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" - beginning in 1949 - and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.
Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[13] after writing a letter[14][15] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU[16]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].

It will be intersting to see how the left responds. Bush never arrested leftist protesters (who did a lot more violence than this militia) for "seditious conspiracy". Perhaps the brick throwers were arrested for throwing bricks, but no one went out to places like "AlterNet" or "ChimpOut.org" and arrested them for "seditious conspiracy". (Nor, in my belief should they have).

Obama is raising the stakes dangerously.

Can they be more specific? Or is there actually a crime called 'opposing by force the authority of the US government'?

Well, these people will be in front of a jury of their peers where the evidence will be presented. I'm sure there are a number of email exchanges and possibly wiretapping concerning the conspiracy to murder cops and from what I believe, these idiots were talking to an informant that they thought knew how to build IEDs.

I don't see why so many people think this isn't plausible, many of y'all sound like conspiracy theorists! Out of a country of 350 million people, there are going to be some wackos and sometimes economic or political times could exacerbate the very small fringe groups in this country.

The problem I have is with alarmists on both sides, some people are in complete denial while others on the left use this as an example of conservatism at large or why we need to change gun laws or something like that. I also find it troubling that so many people are so quick to defend this group, is it because they have 'Christian' in their names? And now, like the good group thinkers that some people are, I will be instantly labeled myself as a troll or liberal for ask that question. It's like so many people on both sides just have to put everybody in a neat little box.