I have read the Articles of Alliance and agree with the
purpose and intent. Certainly there needs to be cooperation
among the various militias. As you may know, my intent in forging
the idea of a 3d Continental Congress was to bring together
the militias under a national command authority, subordinate to
the Congress of the Provisional Government. While the Alliance
achieves the generally intended amalgamation of state militia
groups, it still lacks oversight by a Congress or Committee of
Safety. Without that oversight, difficulty may arise in carrying
out the actions alluded to in the document.
We pledge that the unwarranted use of deadly force against any militiaman,
within the Alliance, will be considered an act of war that will bring a swift
response from all the Alliance militias.
While I would agree with the general idea, I am troubled that
"unwarranted" is too ambiguous and will lead to real problems in
deciding whether the act that resulted in the death of a militia
member would in fact bring a swift response.
Some questions that would need to be decided fairly rapidly would
As one might imagine, any action that results in the death of one
militia member may be considered to be "unwarranted" by someone.
Obviously, those who perpetrated the action might think it justified,
while those who might claim that "any action by an illegal government"
constitutes "unwarranted action." As you can see, the term is
not only ambiguous, but the conditions leading to a response are
already determined before the event takes place.
Declaring that we WILL take a prescribed action eliminates our control
of the response and the options available to us. We are locked in to
either doing what we say we will do or be shown to be "paper tigers"
if we don't. Without a unified command structure, the Alliance will
be strained at the first situation where a militia member is killed,
regardless of how it happens.
Perhaps rather than lay it out in terms that can cause division,
other words might be better and less controversial, giving us more
options and remedies without losing credibility IF WE DON'T react.
While I won't argue that each and every militia member is valuable,
the chances of an individual doing something that gets him killed
is far higher than the chances that a well-regulated group will
Consider for a minute this idea:
The corporate response by an alliance ought to be balanced
so that "an Federal attack against any Alliance Militia will be
considered as an attack against the Alliance and may be responded
to by the Alliance." This caveat would prevent a war starting
because one individual happened to be killed by a Barney Fife
Sheriff's Deputy somewhere... (it happens....accidents happen).
But by clarifying that a Federal Government attack on an entire
body of militia would be an act of aggression against the Alliance,
there develops a self-policing among militia organizations to
prevent (as best they can) an act that might provoke a federal
attack. This also provides our local police (sheriffs and
troopers) some breathing room IF, repeat IF, some boneheaded
goober shoots one of our people. As in the case of Mike Hill,
we didn't know the facts for some time and still don't since there
are two sides of the story, but if another tragedy such as the
Mike Hill murder were to happen, would we activate the entire
Alliance? What if member groups refused to cross state lines
for the sake of one person's death due to a stupid accident where
possibly both individuals (the victim and the shooter) were equal
and simply drew and started shooting?
Now compare that scenario with a large group. It would seem that
if 100 ATF or FBI go marching in against a militia organization
that is trying to abide by lawful and just rules while enjoying
their rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, I think it would
be safe to say that an Alliance Response would be in order.
And IF such a situation were to take place, the determination of the
REASON for a collective retaliatory response would be clearer.
Think about it. This issue is brought up NOT to
stir up trouble, but to look at "choke points" that could cause
a falling out or dissension over what might be considered a
reason for a response and by whom.
Since this is an Alliance of Militia Organizations rather than
a agreement of militia individuals around the country, it ought
to focus on the organizations and not make a statement of intent
to retaliate or avenge the death of a single individual. The principle
is that we ought not make a threat we cannot and will not follow
through on; for to do so limits our options and puts us in the corner
strategically. It is better to have UNITED retaliation AS AN
OPTION, but it may be unwise to declare that it will be done in
response to what may be argued to be an "unwarranted" death of a
Alliance leaders need to emphasize responsible and wise behavior
by member organizations so that a member group doesn't do something
that will bring contention and conflict between other member militias.
I urge member militia units to work together to establish some kind
of unified command structure of people able to foresee and plan in
advance of contingencies, take responsibility and command/control
authority DURING, and rational responsive action FOLLOWING any possible
Something to think about. .
Back to Modern Militiaman #6
Back to The Patriot Coalition?
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line