US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something

[Istakhr]

Except this wasn't the situation at all. The Federal LEOs could have easily outgunned and slaughtered the Bundy supporters, they chose (wisely) chose not to go that route. If it came to blows there was never any question who would "win"

Yeah, they wisely chose to tell all the law abiding citizens that they have no rights in "Bundy land" because federal government can't or won't enforce the laws there.

Now I suppose if another rancher wants to use that land, our libertarians would tell us that he should hire his private military to shoot it out with Bundy's militia supporters?

There is no difference between Feds saying they can't enforce the law here and Pakistan being unable to enforce laws in its tribal areas. After all Pakistani state also massively outguns its islamist militias. See that where it got them and you'll see what's going to happen in US once feds "wisely" decide to acquiesce to demands of group that are too armed to arrest.

[Altherion]

Unless you are in the middle of or want to create a new civil war National Guard is useless for this kind of thing. What are they going to do against a mixed mob of unarmed women and children mixed with armed men? Shoot them and make them instant martyrs? Not shoot them and be overrun and shot themselves? Or just leave them alone and let the country slides into anarchy?

Just look at Ukraine and see how effective these tactics are against both normal police and military. You need a heavily armed militarized police using an updated version of anti riot tactics against armed mobs not a military response.

That's part of what the National Guard is:

The state’s Guard may also be ordered by the governor to serve the state by protecting persons or property from either man-made or natural disasters and suppressing or preventing riot, insurrection, invasion or violence.

Anything your militarized police could have done could also have been done by existing organizations. The government withdrew because any physical response to a situation with a mix of lethally armed and unarmed protesters is a disaster waiting to happen. It's not something you can go into without a possibility of significant casualties. The government decided that the stakes are not worth the risk.

[Mazigh]

Yeah, they wisely chose to tell all the law abiding citizens that they have no rights in "Bundy land" because federal government can't or won't enforce the laws there.

Now I suppose if another rancher wants to use that land, our libertarians would tell us that he should hire his private military to shoot it out with Bundy's militia supporters?

There is no difference between Feds saying they can't enforce the law here and Pakistan being unable to enforce laws in its tribal areas. After all Pakistani state also massively outguns its islamist militias. See that where it got them and you'll see what's going to happen in US once feds "wisely" decide to acquiesce to demands of group that are too armed to arrest.

There is a reason for the militias you know I can't say for Pakistan and Subsaharans but the militias are for the most part formed to protect themselves and their villages from other groups (ethnic or religious) that would seek to destroy them If I am not mistaken I think that in the constitution it does state the right for people to maintain their own militias

[ThinkerX]

Been a series of advertisements? news spots? on the local radio station I listen to at work. The topic is very much pro jury nullification: juries judge not merely the facts of the case at hand, but the underlying law as well.

Thought experiment:

Suppose you have a big corporate/political trial involving 'Citizens United' or something similar, and the jury on said case declares that particular law null and void.

Would that work?

And how much trouble would the various lawyers be in for letting the jury nullification thing happen in the first place?

[Istakhr]

That's part of what the National Guard is:

Anything your militarized police could have done could also have been done by existing organizations. The government withdrew because any physical response to a situation with a mix of lethally armed and unarmed protesters is a disaster waiting to happen. It's not something you can go into without a possibility of significant casualties. The government decided that the stakes are not worth the risk.

But at this point US National Guard is just another extra army and has absolutely no experience in dealing with these kinds of situations as even you yourself call it disaster waiting to happen.

And in a country with guaranteed right of keeping and carrying arms under almost any circumstance, and with the growth of militias you should expect police to be forced to routinely deal with mixtures of lethally armed and unarmed protesters in future.

[Fez]

When did that ever happen?

It usually doesn't, its an ideal to hold on to though. And even though we've never a super-informed electorate, it does go through phases that impact the quality of elected officials when its down. Just look at what happens when one party's base or the other stops paying attention to actual facts and is willing to just vote for demagogues (like the current national Republican party) or for entrenched, corrupt stooges (like current state-level Democrats and Republicans in quite a few states).

And I'm really not just saying that Republicans could use more facts. Take the example of New York Democrats (who I'm most familiar with since I used to live in the state). They pay almost no attention to what's going on in the state government at Albany, and just continue to re-elect incumbents without question (including the Democrats currently caucusing with Republicans to create the "co-majority" in the state senate). One of the more famous examples is from a number of years ago when the Assembly Speaker supported a slanted commuter tax that seriously fucked over his constitutents (his district is part of lower Manhattan) for the benefit of up-staters. He should've been rushed out of office next election (or at least had his feet held to fire on it), and it was never even brought up.

Point is, we could use a lot more facts in the political discourse.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yeah, they wisely chose to tell all the law abiding citizens that they have no rights in "Bundy land" because federal government can't or won't enforce the laws there.

Now I suppose if another rancher wants to use that land, our libertarians would tell us that he should hire his private military to shoot it out with Bundy's militia supporters?

There is no difference between Feds saying they can't enforce the law here and Pakistan being unable to enforce laws in its tribal areas. After all Pakistani state also massively outguns its islamist militias. See that where it got them and you'll see what's going to happen in US once feds "wisely" decide to acquiesce to demands of group that are too armed to arrest.

Your original claim was that the government backed off because Bundy had matched their force, and you continue to compare it to a failed state situation. Do you not see the difference between a government deescalating for PR's sake, and a government retreating because of an actual material disadvantage? Bundy and his supporters are not a physical threat to the state, just a symbolic one.

The Pakistani Taliban (rooted in the tribal areas) on the other hand conducts viscous attacks against the state, and the Pak Government could not easily overwhelm them or the local tribes. The U.S. Government could easily overwhelm the Bundy-ites

You're being hyperbolic and your comparison is ridiculous

[Altherion]

Suppose you have a big corporate/political trial involving 'Citizens United' or something similar, and the jury on said case declares that particular law null and void.

Would that work?

And how much trouble would the various lawyers be in for letting the jury nullification thing happen in the first place?

No. A jury cannot nullify law. What they can do is decide that a law makes no sense and declare a defendant innocent in a specific case despite the preponderance of evidence being against said defendant. It only works when there is a jury trial in the first place (so probably nothing related to Citizens United) and is only proof against higher courts when acquitting (a conviction can be appealed, but an acquittal cannot).

But at this point US National Guard is just another extra army and has absolutely no experience in dealing with these kinds of situations as even you yourself call it disaster waiting to happen.

And in a country with guaranteed right of keeping and carrying arms under almost any circumstance, and with the growth of militias you should expect police to be forced to routinely deal with mixtures of lethally armed and unarmed protesters in future.

Again, I don't see how creating yet another militarized group would be helpful.

[Seli]

Incredibly naive.

Not really, just come to Western Europe. Of course it will take a few decades to get to that point in the US even starting today, so practical it ain't

[davos]

There is a reason for the militias you know I can't say for Pakistan and Subsaharans but the militias are for the most part formed to protect themselves and their villages from other groups (ethnic or religious) that would seek to destroy them If I am not mistaken I think that in the constitution it does state the right for people to maintain their own militias

Nope, the constitution says jack about citizens forming their own militias. The framers of the constitution saw a citizen militia as a replacement for a standing army. The militia as they saw it, and as it is provided for in the constitution, was to be regulated and controlled by the government, not a group of citizens acting on their own accord.

As per clause 15, the Federal Congress has the power to provide for the calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. As per clause 16, the congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.

Basically, the militia is formed by the government. The constitution does not grant the people the right to form independent, unregulated armed forces within the United States.

[Istakhr]

snip

If you think Pakistani government doesn't have the military capability to crush the militia groups that openly defy its rule and control its tribal region you are incredibly misinformed about the military capabilities of both sides there. (I'm not talking about hidden islamists and their sympathizers ,only those who publicly stand up to their government like these militia folks)

The reason for my comparison is because these situations is exactly the same, both governments think any move will create a bloodbath and are afraid of creating martyrs, turning their citizens against them and igniting terror campaigns and widespread civil unrest.

You can only deal with these situations with a police force that is equipped enough to not need any military support.

Again, I don't see how creating yet another militarized group would be helpful.

Ordinary federal law enforcement agencies should deal with these stuff, not the National Guard. Americans have a right to bear arms including assault and sniper rifles even in antigovernment protests and with the rise of right wing militias are going to both use it in greater numbers and create more illegal incidents of intimidation of law enforcement officers or outright shooting at them during protests.

You can't bring the NG in anytime a group of armed protesters show up, nor you can let them do anything they want to do.

Just the simplest example that I gave, if feds don't have armored cars, they have to either tuck tail and escape or threaten and eventually use lethal force against crowds of mixed unarmed and armed people if they are being shot at or threatened.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Basically, the militia is formed by the government. The constitution does not grant the people the right to form independent, unregulated armed forces within the United States.

Nor does it deny such a right, meaning it is perfectly legal to form or join such a group. They are "regulated" by the same laws that regulate every citizen (they don't have access to aircraft/tanks, they can't actually initiate force, etc)

Your interpretation of the militia as originally envisioned is also far too narrow. It was considered to be every able-bodied adult male citizen at the time, and so logically would include adult women now they enjoy full citizenship

The reason for my comparison is because these situations is exactly the same, both governments think any move will create a bloodbath and are afraid of creating martyrs, turning their citizens against them and igniting terror campaigns and widespread civil unrest.

You can only deal with these situations with a police force that is equipped enough to not need any military support.

Bundy and co. are "exactly the same" as a confederation of violent tribes and Islamic Jihadists? The reason the feds didn't move in on Bundy is "exactly the same" reason the Pakistanis didn't move on the tribal regions? :bang:

[Shryke]

While I think ideally in any country, a demilitarized police should be the goal, including a police force without firearms, you can't just disarm the police without first creating a situation in society where a less militarized police is still effective by decreasing income inequality, effective rehabilitation programs for lawbreakers and implementing other measures including civilian fire arms restrictions.

I think the Bundy situation and the failure of the US law enforcement to enforce the law due to militia involvement in his case shows that US needs a more militarized law enforcement not less. I would probably start with handing over the extra, left over armored vehicles from middle eastern wars to federal law enforcement agencies and if militia movement continues to grow start thinking about using armed drones for extra support.

When your law enforcement can't enforce your laws due to being outgunned, you have to accept more militarization or you'll end up in a lawless state run by private militias and gangs like so many african countries.

They weren't outgunned.

What this incident shows is the same it's always shown. That the militia movement are a bunch of nutters. The scariest part is how many parts of what's supposed to be the viable political right-wing in the US are supporting using force to defend a thief based on factless demagoguery. That's the kind of political ideological movement that's disturbing.

Absolutely not. Neither the police nor federal law enforcement agencies should be armed heavily enough to singlehandedly deal with a militia. This is not their job. Furthermore, I think you are misjudging the current situation. The reason the BLM left is not because they were outgunned. They could have requisitioned more than enough firepower from other agencies to deal with this. However, if they did that and slaughtered this militia, a thousand others would take its place (and our government would look terrible). It's not worth some grazing land or whatever it was they were fighting over.

No, they chose not to do it because they didn't want to start the shooting and have people die. They, wisely, chose to pursue this another way.

The militia movement has always believed in this honourable sacrifice that will cause the people to rise up against tyranny, but it's both stupid and a scary ideological slant that leads directly to the Bundy militia's statements about how they would use their own women and children as human shields.

[Shryke]

Tracker,

If that is the case is my position on retained State soveriegnty a stalking horse for racism?

I've always found "code language" discussions to, frequently but not always, be an excuse to jam words in peoples' mouths and to speak as though they said something they have not. How can it be otherwise?

No Scot, your position is just an isolated incident that has no connection to the trend of "States Rights" in American politics. Which in it's most recent incarnation (that's been around a long damn time to be clear) is, as Galactus correctly points out, a reaction to the increase of rights for blacks and other minorities at the federal level.

Which is to say that you, Scot, believe in states rights for libertarian reasons. We all know that. That doesn't mean that's what the term means in US political discourse though.

[Istakhr]

Bundy and co. are "exactly the same" as a confederation of violent tribes and Islamic Jihadists? The reason the feds didn't move in on Bundy is "exactly the same" reason the Pakistanis didn't move on the tribal regions? :bang:

Meh, folks that think they know the true version of Islam and are willing to kill and die for it which is the basic law of Pakistan are so different from the folks that know the True Constitution and want to martyr themselves and fight the unbelievers to "refresh tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

Or maybe you think folks that don't recognize the federal government and think they are not citizens of USA but citizens of Utah or whatever their state is are different from Pakhtuns who say they are not Pakistanis.

[lokisnow]

I'd rather we all just accepted rule-based utilitarianism and moved on to debating policy. I find first principles even more boring than the horse race.

These threads would benefit enormously from an influx of charts and graphics.

Charts and graphs and "science!" has given us phrenology, Supply side Economics and Eugenics. So while data driven policy can be useful (and the good generally outweighs the silly negative examples above), the data is only as good as the humans utilizing it. And data wonks and technocrats of the 2014 variety have a disturbing tendency to eliminate the human elements from their world view in chasing more pure numbers. That means I don't trust a lot of the policy prescriptions because they're so wildly divorced from the reality of human nature (inherently selfish and evil) and the realities of human behavior. Technocrats and wonks have replaced empathy and thoughtfulness with incentives and nudges, treating people like cold numbers or intriguing labrats.

Honestly, a technocrat utilitarian wonk aiming to make the human race better tends to be a hell of a lot more dangerous (and probably will be responsible for a lot more deaths and human misery) than your average militia or terrorist leader.

Technocracy is the engine of democracy. A well-informed, knowledgable electorate ignores demagogues and votes with their critical thinking skills.

This seems incredibly naive. It reminds of the criminally insane naivete that brought meto the thread tonight: democrat Patrick Leahy thinks that if he brings back the tactics of segregationists in order to give republicans more power over judges the republicans will be happy fun time friends with him in the future and will OF COURSE in the future extend democrats the same courtesy of immense, almost unprecedented power that Leahy is currently extending to republicans. Leahy is just so wildly divorced from reality it's heartbreaking. There is no way the republicans will abide by the extreme convention Leahy has adopted. There is no way the republicans will voluntarily yield immense power to democrats in the minority.

But at least someone finally got to the bottom of why Reid's nuclear option fizzled, Leahy decided he'd revive the tactics of the most extreme segregationists of the Senate to thwart Obama. Truly, one of the most tragic examples of democrats finding some horrible way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Spectacularly terrible. Good God, I get more upset the more I think about it.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/17/3427259/blue-slip/

[grumdin]

Nope, the constitution says jack about citizens forming their own militias. The framers of the constitution saw a citizen militia as a replacement for a standing army. The militia as they saw it, and as it is provided for in the constitution, was to be regulated and controlled by the government, not a group of citizens acting on their own accord.

As per clause 15, the Federal Congress has the power to provide for the calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. As per clause 16, the congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.

Basically, the militia is formed by the government. The constitution does not grant the people the right to form independent, unregulated armed forces within the United States.

"Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

So the constitution says that the Congress is only allowed to fund a standing army for two years at a time. So tell you what, I'll agree that citizens militia are unconstitutional if you agree that a permanent standing army is the same.

[grumdin]

Meh, folks that think they know the true version of Islam and are willing to kill and die for it which is the basic law of Pakistan are so different from the folks that know the True Constitution and want to martyr themselves and fight the unbelievers to "refresh tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

Or maybe you think folks that don't recognize the federal government and think they are not citizens of USA but citizens of Utah or whatever their state is are different from Pakhtuns who say they are not Pakistanis.

It's called the United States of America...not the United State of America. The US was founded as a confederation of sovereign states, however ever since socialists and centralizers of various stripe have been doing their damndest to remedy that.

[sologdin]

ha. civil war was socialism.

[Galactus]

"Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

So the constitution says that the Congress is only allowed to fund a standing army for two years at a time. So tell you what, I'll agree that citizens militia are unconstitutional if you agree that a permanent standing army is the same.

Err, technically that doesen't say anything about not havin a standing army, just that the funds for it needs to be granted in two-year blocks. Nothing whatsoever prevents it from being consistently funded two years at a time, or even in two-year blocks in advance. It's a purely procedural limitation.

Your interpretation of the militia as originally envisioned is also far too narrow. It was considered to be every able-bodied adult male citizen at the time, and so logically would include adult women now they enjoy full citizenship

IE: The draft.

It's called the United States of America...not the United State of America. The US was founded as a confederation of sovereign states, however ever since socialists and centralizers of various stripe have been doing their damndest to remedy that.

Yup, by for instance, adopting the US constitution. As soon as that happened, states were no longer Sovereign. (since they no longer acted as sovereign entities)