US-Politics The Resistible Rise of Donald J. Trump

[Wise Fool]

Agitators. That's the word I was looking for, the very word. That's who these Bundy-led goons are and what they're about. Agitatin'.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

It is domestic terrorism, but I think the Feds are trying to avoid the mistakes of the 90s, (specifically at Waco and Ruby Ridge) where heavy handed tactics caused the true launch of the militia movement of the 90s and resulted in a rapidly multiplication of militia groups. These groups want the Feds to do a harsh crackdown on them, because it would make them look like they were right about claiming that the country has become tyrannical, and subsequently swell their numbers and egg on other militias and militia type groups.

So personally, I hope the authorities manage to talk them out peacefully rather than storming the building or letting the gunmen go out in a blaze of glory that make them martyrs. And then I hope the guys absolutely get the book thrown at them in court afterwards for domestic terrorism, insurrection, and possibly even treason. (I mean, they have literally taken up arms against the US government and urged other to do so, it's hard to see how you can get a more textbook definition of an insurrection.)

If that doesn't happen and these guys get a "Oh, those wacky, mischievous boys" reaction from most of the country, it will be absolutely infuriating. Especially given that the people reacting this way to armed men taking over a Federal Building and calling for people to take up arms against their government will also have a huge overlap with the people who that cops were right to fire on a black 12 year old with a pellet gun in an Open Carry state within 2 seconds of getting out of their police car.

Well, Kennedy sent the National Guard to ensure the law of the land was enacted in 1963. And I give George Wallace as an elected governor more authority/credibility than any of those Bundy offsprings.

[DanteGabriel]

The Hammonds have turned themselves to server out their sentence and denounced the actions going on.  There are few if any locals involved.  These are actually the "Outside agitators coming in to stir up trouble".

The desire for a violent confrontation is quite strange, sad, and disturbing.

Since the Hammonds have cooperated with the authorities I'm reading this as just dumb opportunism from the Bundy Welfare Mooch Posse and assorted camera-chasing dead-enders from various right wing fringe movements, including a dipshit chickenhawk anti-Muslim activist. It's telling that these guys broke off from a peaceful demonstration and drove 30 miles down the road to find an empty federally-owned shack to boldly commandeer. Trouble is, despite their stated intentions to bravely occupy the empty shack for "years" if need be, they failed to bring snacks and energy drinks.

And despite their central claim that they are motivated by a desire for local control, they're a bunch of outside agitators involving themselves in a local matter that has not one fucking thing to do with their whiny tantrums over having to pay absurdly low grazing fees on federal land.

Josh Marshall of TPM is right -- this is white privilege performance art.

[The Mance]

Has water and power been shut off in whatever building/compound they are occupying?  If so, this situation is going to resolve itself, they will have to come out at some point. 

Probably not as easy as just shutting off utilities to the compound.  An isolated, rural structure like they're in is probably on it's own well and septic system, and likely has at least a 500 or 1000 gallon propane tank for heat, hot water, cooking, etc.  They might be on a county electrical grid which could be shut off, though I don't know that they could isolate those particular structures from other buildings nearby.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

 

  You are suggesting that the Ranchers should be made "examples of" and there does not appear that they have anything to do with what is going on.  I am sure the Ranchers are not shining examples of virtue and goodness but some of the posts are wanting a response will be ludicrous and counterproductive based on reason that have nothing to do with situation that is involved.

"Ranchers" was a bit misleading/ambigious on my part. But I think from the rest of my post it should be somewhat clear, that by "Ranchers" I actually meant those guys occupying a building with their guns and demand a court to change its ruling (or in the past in the original Bundy Ranch stand off the goverment from not collecting legal fees). Unlike the two arsonists who apparently have no interest in trying to terrorize their way out of the prison cell, Bundy senior should have been indicted. 

[DanteGabriel]

Has water and power been shut off in whatever building/compound they are occupying?  If so, this situation is going to resolve itself, they will have to come out at some point.  They can choose to come out guns blazing, but that would be a horrible PR move, and they would all certainly be killed. 

Per the Guardian, the Feds are "planning" to do this. Maybe they are using the threat of it as leverage to get these moochers out quickly, and let them save a modicum of face.

“It’s in the middle of nowhere,” said the official, who is based in Washington, DC, and has knowledge of the planned response to the militia. “And it’s flat-ass cold up there.” 

The official, who asked not to be named, said they were not privy to the FBI’s plan of action. However, they said the US Park Service, which is leading the crisis management reaction to the occupation in liaison with the FBI, planned to cut the power to the building where the militiamen are spending their nights.

...

“After they shut off the power, they’ll kill the phone service,” the government official added. “Then they’ll block all the roads so that all those guys have a long, lonely winter to think about what they’ve done.”

Guardian article also has a pretty good run-down of the extensive supplies these brave frontierspeople laid in for their heroic siege (hint: not actually extensive).

I agree there is a double standard with regard to the government treatment of this threat compared to other groups, but I don't see the answer as "the government should be more violent here too!"  Bringing down the level of violence regarding muslims / black protestors is the answer, not ramping up the violence for everyone. 

 

 

Agreed. All law enforcement should behave with the professionalism and restraint that local authorities have shown here, even when the subject is a 12 year old black kid carrying a BB gun in an open-carry state, and not armed white chickenhawks doing a Whiskey Rebellion cosplay. That's why, as tempting and emotionally satisfying as it may be, I am not rooting for a "nuke from orbit" approach. Starve and freeze these motherfuckers out and let them show just how hard-core they are in their pursuit of free grazing land.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I did not mention the original offenders (that arsonists, who seem to accept the rule of law (namely the ruling of a court)).They have turned themselves in. So I would not hold them accountable for the Bundy folks. But the guys with the guns occupying the park, they should get punished, and quite harshly. 
 

They want to make politics with (the threat of) violence. Which is terrorism. A country cannot really tolerate that behavior. It would pretty much be the end of the rule of law. I mean where would you draw the line and say: "ok, enough."

When they occupy a clerk's office with their guns to ensure that no marriage licenses are handed out to same sex couples? When they blockade a courthouse to force a prisoner out of jail? When they assemble in full strength in DC to stop the inaugaration of the next President from taking place? They crossed a line back then at the Bundy Ranch. The Federal goverment did let it go for some (to me) pretty inconceivable reason, now they tried to do it again. 

Notone,

I agree they should be punished.  The bigger question is what do you think we should do, if anything, to get them out of the building they are occupying?

[Commodore]

 

Notone,

I agree they should be punished.  The bigger question is what do you think we should do, if anything, to get them out of the building they are occupying?

same thing that was done to the protesters who occupied the Wisconsin state capital building

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

 

Notone,

I agree they should be punished.  The bigger question is what do you think we should do, if anything, to get them out of the building they are occupying?

Send Lynch with the National Guard as back up there.

Give the squatters an appropriate time limit (likesay 2 to 8 hours to pack up and leave), and charge everybody who does not comply. I bet the sheer presence of the National Guard will get the message across, that play time is definately over.

And before I get bashing from the wrong side. I don't make an argument against the first amendment or peaceful protests, but the militias crossed a line. You don't negotiate with terrorists and the rule of law has to be reinstated. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Notone,

So, go in shooting?  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

Notone,

So, go in shooting?  

I doubt that will be necessary. But as last ressort I would keep that option open, yes. Again, the state/country cannot abide to negotiate with terrorists or criminals. And I doubt anybody aside from Sean Van Hannity will consider them peaceful protesters. The states have little problem to remove unarmed protesters by force (as was shown in the past), but they dare not to do the same with armed ones? If you shy away from the confrontation here, because they have arms and they might actually use them, that's basically saying, we only listen to armed protests. And that is the exact opposite of what you want.

I hope I managed to get my point across.

[TheKitttenGuard]

same thing that was done to the protesters who occupied the Wisconsin state capital building

The teachers stormed into the state capital armed with guns?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The teachers stormed into the state capital armed with guns?

You suggest they should get guns next time?

[TheKitttenGuard]

 

I doubt that will be necessary. But as last ressort I would keep that option open, yes. Again, the state/country cannot abide to negotiate with terrorists or criminals. And I doubt anybody aside from Sean Van Hannity will consider them peaceful protesters. The states have little problem to remove unarmed protesters by force (as was shown in the past), but they dare not to do the same with armed ones? If you shy away from the confrontation here, because they have arms and they might actually use them, that's basically saying, we only listen to armed protests. And that is the exact opposite of what you want.

I hope I managed to get my point across.

Waiting out a group, even armed, is not listening to them, it is waiting them out.

I think you have some valid concern and arguements, but offering people a martyrdom I have never thought was good.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Notone,

They aren't peaceful but you are begging for another Ruby Ridge or Waco.  Those ended... very poorly.  All those events did was make marytrs.  Bad plan.

[TheKitttenGuard]

You suggest they should get guns next time?

That is actually a question for Commodore to answer since he drew the comparison.  

 

[BloodRider]

Notone,

They aren't peaceful but you are begging for another Ruby Ridge or Waco.  Those ended... very poorly.  All those events did was make marytrs.  Bad plan.

Waco they made themselves martyrs.  The only difference between Koresh and Jim Jones is how people talk about them post mass-murder.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Notone,

They aren't peaceful but you are begging for another Ruby Ridge or Waco.  Those ended... very poorly.  All those events did was make marytrs.  Bad plan.

Those incidents are not comparable imo. With Ruby Ridge and Waco, you can argue they were on their land and they died defending it, but here they occupied a Federal Building. So here you need to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to turn them into victims of a cruel tyranical state (or martyrs if you prefer that terminology). And I doubt those traveling troupe of sovereign citizens will risk their neck. Assuming this is white privilege performance art, it's just calling their bluff. If they are true believers, then it's just a matter of time, before somebody comes to harm during their stunts. Either way, I would prefer to put an end to that rather sooner than later.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

That is actually a question for Commodore to answer since he drew the comparison.  

 

No, he simply said, those guys should be treated the same way. You suggested the teachers were not armed, and you implied that it makes a difference to you. If I understand Commodore correctly, we are on the same page of that issue, that it should not make a difference whether they are armed or not. 

So the question is really for you, if you are shying away because those guys are armed, then you might want to sell guns to the teachers for their next protest.

[Commodore]

The teachers stormed into the state capital armed with guns?

It's a concealed carry state so I couldn't say.