Yes, I’ve said that the media outlets are calling this an armed standoff. The question is, who is this alleged standoff between? It takes two or more opposing parties to create a standoff. The only parties currently present at the refuge are the news media and the protestors. Are the news outlets suggesting that there is an armed confrontation between the media and the protestors?
Yes, the Waco/Ruby Ridge boogeyman excuse. The fear of creating martyrs hasn’t kept us from responding aggressively to other criminal groups, but for some reason we must wring our hands over these fellas because…why again must we worry about this?
Worrying about martyrs would make sense if we had evidence that right-wing martyrdom was currently a major threat to national security, but we don’t have that evidence. What we do have reason to believe is that lenient treatment towards Clive Bundy has embolden his sons to act similarly. Now, thanks to the hand wringing, every night they are getting airtime to publicize their movement, their agenda, and who knows? Maybe they will inspire others to join them in their crusade. Sounds much worse than going in and making arrests as we would do anyone else.
So the message is, to get away with hijacking a federal building, all you have to be is an armed white conservative who hates the government. Then you can expect that law enforcement will treat you like a child throwing a tantrum rather than a threat to peace and security.
I’ve been there and yeah, it’s fairly remote. Harney County is very sparsely populated. I liked the suggestion at the local town hall meeting: let’s get a posse together of 100 men on horseback, and ride in there and boot them out. I’d love to see a brawl between some genuinely tough ranchers and hired hands against these fucking pretenders.
What boggles me is that by their actions these idiots have ensured that the President will not pardon whoever it is that’s in jail in Texas (assuming he ever would). If our government doesn’t normally bargain with terrorists, why would it knuckle under to these knuckleheads?
I see your point, you with the face, but on the whole, wouldn’t it be better if the law enforcement community did a better job at distinguishing* between childish tantrums and threats to peace and security across the board?
*and responding appropriately
I’m curious to know if the rangers or other park personnel are getting paid during this situation - it’s not their fault they can’t work. I haven’t been able to find any information on the number of people normally on staff this time of year.
What other criminal group has engaged in this type of activity and received an aggressive federal response?
The armed dipshits have made this woman’s office their temporary refuge:
“The brothers have taken over the cozy and cluttered office of Linda Sue Beck, a biologist and civil servant they have come to view as a symbol the federal government. They said they would allow Beck to come to gather her personal belongings. But they don’t want her to return to work.“She’s not here working for the people,” declared Ryan Bundy, the more outspoken of the brothers. “She’s not benefiting America. She’s part of what’s destroying America.”
He referred to her as the “Carp Lady,” a nod to the fish-themed block prints and “Carpe Carp” sign on her office walls.”
From your link:
This particular “crisis” hasn’t been going on nearly that long and hasn’t involved any exchanges of gunfire at all. Nobody has been killed or maimed yet. I see no reason to change that. Further, the siege at Wounded Knee ended with a negotiated settlement, not with the feds “storming the place.” If we can have the negotiated settlement without any delusional hillbilles or jackbooted government thugs getting hurt, I see no reason not to do it that way.
Wow, you may want to google more about the incident I cited. The biggest difference is that the native americans actually had a valid beef with the government unlike the nutballs in Oregon. You may want to read up on the Indian termination policy which may have ended within your life time.
Do you actually know anything about the event? That example hardly gives support to the idea of an immediate assault to end the occupation.
The government didn’t cut off the electricity, food, or water, until 30 days into the event. The Marshall’s Service decided to wait them out, rather than to terminate the occupation with an assault.
As mentioned above, despite fatalities on both sides the occupation was ended through negotiation after 71 days.
Then your posting that link in reference to this post makes no sense at all:
I’m honestly not sure what your point is. Native Americans were handled with calloused brutality by the feds so these hillbillies should too? Shooting these hillbillies will make up for the Native Americans murdered by the feds? I think I’ve been pretty clear in this and previous threads that I am not a big fan of the feds handling things through gunfire no matter who is involved.
Letting it drag on has potential environmental downsides. I’m guessing the yahoos aren’t exactly being good stewards of the land during their occupation. Maintenance of the refuge requires some effort to manage water flows for bird breeding areas, check traps for invasive carp (currently an issue in the refuge), and keep the museum and living quarters in good shape. The place is closed to visitors - there was a letter to the editor yesterday from a teacher who has a high school trip planned in March to the refuge, which is now up in the air.
These aren’t critical problems that would justify action beyond a “wait them out” approach. But if there’s a simple way to decrease the waiting time like cutting off power, why not take it? Maybe they can run on oil tanks and generators for a while, but that won’t last forever.
If someone at the town hall would like to break the law and risk their life to end a peaceful protest, it would be up to the non-existent federal authorities to stop them. The posse might have to fight their in before they could actually fight with the protestors.
I doubt Obama would even consider pardoning whoever it is that’s in jail.
If the object of this peaceful protest is to gain attention for what the protestors believe is unfair/unlawful/illegal government actions, then the protestors have already won.
If it’s the media’s intention to gain viewers with their unverified claims of an armed standoff, they have won also.
I see no reason for the feds to escalate this situation. They know where the protestors are. The protestors haven’t threatened to attack schools, towns, or ranches. They want their elected representatives to listen to them. That would only take a few phone calls from the elected reps to satisfy the protestor’s demands.
And everyone goes home alive.
I’d disagree that the protesters have won. I think they’ve been roundly mocked and made fun of. They’ve raised awareness of the plight of two guys who committed arson to hide poaching who don’t seem to mind their plight and who most people say “yeah, they should probably spend more time in prison.”
Media - maybe they’ve won? Is CNN getting more page views over this? I don’t know, I think one overhyped story is as good as another.
One of my very liberal friends posted a link that said these guys were getting taken more seriously than the BLM protestors…I had to wonder what media he was consuming since everything I’ve seen (granted, I don’t spend much time in the media outlets likely to give these guys sympathy) seem to have an undercurrent of “can-you-believe-these-fucking-morons” to their style that I’ve NEVER read about BLM protesters. Not everyone agrees with BLM protestors or thinks their actions are wise - but I haven’t seen a lot of pointing and laughing at them.
I balk at the suggestion that taking over a federal building is a “childish tantrum”. It’s an infantilizing characterization that doesn’t seem merited to me, based on the facts.
Any “tantrum” that involves guns and the threat of violence ain’t a tantrum. We’re either talking about one of two things:
-
either law enforcement is capable of storming the premises and affecting arrests safely, because these men don’t really mean any harm; this is just a “childish tantrum”, or
-
cops are not capable of storming the premises without risking their own lives. Which means this is more than just a “childish tantrum”. We are dealing with a violent situation.
Which one is it? Since it’s almost been a week since this standoff began and yet law enforcement has yet to make a move, it’s look like we’re dealing with #2 right now. Okay. But then trying to argue at the same time that this is just a “childish tantrum” seems contradictory.
In general, it would be great if cops could have a more nuanced, thoughtful approach toward law-breaking. Not seeing a whole lot of reason why an armed standoff requires more sensitivity than any other invasion, though.
I’m pretty sure the posse notion was only half serious.
It’s a peaceful protest, but the fact remains that these people are heavily armed and took over a government facility, which drills down to “armed takeover”, which to me also drills down to “domestic terrorism”. They are also trespassing. A peaceful protest can happen on the steps of the Capitol Building in Salem, but these folks have decided that an armed confrontation is more desirable, and have stated that they will engage in a firefight if they feel threatened.
They have been emboldened by the BLM’s refusal to engage with them in Texas; it makes me wonder what will happen the next time, if the feds back off once again. Lack of action only encourages wingnuts to more outrageous acts of civil disobedience.
“A few phone calls from elected reps” will accomplish nothing, as their stated demand is for the release of the two ranchers. That’s not going to happen, so now they’ve boxed themselves into a poor choice: go back on their demands, which will make them look like the fools they are; or hold out until they either get really tired and bored, or the fed gets tired of dealing with it and takes drastic action in accordance with Bundy’s statement about shooting people. I’m betting that they will opt for negotiating their way out of it, then claiming false victory for themselves. In any case, they need to be prosecuted for their actions.
They consider a biologist/civil servant “part of what’s destroying America”?? Is it the fact that she has a job or that she’s educated? As if my opinion of them couldn’t sink any lower. YallQueda indeed.