When will Cliven Bundy (et. al.) be arrested by the federal government?

[Deeg]

FOTL = Freedom of the Land, I think.

[doorhinge]

@scabpicker

No, I am aware of it: I don’t care that he didn’t have a deal to surrender. He could have given himself up for months with or without a deal. You seem to think that the Feds being fucktards keeps Weaver from joining them in that camp. It doesn’t. There aren’t any good guys in the situation.

Was he entrapped? Yes. The solution to that is to fight it in the legal system. Barricading up, arming yourself and refusing to go through the legal process isn’t a productive course of action for the innocent or the guilty, and I don’t feel obligated to give people who choose it any leeway. If they get out of the situation alive after they choose that course of action, they’ve come out ahead.

The ATF could have informed the court that Weaver’s gun charge had been a scam by the ATF to force Weaver to spy on the Aryan Nation. They chose not to do that.

The U.S. marshals could have served Weaver with the warrant for failure to appear. They chose to shoot Weaver’s dog, instead.

ATF actions gave the impression that the ATF intended to kill Weaver. It appears to me that the protestors who appeared on the Weaver family’s behalf prevented the ATF from murdering everyone in Weaver’s cabin.

[doorhinge]

@Deeg

FOTL = Freedom of the Land, I think.

Thanks. That’s another one I didn’t think of. Good for you.

[Waymore]

@scabpicker

Allowing the justice system to work itself out isn’t acting like a serf, it’s acting like a citizen.

If you were present at the Weaver compound on say, April 1st of that year, and you were asked what the wisest course of action was, would you have honestly advised continuing to be holed up, and hope the Feds forget about it and go away?

I know that I would have advised him that his chances were better in a court than on a battlefield. Every strategic advantage is in his opponent’s favor, and his only hope outside of a court is to run, and the long odds are against even those who run.

He had no chance in court either. There’s dignity in not kowtowing when the game is rigged against you.

[Deeg]

The Ruby Ridge hijack is, I think, pointless. Most objective observers could say that both sides reacted poorly and it resulted in needless deaths.

I think the Feds are trying not to repeat the mistakes of RR regarding Bundy, which is good, but I do hope he’s brought to eventual justice. If he really is fighting a good fight (as some seem to be implying) then it should be played out in court, not with guns in the desert.

[Steophan]

@Dangerosa

So, you had no problems with the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the homeless population setting up large camps in parks and on public property? You’d have no issue with this: http://occupymadisoninc.com/ if the people building the houses just stuck them on any piece of public land they needed to? Maybe they need to put the tiny houses on trailers or use tents?

Yes, of course I have a problem with those things. But as they have nothing to do with using otherwise unused public land for productive purposes, there’s no connection with the Bundy case.

[Waymore]

@Deeg

The Ruby Ridge hijack is, I think, pointless. Most objective observers could say that both sides reacted poorly and it resulted in needless deaths.

I think the Feds are trying not to repeat the mistakes of RR regarding Bundy, which is good, but I do hope he’s brought to eventual justice. If he really is fighting a good fight (as some seem to be implying) then it should be played out in court, not with guns in the desert.

The courts are ran by the government. If you’re trying to fight the government, it helps not to do it on their home court.

[Deeg]

@Waymore

The courts are ran by the government. If you’re trying to fight the government, it helps not to do it on their home court.

I disagree. Can you name any major cause in the last 100 years that used subversive tactics like Bundy and made a positive impact? The most radical changes have come from non-violent demonstrations where the leaders were willing to go through the courts and go to jail for their beliefs, like MLK.

[scabpicker]

@Deeg

The Ruby Ridge hijack is, I think, pointless. Most objective observers could say that both sides reacted poorly and it resulted in needless deaths.

Yeah, I’ll agree to that. I don’t think anyone is being convinced of anything anyway.

@Deeg

I think the Feds are trying not to repeat the mistakes of RR regarding Bundy, which is good, but I do hope he’s brought to eventual justice. If he really is fighting a good fight (as some seem to be implying) then it should be played out in court, not with guns in the desert.

And that’s really what I take away from the comparison. The government can continue to wait, and escalating the situation isn’t to anyone’s advantage, really. If necessary, they can get their cut when probate rolls around.

[Trinopus]

@doorhinge

. . . I am baffled by your use of the acronym FOTL. . . . .

Since I expanded the acronym in my post… 'nuff said.

[race_to_the_bottom]

This is truly a remarkable case on many levels. An armed group confronts agents of the US government and forces the agents to retreat and nothing happens to them. Now it is CERTAIN that very serious felonies were committed. It is also CERTAIN that the Feds could have secured indictments against everyone at these gatherings who had anything to do with weapons or even to those who organized a barbeque for the militia as “supporters of terrorism”.

Imagine, if you will, armed inner city residents who force the sheriff to retreat and call of an eviction or a tax auction of someone’s property. Would that fly? Even better, imagine members of a mosque who were tired of all the Islamophobia who decide to form a militia. Now you know where THAT will go.

The truth is that powerful politicians and their wealthy backers would like to carve up and privatize our federal lands. It would start by turning the land over to the states. The states could then cut taxes for the rich and make up the revenue shortfall by selling the land to these same people or the corporations that they own. This is one of the main reason this sort of armed rebellion is tolerated. There is also a steak of neo-Confederate ideology among these people which is supported by powerful political forces.

[race_to_the_bottom]

@Scumpup

There are lots of ways he could be arrested or induced to give himself up. Many of them less likely to result in bloodshed than rolling out to his place with a lot of badges and guns. His case is interesting to me solely because of the number of people who seem bitterly unhappy that some redneck hicks didn’t get killed that day.

The government sends out SWAT teams to confront armed people all the time. They don’t leave until those people surrender or die. If they surrender, they will be in jail for a very longtime. If they die, they will be dead even longer. That is just the way it is.

The question which needs to be answered is why this particular armed group is given a free pass after confronting agents of the government. It is actually much more serious than armed criminals confronting the law. It is a politicized armed force confronting the authority of the state, i.e., rebellion, which no state can tolerate.

[Steophan]

@race_to_the_bottom

The question which needs to be answered is why this particular armed group is given a free pass after confronting agents of the government. It is actually much more serious than armed criminals confronting the law. It is a politicized armed force confronting the authority of the state, i.e., rebellion, which no state can tolerate.

The fact that the state (rather than federal) government supports Bundy probably has a lot to do with it. The feds would be limited in what they could do without local police and government support.

[eschereal]

@race_to_the_bottom

The question which needs to be answered is why this particular armed group is given a free pass after confronting agents of the government.

In this case, the government looked at north idaho and at waco, then at okc and at columbine. They said, “these things, the ones called ‘martyrs’, they cause problems for us. We need to stop making them.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Scumpup

He and the US Marshalls had a deal for him to surrender for arrest before anybody had been killed. A suit scuttled the deal and four people died.

Serious, non-snarky question. Stipulating that everything you said was true, and that a suit scuttled the deal, what would likely have happened if Weaver had turned himself in anyway?

I guess I’m not clear on why he needed a deal in order to turn himself in–can’t you do that without having a deal?

[Scumpup]

People pretty often arrangements to surrender. Weaver was trying to do just that. The suit scuttled it_you gotta love this shit_because he wasn’t doing it through a lawyer. Admittedly, lawyers are often involved in surrenders, but it isn’t required. Weaver was mostly concerned that his land not be seized and his family made homeless if he surrendered.

[Waymore]

@Deeg

I disagree. Can you name any major cause in the last 100 years that used subversive tactics like Bundy and made a positive impact? The most radical changes have come from non-violent demonstrations where the leaders were willing to go through the courts and go to jail for their beliefs, like MLK.

Those non-violent demonstrations took place outside a courtroom. I’m not advocating violence, but resistance. Going to the government and arguing that it restrain itself might be a good first step, but it can’t be the only step if you really want to effect change.

[Alan_Smithee]

This whole long thread so far . . . has anyone in it explained why there’s not a lien on the cattle? If so, I haven’t seen it. I’d like to know as a purely factual GQ answer, though it may require speculation if there hasn’t been any news reporting on that point. But still, again as a purely GQ matter, wouldn’t that be standard government procedure in this sort of case? Who would normally be the person to make that decision, and who (including the President, of course, as head of the executive branch) would have the authority to override such a decision?

[Deeg]

@Waymore

Those non-violent demonstrations took place outside a courtroom.

But their effectiveness was that they were willing to go through the courts and go to jail. Bundy is just trying to get away with not paying his fees.

@Waymore

I’m not advocating violence, but resistance.

If you are in any way supporting Bundy then you are supporting violent resistance.

@Waymore

Going to the government and arguing that it restrain itself might be a good first step, but it can’t be the only step if you really want to effect change.

I agree. MLK was willing to take the next steps. He spent time in jail for his cause. He went out and gave speeches and suffered beatings. In the end he was largely successful. Bundy will never affect any change while hiding behind his guns on his ranch. He’s not willing to take any more steps.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Scumpup

People pretty often arrangements to surrender. Weaver was trying to do just that. The suit scuttled it_you gotta love this shit_because he wasn’t doing it through a lawyer. Admittedly, lawyers are often involved in surrenders, but it isn’t required. Weaver was mostly concerned that his land not be seized and his family made homeless if he surrendered.

Do you have a reliable citation for this?