I would not be at all surprised if there is an FBI agent in there posing as one of the yokels and learning much more than if shock and awe tactics were used.
Maybe not yet, but as patriots from all over the country begin pouring in, fer sure some of them are going to be plants. Any minute now. Well, pretty soon. Pouring in.
Especially if it doesn’t end peacefully. If it ends with the Feds shooting someone, then it will really become a problem for Democrats, who’ll find themselves dealing with comparisons to Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian siege.
Plus, this could easily evolve into an “Occupy Federal Land” movement. If that happens, the Obama Administration will need to stock up on asprin, because the next several months (at least) will be one continuous headache.
If federal law enforcement personnel inform them that they are under arrest, will that count as an “attack”?
So you go to remove them or arrest them for trespassing. If they resist, then they are met with the appropriate force. Same as with anything else. A violent response would be justified.
Of course, because federal officers have no jurisdiction over them because the Constitution says (insert inane rambling here).
Well I was watching as the guy “under the tarp” was interviewed.
He was asked what the plan is, whether he was planning to die.
His answer was that he was being peaceful (with a rifle on his lap) and that you should not hold a gun on someone. He said you should “only point a gun if you are going to use it.”
By the same logic you could very easily say “You should not use a gun to enforce your illegal trespass unless you are going to use it”
What are the guns for? They are a threat. The guns are not immaterial. Certainly they are not immaterial when such a double standard is being used.
Yep. It doesn’t matter how the authorities manage this, or how it ends; for adaher and “his” side, it will be a bad outcome that’s Obama’s fault.
And that leaves one to speculate what “attacked” entails. Arrest and removal? Any action taken in aid of those legitimate goals?
Force is justified legally. Force is also justified legally in many international situations. Doesn’t mean it always will be, or should be, used. Ousting them will cost the lives of federal law enforcement personnel.
It might, but you can’t say for sure.
Which means that they are murderous psychopaths, not just “gun owners” exercising a constitutional right. And not protesters or passive resisters either.
If they were black it would be a no brainer that they must be eliminated. By drone if necessary.
I still haven’t heard if they have access to supporters, food, water, power etc.
They are armed and know how to use their weapons. Unless we’re willing to destroy the building, or they don’t have the stomach for an armed confrontation and are just talking big, there’s no way there won’t be law enforcement casualties.
They are none of those things. and they aren’t murderous psychopaths because they don’t intend to kill anyone unless armed men with guns try to come and threaten them. They took no hostages, they aren’t planning an armed revolt.
It’s an armed sit-in.
Would you be saying the same thing if armed union men were occupying the corporate offices of some Manhattan bank?
The major difference there is that it’s private property that people actually want access to. It would also be different if they occupied the Washington Monument or the Capital building.
But if armed union men occupied an already closed plant in protest of said plant’s closing, that would be a similar situation and armed force would be unnecessary.
Get into the heads of the people involved here. Occupy protesters and previous liberal movements occupied places that would actually be disruptive because they wanted a confrontation. And they weren’t armed, because they didn’t want deaths, they just wanted some heads smashed for the PR. The people occupying the Oregon federal building are taking a different approach. Occupy something totally unimportant, and arm themselves so that the cost of retaking the unimportant real estate creates an unacceptable cost for the government. It’s actually very smart and influenced by what happened with the guy’s dad. For all our lofty talk of rule of law, might still makes right in the world, and if you have might, the powers that be have to negotiate with you. Or in this case, if you have a little might, but what you’re willing to fight over is something the government isn’t interested in fighting over.
You’re way too confident in your opinion.
And your hypocrisy and arrogance are exposed.
The only thing hypocritical is wanting armed force to be used against our citizens but to negotiate with foreign enemies over blatant violations of international law and treaty obligations.
No, I found your attribution of the best motives to right-wing occupiers but the worst motives to lefties to be hypocritical too.