Standoff in Nevada as Militias "mobilize" to support rancher

[Havok]

Clear me up on some of the facts here...
Is this the "federal government" or is it just the BLM?
Did state agencies get involved?
Is the information that Bundy's land is earmarked for "penalty offset" use for solar power companies true?
Is the tortoise that the initial conservation effort started over endangered anymore?

The Bureau of Land Management is a federal agency.

I understand that, I guess what I mean was, is any pressure coming from outside the BLM or are other Feds sitting back saying "What the fuck are these idiots doing?". I know it's complete conjecture, but I trust opinions from this board more than I trust "facts" from other sources.

I don't believe any state agencies were involved but I'm not sure on this one.

The solar farm/Harry Reid connection is all a right wing conspiracy theory. While it is true Reid was involved in some deal with a Chinese company to build solar plants in Nevada the location for that deal was over 150 miles away from the Bundy ranch and it died in 2013 and began sometime in the mid 2000s. The Bundy issue has been going on since 1993 and became an official court order in 1998.

The desert tortoise currently shows as vulnerable which is in the threatened category of conservation.

Yeah I kinda figured this. It wreaks of conspiracy theory nutters.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Lonestar]

Out of curiosity, what would happen if they had set up sniper/spotter teams?

Your guess is as good as mine, but Elf was trying to create a scenario while implying that they would be substantially the same. Hogwash. The most commonly recovered firearms used in crimes in Chicago, for instance, is a bottom of the barrel Hi-point that sells for around $100 retail(costs more to acquire illegally) and is incredibly unreliable. Other common firearms are Saturday Night Specials with mighty calibers like .25 ACP. Not a whole hell of a lot of inner city youth even possess longarms, much less rifles.

OTOH, what happened in Nevada were people who possesed longarms and likely routinely went to the range to practice. If the Bloods and Crips start going to the range to practice using rifles and then began staking out sniper/spotter positions, then who knows man. I'll be more than happy to retract.

But they won't.

[Broomstick]

In 1967 that happened in Detroit, there were like 20-30 snipers involved in the riot. Governor Romney called for help and president Johnson sent in Federal troops to occupy the city (it was called an "insurrection" to justify Federal troops getting involved) and rolled tanks down the interstates leading into the city. Final toll was 43 dead, 1180+ injured, 7200 arrests, 2000+ buildings destroyed, 380+ families made homeless. Also started Detroit's death spiral. Yeah, that turned out well in the long term...

[Lonestar]

In 1967 that happened in Detroit, there were like 20-30 snipers involved in the riot. Governor Romney called for help and president Johnson sent in Federal troops to occupy the city and rolled tanks down the interstates leading into the city. Final toll was 43 dead, 1180+ injured, 7200 arrests, 2000+ buildings destroyed, 380+ families made homeless. Also started Detroit's death spiral. Yeah, that turned out well in the long term...

So, you're saying a full on riot that had put(what at the time) the 4th largest city in the US into convulsions 47 years ago is comparable to the scenario that Elf presented?

Or do you think that that was the scenario Elfdart was trying to present?

Given the context of this thread, I'm going to go on out on a limb and say he meant something that scaled more with what happened in Nevada.

[Broomstick]

I'd say one major point is that when the militia types start with the snipers the Feds have a legal precedent to send in the fucking United States military, you know, the same guys famous for steamrolling Iraq and hunting people with drones. It bumps it from a police matter to a military matter, or at least has the potential of doing that, which will change the game quite thoroughly.

Most likely, it would be the affected state's national guard that is sent it, but these days smart missiles and drones/UAV's are possible tactics.

It's the situation involving snipers that I can recall (from history - although I was alive at the time I was young enough the parents wouldn't let me watch such things on TV. I now know why mom was so upset when dad announced we were moving to Detroit around 1970-71). Clearly, it's not an exact parallel.

[bilateralrope]

And I am also more than a little afraid that if there is any possible way these fucknuts can be construed as having got away with it, some other militia might decide to push their luck a little further and try taking over some fly-speck of a town in the desert.

Which is why there needs to be a response to this that makes it clear that it is not acceptable. But the response doesn't need to be done on the militias terms. It doesn't need to be a violent response.
Arresting the militia members at a time and place of the police's choosing, then publicizing those arrests, makes it clear to anyone paying attention that it did not work. If someone doesn't get that message, then repeat the tactics again. Resolve the immediate situation peacefully, then round them all up later.

Save the violent responses for when they are necessary. For example, when the militia takes hostages and/or starts shooting first.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I understand that, I guess what I mean was, is any pressure coming from outside the BLM or are other Feds sitting back saying "What the fuck are these idiots doing?". I know it's complete conjecture, but I trust opinions from this board more than I trust "facts" from other sources.

I don't know.

I imagine there is outside pressure and this pressure probably has the Office of the President attached to it with the directive to not have another Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Not sure if you were wondering why BLM decided on a large show of force but it came to be because of Bundy and his wife making statements which BLM took as an intent to protect their cattle with violence. So, BLM decided the best course of action to quickly remove hundreds of cattle was to launch a massive operation but this operation also needed protection. This visible show of force was intended to be a deterrence but instead backfired because it attracted the attention of these militias. So, what turned into a show of force against a vastly weaker group exploded into a standoff against an unknown and likely large number of well equipped militia members which had potential to make Waco and Ruby Ridge pale in comparison as disasters.

[Block]

I understand that, I guess what I mean was, is any pressure coming from outside the BLM or are other Feds sitting back saying "What the fuck are these idiots doing?". I know it's complete conjecture, but I trust opinions from this board more than I trust "facts" from other sources.

I don't know.

I imagine there is outside pressure and this pressure probably has the Office of the President attached to it with the directive to not have another Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Not sure if you were wondering why BLM decided on a large show of force but it came to be because of Bundy and his wife making statements which BLM took as an intent to protect their cattle with violence. So, BLM decided the best course of action to quickly remove hundreds of cattle was to launch a massive operation but this operation also needed protection. This visible show of force was intended to be a deterrence but instead backfired because it attracted the attention of these militias. So, what turned into a show of force against a vastly weaker group exploded into a standoff against an unknown and likely large number of well equipped militia members which had potential to make Waco and Ruby Ridge pale in comparison as disasters.

The only reason I think Waco and Ruby Ridge were considered disasters is because women and children were involved. Not too many people will cry over Bubbas who were stupid enough to point guns at Federal agents, which is normally a good way to get dropped on the spot. The BLM did fine as long as the Feds arrest these people later, hopefully using the Rico act to really hammer the entire organization with jail time. They didn't just commit obstruction of justice, but aggravated assault on Federal officials.

[loomer]

People will cry about those bubbas in the current political climate, though. I mean fuck, Koresh and Weaver are still used as rallying cries to some extent by the American far-right - imagine making twenty or thirty more out of people from across the country, at a time when entertainment like 'Doomsday Preppers' is still fairly mainstream and there's a very loud, very vigorous part of the right who've been using violent rhetoric for years.

And let's not forget that, convenient as it may be to assume, your average militia member is not some random neo-nazi fuckwit with no significant social ties like Weaver was. A lot of them are members of their communities, involved in a lot of very normal things as well as in going out in the woods to get drunk and play army-mans. They have families, they have friends, they have jobs - and a lot of them don't come off as insane lunatics to the people who know them. People will readily cry for that.

[Gandalf]

Won't they cry just as hard if they wind up arrested at some point down the road?

[loomer]

A series of arrests followed by fair trials has significantly less martyrdom value than a bloody massacre. Come on, you know that.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, for me at least it isn't an article of faith, not in the same way it is for say Thanas. I don't honestly have a moral objection to the assassination of Al-Queda's senior leadership. They joined up with an organisation that was making war against the United States, they're legitimate military targets. I am not fine with writing off anyone who happens to be within a hundred yards as acceptable collateral damage and I question whether Al-Queda are still enough of a threat to justify the effort, but conceptually I don't see a fundamental difference between this and... I don't know, targeting Iraqi Army command posts with LGBs during Desert Storm.

The problem is that here you're nailing a lot of rank-and-file, quite possibly including a lot of guys who are posturing idiots and brought, say, wives and kids along.

I'm not saying there are never times when using force against a rebellious, lightly armed faction is a good idea. Quite the contrary. But you have to be careful and use actual judgment. If your instinct is to say something like "you should always crush them to intimidate the others," you're probably running on authoritarian impulses, not judgment.

And when it comes to those "camo-fetishists", I don't have a moral objection to dropping the hammer on them either, pour encourager les autres. They were the ones who decided to start pointing guns at cops who were trying to serve a warrant, they deserve zero sympathy if they get steamrollered by the National Guard.

It's not about sympathy, it's not about whether they're good people. It's a strictly practical matter.

These guys fantasize about "The Second American Revolution." They practically want to think of themselves as the first wave of many, with themselves cast as the martyrs of the Boston Massacre, or the militia at Lexington (who got creamed). And there is a fairly large number of armed and potentially dangerous people who might well view them that way.

Why take the chance when you don't have to?

And I am also more than a little afraid that if there is any possible way these fucknuts can be construed as having got away with it, some other militia might decide to push their luck a little further and try taking over some fly-speck of a town in the desert. And if the US decides that isn't worth doing something about because it means people will call them names on talk radio then what the hell happens next?

A wave of arrests a week from now will probably be more effective at accomplishing the goal you describe than a bloodbath. If it isn't, well... frankly, the Army can make a bunch of right-wing militias dug in in a small town go 'splat' about as easily as they could make this little display go 'splat.'

And having it happen only when the fanatics claim themselves to be a lawful rebel government may help clarify the situation and turn the general public against them.

I don't like having words put in my mouth, especially not when they are contrary to my personal opinion which has been stated several times on this board.

I take it that the personal opinion in question is "use of force against rebels and guerillas and terrorists is justified at some times?"

That's a fine and sensible opinion, assuming I'm correct.

My point is simply that we are all familiar with the idea that killing one rebel today may result in there being five more rebels a year from now. Unless, of course, someone takes steps to politically isolate and discredit the rebels first. Most of us would have no trouble understanding why this happens when, say, talking about Israel blowing up Palestinian guerillas (and catching random people in the blast routinely). Or the US blowing up gatherings of armed men in Pakistan or Yemen.

So everyone should equally well understand why this would be an issue to think about when considering blowing up a bunch of lunatics in Nevada.

I think it is to your credit that you do realize this and are willing to wait and see what happens; I suspect that yes, the government is doing the sensible thing by letting the armed band disperse and arresting them en masse later.

[Thanas]

Simon, you are correct in your interpretation regarding my opinion.

[Terralthra]

Funny how when mid-20s underemployed folks use public lands to protest against the government peacefully, the right-wing segment of the media is calling for government forces to evict them by force, but when middle-aged ranchers occupy public lands for 20+ years to make a profit at the government's expense, the same segment of the media supports them by calling for and excusing violent resistance on their behalf.

[Borgholio]

The far-right is being hypocritical? That's un-possible.

[Metahive]

Isn't that the same mistaken "root for the underdog" tendency that's also applied to the American Civil War?

[Borgholio]

Isn't that the same mistaken "root for the underdog" tendency that's also applied to the American Civil War?

Never heard it quite that way. Most of the people rooting for the Confederacy were either racists or those who detested a strong central government. And as a point of fact, for the first half of the war, the Union was actually the underdog as they kept getting their asses handed to them.

[Metahive]

The Lost Cause mythology painted the Civil War as simple, earnest people defending their simple way of life from an overbearing and authoritarian government. I see many parellels here.

[Borgholio]

The Lost Cause also blames Longstreet for losing the battle of Gettysburg...when in fact it was Lee's hubris that lost it. If Lee had actually listened to Longstreet, the battle might have not been such a catastrophic defeat for the Confederates.

[Gandalf]

Funny how when mid-20s underemployed folks use public lands to protest against the government peacefully, the right-wing segment of the media is calling for government forces to evict them by force, but when middle-aged ranchers occupy public lands for 20+ years to make a profit at the government's expense, the same segment of the media supports them by calling for and excusing violent resistance on their behalf.

Guns and money make for wonderful discursive tools. That's why I've been adamant that this be ended swiftly. More more it is dragged out, the more legitimacy he and the whole militia thing gain. I think ultimately it's a matter of whether people would prefer him to be seen as the guy who beat the government or another guy who died trying.

The Lost Cause mythology painted the Civil War as simple, earnest people defending their simple way of life from an overbearing and authoritarian government. I see many parellels here.

The American Revolution (like WWII) is sacrosanct. Therefore all things must gain legitimacy by being likened to them.

[Lord Insanity]

First off, I do not currently have regular access to the internet so it might take me several days to respond if necessary.

Am I the only one that read the bottom portion of the OP article?

Gov. Brian Sandoval on Tuesday slammed the BLM for creating an “atmosphere of intimidation” and called on the agency to dismantle two “First Amendment areas” it set up for demonstrators well away from any roundup activity.

The former federal judge said he told the agency “that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others.”

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” the Republican governor said.

On Wednesday morning, before news broke of the scuffle between protesters and the BLM, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., sent a statement expressing “great disappointment with the way that this situation is being handled.”

Heller said he spoke to newly confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze and “told him very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM.”

“After hearing from local officials and residents, and receiving feedback from the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association in a meeting this morning, I remain extremely concerned about the size of this closure and disruptions with access to roads, water and electrical infrastructure,” Heller said. “I will continue to closely monitor this situation, and urge the BLM to make the necessary changes in order to preserve Nevadans’ constitutional rights.”

So the State's Governor and one of the State's Senators flat out called bullshit on the unconstitutional (and therefore by definition illegal) actions of the BLM. It's no wonder a bunch of militia guys started showing up with the intention of preventing another Waco or Ruby Ridge. (For those that don't know, Federal "authorities" flat out murdered innocent women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge.)

For those that think the National Guard should have been sent in, that might not have had the outcome you think. Considering his stated opinion on the subject if the State's Governor had called in the National Guard it is entirely possible it would have been against the BLM not the militia guys.

What the BLM or relevant Federal Authorities should have done is arrested this asshat rancher as he was "coming out of Wal-Mart" after he threatened the BLM in the first place. No one would have cared. By going all fascist-wannabe stupid (like blocking roads, water, and electricity ) the BLM just made it about protecting the innocent from them.

[Borgholio]

So, you think forcing a deadbeat rancher to pay grazing fees he has owed for the last couple decades is unconstitutional? Really?

[Elheru Aran]

Check this out. It might help clarify.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nd/360587/

Specifically the portion of Nevada's state constitution which notes that "The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."

Now whether the move was constitutional under the US Constitution is perhaps another matter and not one I have looked into yet, but it was thoroughly kosher under Nevada law.

[Rogue 9]

It isn't the enforcement that the governor called unconstitutional; it was the free speech zone bullshit. Which is true, as it happens, but that doesn't excuse the militias in any way.

[Borgholio]

I can understand how a "free speech zone" can be considered unconstitutional. Free speech is supposed to be allowed everywhere. However, there needs to be a way to keep protestors out of the way of a legal Federal operation. I mean for instance even though it's not called such, using barricades to keep protesters away from government buildings is a form of a free speech zone. "Yeah protest as much as you want...on the other side of this barricade."