150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Flagg]

You still need to get a trial first before you sentence people who resist law enforcement of arms to death.

Is that a new thing from after WW2? Because it's my understanding that it was regular, and legal, practice to summarily execute civilians (or those disguised as such) who engaged in armed assault against authorities. But then, that was back when the US actually declared war before engaging in warfare (in fact it was literally the last time the USA legally declared war) so yeah, you're right.

[Thanas]

You still need to get a trial first before you sentence people who resist law enforcement of arms to death.

Is that a new thing from after WW2? Because it's my understanding that it was regular, and legal, practice to summarily execute civilians (or those disguised as such) who engaged in armed assault against authorities. But then, that was back when the US actually declared war before engaging in warfare (in fact it was literally the last time the USA legally declared war) so yeah, you're right.

There is a difference between warfare and police action. This was not an act of war because the Bundy clan is not a sovereign entitity. No military forces are involved. Thus, this makes it per definition a police action. Thus, you can't just court-martial them and string them up.

[Flagg]

You still need to get a trial first before you sentence people who resist law enforcement of arms to death.

Is that a new thing from after WW2? Because it's my understanding that it was regular, and legal, practice to summarily execute civilians (or those disguised as such) who engaged in armed assault against authorities. But then, that was back when the US actually declared war before engaging in warfare (in fact it was literally the last time the USA legally declared war) so yeah, you're right.

There is a difference between warfare and police action. This was not an act of war because the Bundy clan is not a sovereign entitity. No military forces are involved. Thus, this makes it per definition a police action. Thus, you can't just court-martial them and string them up.

Yeah, I know, that's where I was going with my last post. Even though they attempted to pseudo-secede, there was no declaration of war by congress (if one would have even been legal) so yeah, you're 100% right.

[Esquire]

You're also not allowed to shoot surrendered prisoners in a war. Why not just be happy that they're all going to get sequential life sentences? Summary executions are... like, tautologically a bad thing.

[Flagg]

You're also not allowed to shoot surrendered prisoners in a war. Why not just be happy that they're all going to get sequential life sentences? Summary executions are... like, tautologically a bad thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Nazi's caught in American uniform during the Battle of the Bulge who were immediately tied to posts and shot. But like Thanas has pointed out repeatedly, this and that are so far removed from each other that it's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

[Haminal10]

I will admit that I was frustrated with the FBI / Federal Government's passiveness in the early stages of the occupation. While I didn't want them to go in aggressively or with guns blazing, I thought that they should have at least cut the power to the complex to starve the occupiers out. I was very unhappy that people seemed to come and go from the refuge as they pleased, and continued to live-broadcast their activities over the internet.

I fell into the all too familiar trap of thinking that the government "looked weak" and that they needed to be more aggressive in order to "look strong" and "send a message" to these terrorists. Looking back, I found these thoughts to be embarrassingly identical to what we hear from right-wingers about what the US needs to do with Iran and generic Islamic militants.

Look at what the FBI accomplished the past few weeks with the measured and more passive strategy:
1) The entire leadership of the occupation was lulled into a false sense of invincibility, and were captured all at once after they arrogantly announced that they were all leaving their fortified area. Only one person was killed in the process, and the quickly-released video footage showed that he was shot due to his own actions (trying to evade authorities, almost running into a road block, and going for a gun)
2) With their leaders arrested, most of the remaining occupiers scattered like cockroaches, some leaving their guns behind in their haste to escape. I still can't get over how darkly amusing I find this. Cold dead hands indeed.
3) The remaining four holdouts were allowed to continue broadcasting, and grew increasingly deranged and paranoid. The FBI just allowed then to stew in their own juices, and never gave them the opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory like they repeatedly indicated that they wanted. The last rambling broadcast on the day that they finally surrendered was actually kind of sad and pathetic.
4) They somehow also managed to snag Clive Bundy, who wasn't even directly involved (that we know of) with the refuge occupation. He made the same mistake that his sons did of thinking that the government being passive = government is weak. He arrogantly broadcast his intended movements on Facebook, volentarily left the safety of his ranch, took a commercial flight (ensuring that he would be unarmed), and was arrested without incident like a common criminal.

Number 4 is huge, because he was arrested for his actions during the standoff in 2014. Now every one of those "patriots" that happily allowed themselves to be photographed and video taped while taking part in that standoff has to know that the government has not forgotten about them, and that they can be arrested at any time. Same for all of the occupiers that were allowed to leave the refuge. I have to imaging that there is a huge amount of video evidence of any crimes committed at the refuge, ironically produced and freely distributed by the occupiers themselves. I am also pretty sure that the FBI is aware of the identities of every one that was a part of the occupation. These people will have to live in fear for years about the government actually coming to get them (and probably their guns too).

I think this occupation has done more to discredit the militia movement than the government could have dreamed of. I hope that this turns out to be the case.

[Simon_Jester]

Good summary, Haminal.

I think maybe the feds should have tried to do this a bit sooner, but arguably that wouldn't have achieved the desired result as well.

But yeah. Basically, Ruby Ridge and Waco made the militia movement look like martyrs. Oklahoma City made them look scary. But Malheur is making them look like a bunch of cowardly, posturing, concussed-hillbilly halfwits.

[Flagg]

But how much damage was done to native artifacts/ sites they consider sacred while the FBI sat twiddling thier thumbs? If this was FBI strategy, then it's just more of the same US Government shitting on the people it genocided and stole land from to meet its own ends.

[Borgholio]

But how much damage was done to native artifacts/ sites they consider sacred while the FBI sat twiddling thier thumbs? If this was FBI strategy, then it's just more of the same US Government shitting on the people it genocided and stole land from to meet its own ends.

I'm honestly not *too* concerned about the artifacts. Yes it would be sad if native relics were damaged or destroyed, but if the militias were allowed to keep doing this sort of thing, rest assured there would be even more damage done to historical and natural treasures. Sacrificing these (relatively) small numbers of native artifacts to help ensure that Y'all Qaeda doesn't have the stones to try and damage even more in the future...I think it's the lesser of two evils to be sure.

[Ralin]

Granted a lot of them would presumably still be stored away in different parts of the facility then where people were set up, but I can't imagine a pitched battle between the FBI and an armed militia would be good for a bunch of delicate historical artifacts either.

[The Romulan Republic]

And bottom line, weighing artifacts against the lives that might have been lost had this escalated further, I'm inclined to go with saving lives.

[Joun_Lord]

And bottom line, weighing artifacts against the lives that might have been lost had this escalated further, I'm inclined to go with saving lives.

Pretty much how I felt about it. Though by no means is that me diminishing the importance of the artifacts. They are important, vastly so, but ultimately I personally value human lives (the Female Boobie Inspector Agents and law enforcement certainly and the Occupy retards too though to a lesser degree) more.

But now that all the assclowns are caught the authorities can atleast try to salvage whats left and charge the fuckers for anything that is damaged or stolen. That should be easy considering these fuckheads recorded themselves tampering with the artifacts and probably recorded any removal or destruction. Gotta love modern tech.

One thing that I've seen touched on a very shockingly small amount is the fact there was apparently some protected or endangered species at the Refuge. Considering the Bundy's previous callous attitude towards endangered turtles (which being a person who fucking loves turtles pisses me off to no end) and one of the Bundy's alleged statement about them, I do wonder what damages (if any, hopefully) were made to the species's living space or if there was any direct attacks on them. Considering there was a bunch of drunken rednecks with guns I can't say I'd be surprised if in between bulldozing native sites and mudding in stolen automocars they'd be popping off rounds at migratory birds and whatever else gets in their guns sights.

[Broomstick]

And endangered species is, right there, a reason not to cut off food to the center - you got a bunch of ranchers with guns. If they can't get their beef jerky, moon pies, and gummy dildoes you raise the risk of them going out and eating the wildlife.

[RogueIce]

But how much damage was done to native artifacts/ sites they consider sacred while the FBI sat twiddling thier thumbs? If this was FBI strategy, then it's just more of the same US Government shitting on the people it genocided and stole land from to meet its own ends.

Look up the Montana Freemen standoff, from back in the 90s. The FBI negotiated for something like 83 days (and in the end, the militia types surrendered). This is just how they handle it in a post-Waco/Ruby Ridge world, and it seems to overall work for them. It's not really the US Government "shitting on" the native peoples if they're doing what is normal policy for these situations, as far as the FBI is concerned.

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

[Lord Revan]

we should also remember that we've not invented guns or explosives that just kill the bad guys but leaves everything else unharmed. Collateral damage is a real thing and not just a euphamism when US armed forces kill civilians.

any type of storming in would have ended in a bloodbath, these militia types would have not backed down, to them being seen as the "new alamo" would have a jackpot for them (even if they were seen as that just by other right wing nutcases). however by not giving them to go out in blaze of glory, the nutcases were beaten by their own selfishness as they really weren't the types to starve themselves for victory thus the situation could be solved in a way that involved less risk to artifacts due to stray bullets.

[Flagg]

But how much damage was done to native artifacts/ sites they consider sacred while the FBI sat twiddling thier thumbs? If this was FBI strategy, then it's just more of the same US Government shitting on the people it genocided and stole land from to meet its own ends.

Look up the Montana Freemen standoff, from back in the 90s. The FBI negotiated for something like 83 days (and in the end, the militia types surrendered). This is just how they handle it in a post-Waco/Ruby Ridge world, and it seems to overall work for them. It's not really the US Government "shitting on" the native peoples if they're doing what is normal policy for these situations, as far as the FBI is concerned.

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

I don't agree that the property of the history of a large segment of the human race is worth the lives of the traitorous Bundy Bunch who, as far as I'm concerned, threw their lives away the second they took up arms against US authorities when they issues lawful commands. I also think that the flippant disregard for Native artifacts and places they consider sacred that I've seen in this thread reeks of privilege.

I wonder if they were destroying priceless artifacts in the smithsonian or the library of congress if the flippant disregard would be there.

[Flagg]

we should also remember that we've not invented guns or explosives that just kill the bad guys but leaves everything else unharmed. Collateral damage is a real thing and not just a euphamism when US armed forces kill civilians.

any type of storming in would have ended in a bloodbath, these militia types would have not backed down, to them being seen as the "new alamo" would have a jackpot for them (even if they were seen as that just by other right wing nutcases). however by not giving them to go out in blaze of glory, the nutcases were beaten by their own selfishness as they really weren't the types to starve themselves for victory thus the situation could be solved in a way that involved less risk to artifacts due to stray bullets.

That would be a point if the mountain had been blocked off from the start. But they were coming and going as they pleased until maybe the final 2 weeks? There's no need to storm the Alamo when the water and power are turned off and their food supply is cut off. Plus helicopter-borne snipers to keep them from foraging and hunting.

Like I said, they gave up their lives when they went traitor. They get them back when they surrender.

[Thanas]

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

Kinda depends on the property and lives in question, doesn't it?

[The Romulan Republic]

But how much damage was done to native artifacts/ sites they consider sacred while the FBI sat twiddling thier thumbs? If this was FBI strategy, then it's just more of the same US Government shitting on the people it genocided and stole land from to meet its own ends.

Look up the Montana Freemen standoff, from back in the 90s. The FBI negotiated for something like 83 days (and in the end, the militia types surrendered). This is just how they handle it in a post-Waco/Ruby Ridge world, and it seems to overall work for them. It's not really the US Government "shitting on" the native peoples if they're doing what is normal policy for these situations, as far as the FBI is concerned.

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

I don't agree that the property of the history of a large segment of the human race is worth the lives of the traitorous Bundy Bunch who, as far as I'm concerned, threw their lives away the second they took up arms against US authorities when they issues lawful commands. I also think that the flippant disregard for Native artifacts and places they consider sacred that I've seen in this thread reeks of privilege.

I wonder if they were destroying priceless artifacts in the smithsonian or the library of congress if the flippant disregard would be there.

Personally I don't want anyone to be killed if it can be avoided, but its a lot more than just the lives of the militia nuts. Its the lives of any cops who might have been shot storming the place, and of anyone who might have been killed in future incidents their martyrdom inspired. Their are also the reports that, at one point, their were children involved.

Are those people also worth less than property to you?

And while I won't speak for anyone else in this thread, if you mean to suggest that my position is racially motivated...

Well, it is possible that I or anyone else could be biased (if nothing else, the average non-Native American will probably be more familiar with the Smithsonian or the Library of Congress than native artifacts and thus potentially have a stronger emotional connection to them, even if intellectually they regard them as being of equal value). However, if it was a choice between, say, the Library of Congress and lives, my answer would still be the same. Lives first.

No, its not an easy choice. The idea that a piece of the historical record, particularly one with great cultural/religious significance, could be destroyed forever is horrifying. But given a choice between an artifact and living people, I'd have a hard time choosing the artifact.

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

Kinda depends on the property and lives in question, doesn't it?

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, when would you consider it acceptable to trade lives for property? Could you give an example? I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm simply curious. I'll admit I'm not quite sure of how I'd answer this myself, at least in a larger sense.

Hell, if anyone wants to start a separate thread on the topic in Science, Logic, and Morality, I'd be up for that. Its an interesting question.

[Flagg]

Look up the Montana Freemen standoff, from back in the 90s. The FBI negotiated for something like 83 days (and in the end, the militia types surrendered). This is just how they handle it in a post-Waco/Ruby Ridge world, and it seems to overall work for them. It's not really the US Government "shitting on" the native peoples if they're doing what is normal policy for these situations, as far as the FBI is concerned.

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

I don't agree that the property of the history of a large segment of the human race is worth the lives of the traitorous Bundy Bunch who, as far as I'm concerned, threw their lives away the second they took up arms against US authorities when they issues lawful commands. I also think that the flippant disregard for Native artifacts and places they consider sacred that I've seen in this thread reeks of privilege.

I wonder if they were destroying priceless artifacts in the smithsonian or the library of congress if the flippant disregard would be there.

Personally I don't want anyone to be killed if it can be avoided, but its a lot more than just the lives of the militia nuts. Its the lives of any cops who might have been shot storming the place, and of anyone who might have been killed in future incidents their martyrdom inspired. Their are also the reports that, at one point, their were children involved.

Are those people also worth less than property to you?

And while I won't speak for anyone else in this thread, if you mean to suggest that my position is racially motivated...

Well, it is possible that I or anyone else could be biased (if nothing else, the average non-Native American will probably be more familiar with the Smithsonian or the Library of Congress than native artifacts and thus potentially have a stronger emotional connection to them, even if intellectually they regard them as being of equal value). However, if it was a choice between, say, the Library of Congress and lives, my answer would still be the same. Lives first.

No, its not an easy choice. The idea that a piece of the historical record, particularly one with great cultural/religious significance, could be destroyed forever is horrifying. But given a choice between an artifact and living people, I'd have a hard time choosing the artifact.

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

Kinda depends on the property and lives in question, doesn't it?

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, when would you consider it acceptable to trade lives for property? Could you give an example? I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm simply curious. I'll admit I'm not quite sure of how I'd answer this myself, at least in a larger sense.

Hell, if anyone wants to start a separate thread on the topic in Science, Logic, and Morality, I'd be up for that. Its an interesting question.

Because I don't see any whining and mewling when people want to wipe out ISIS or the Taliban when they blow up thousands of years old archeological finds and monuments because it supposedly makes Allah's asshole itch.

And cops and soldiers know their jobs could cost them their lives when they volunteer.

How are the Bundy fuckers any different than ISIS anyway, really? Other than not being strong enough to kill the people they don't like in new (or old) horrifying ways?

You stop the bud before it blooms, because the type of shit the Taliban's, ISIS's, and Bundy's preach catches fast. And when their acts of lawlessness go unchecked but the acts within the law of others diametrically opposed to them get smashed, which is what was happening, shit gets real bad, real fast.

So excuse the fuck out of me for wanting to live in civilization instead of a lawless hellscape where one day I live because the people in control of the territory I live on have no problem with people like me, but I get crucified the next because the warlord next door has the strength to kick the old regime out and maybe doesn't like Atheists who don't like hate groups who refuse to do what civilization is founded on: Paying taxes.

[Thanas]

And as TRR said, at the end of the day, Property < Lives.

Kinda depends on the property and lives in question, doesn't it?

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, when would you consider it acceptable to trade lives for property? Could you give an example? I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm simply curious. I'll admit I'm not quite sure of how I'd answer this myself, at least in a larger sense.

Hell, if anyone wants to start a separate thread on the topic in Science, Logic, and Morality, I'd be up for that. Its an interesting question.

Let us assume that by some act of god the USA gets overrun by aliens. In a show of spite, after killing 95% of Americans they decide American culture deserves to be eradicated. US cultural centers are destroyed and paved over. After 100 years of this happening the Aliens decide to tolerate the American culture again. At this point only a few scraps remain. Maybe some sort of old flag, some letters of Jefferson etc. To the remaining americans these - and legends passed from mouth to mouth - are the only thing that lets them remain who they are.

A couple of years later some alien hooligans, the scum of the alien race, who even most aliens think should go and get anal-probed for all eternity, decide they have to have a little fun. Soon, they have seized the remaining artifacts and are having a great old time destroying them for shits and giggles, while the non-violent remaining US survivors look on helplessly.

Can you honestly argue the lives of the aliens, in the grand scheme of things, should matter more than the artifacts in question?

[Broomstick]

How are the Bundy fuckers any different than ISIS anyway, really? Other than not being strong enough to kill the people they don't like in new (or old) horrifying ways?

Well, let's see - they haven't systematically enslaved and raped women, they haven't burned anyone alive, they haven't beheaded anyone, they don't seem interested in torture... Yeah, a few differences.

Here's the thing - if the FBI went in guns blazing there was the possibility the Johnny Rebs might have burned the place down around themselves while going out in a blaze of glory, which would have really trashed any valuable artifacts in the building, wouldn't it?

As viscerally satisfying as storming the castle and kicking ass might be, this method might actually result in both less loss of life and less loss of artifacts in the long run.

[Flagg]

How are the Bundy fuckers any different than ISIS anyway, really? Other than not being strong enough to kill the people they don't like in new (or old) horrifying ways?

Well, let's see - they haven't systematically enslaved and raped women, they haven't burned anyone alive, they haven't beheaded anyone, they don't seem interested in torture... Yeah, a few differences.

Here's the thing - if the FBI went in guns blazing there was the possibility the Johnny Rebs might have burned the place down around themselves while going out in a blaze of glory, which would have really trashed any valuable artifacts in the building, wouldn't it?

As viscerally satisfying as storming the castle and kicking ass might be, this method might actually result in both less loss of life and less loss of artifacts in the long run.

Hey look, Broomstick can't read!

How are the Bundy fuckers any different than ISIS anyway, really? Other than not being strong enough to kill the people they don't like in new (or old) horrifying ways?

It's fucking clown shoes in here. And read (READ, don't skim) the rest of the arguments made to get an idea of why the use of force to protect artifacts may be worth doing. And I never suggested they "storm the castle", either.

Reading (not skimming) is fundamental.

[RogueIce]

Let us assume that by some act of god the USA gets overrun by aliens. In a show of spite, after killing 95% of Americans they decide American culture deserves to be eradicated. US cultural centers are destroyed and paved over. After 100 years of this happening the Aliens decide to tolerate the American culture again. At this point only a few scraps remain. Maybe some sort of old flag, some letters of Jefferson etc. To the remaining americans these - and legends passed from mouth to mouth - are the only thing that lets them remain who they are.

A couple of years later some alien hooligans, the scum of the alien race, who even most aliens think should go and get anal-probed for all eternity, decide they have to have a little fun. Soon, they have seized the remaining artifacts and are having a great old time destroying them for shits and giggles, while the non-violent remaining US survivors look on helplessly.

Can you honestly argue the lives of the aliens, in the grand scheme of things, should matter more than the artifacts in question?

Depends on how much I care about the lives of the alien cops in this scenario, doesn't it? I mean, I don't want even the alien hooligans to die unnecessarily either, but I'd like to avoid a situation that results in fatalities on both sides. Which it likely would.

And you can say "cops know the risks" as if that means anything, but it really doesn't. Firefighters know the risks of running into a burning building, but that doesn't mean they'll run into every burning building. Because they're not there to throw away their lives by taking overly unnecessary risks. Neither are the police.

But then I know that you and Flagg are basically saying we should look at it from the perspective of the Native peoples whose artifacts were being damaged. Would they put the lives of federal agents and state police troopers above said artifacts? Hell if I know. I suspect that opinions would vary on that front, though. Some would, some wouldn't.

But these federal agents and state troopers are people, too, and they have families they want to go home to. So, if they have an alternative to forcing a confrontation with a bunch of armed individuals in a barricaded position, I would not at all begrudge them taking that alternative over a potential firefight where they and several of their colleagues could easily end up dead.

Then there is the issue that such a firefight would also likely cause damage to the artifacts inside the structures, as already noted by others. Would that be more or less than what the occupiers ended up doing? We can never really say for sure, but the possibility exists and should be considered.

At the end of the day though, it comes down to objects and things versus people, on both sides of the theoretical shootout. With no imminent threat to life being presented on the part of the occupiers, a more measured approach is definitely called for. Sure you can't wait forever for them to give up and surrender, but it is generally not going to be a time critical situation.

I would actually be interested to hear what Kamikaze Sith would have to say on the subject of a barricaded suspect who is not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and on what factors (generally) go in to deciding when police (typically) make the call to cease negotiating and force entry. Because that's basically what this was, a barricaded suspect situation, albeit on a larger scale (more suspects, for one). Obviously though there would still be crucial difference than faced from a regular police perspective. One I can think of is the remoteness of the wildlife refuge, against most barricaded suspects making their stands in residential neighborhood; it's not very practical for the local police to clear out a block or so of residences for days on end (where would the residents go?), so that does give them a time limit of sorts that's not really in play here. That and most agencies just can't afford to commit the resources in manpower it takes for that sort of situation over the long term like the FBI can. But still, it could be constructive to at least have some things that might be considered from a professional law enforcement perspective, and not just a bunch of civilians speculating.

[Flagg]

I'd again point out that cops, troopers, and all Federal law enforcement agents know the risk when they voluntarily sign up for the job and cash their pay checks. Same goes for all branches of the military. I'm not saying this means you throw them into the meat grinder, I'm just saying that situations like this are why we have well trained law enforcement agencies, so I'm not the least bit swayed by that argument.

Further, to my knowledge, the vast majority of the time the Bundy Bunch (of traitors) had free access up and down the mountain. So just blocking all entrances and exits, cutting off power, water, and the Internet would have been nice. Having a few sniper emplacements, or even helicopter-borne snipers to take them out when possible, or even just to give warning shots to keep them in one area is something else that may have been possible. But none of that was done.

I was only in favor of a full out assault if they threatened the lives of their punching bags human shields wives and children. You know, actual innocent lives.