Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The occupation has already cost upwards of $9 million.
Feces and trash litter the property.
Officials are worried Native American artifacts have been damaged.....

No Boy Scouts would ever leave a campground so trashed:



US Fish and Wildlife Service; thus public domain.

A lot of these folks are in jail, iirc. They should be brought back in chains and required to clean it all up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A lot of these folks are in jail, iirc. They should be brought back in chains and required to clean it all up.

Did they get fined for littering ?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

This is how things should work.
1. Gather evidence for probable cause.
2. Seek and get the requisite arrest warrants.
3. Apprehend the suspects.
4. If the suspect(s) resist arrest, follow standard operating procedures for detaining resisting suspects.
5. Once detained, set arraignment date.
6. Set trial date.
7. Enforce results of trial.

I think the above are a straight forward way of handing loonies as well. If they do something stupid, then they won't become martyrs because the process is well known and produces the requisite documentation. Even lethal force can be justified if the documented facts are there for all to see.

Yes. Due process of the law is the right way to go. The affronts to public sensibilities are probably less severe than some other deeds, might be difficult to attribute to individuals who can be prosecuted (like the fellow who committed "suicide by cop", or might be offensive but not illegal. It may be contrary to civil-service rules or the established protocols of a government agency to trash one's office or drink on the job, but such is unlikely to be cause for a criminal prosecution.

There may be more egregious photos, but those are likely being left for prosecution of offenders.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If we allow armed groups to establish enclaves, regardless of the legitimacy of their cause, this establishes a precedent for cults like Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (Warren Jeff's polygamists) in Hilldale AZ-Colorado City UT. Or for that matter, Muslim Sharia ruled enclaves and "no-go zones" as has been the case in Europe.

We should stop them all.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If we allow armed groups to establish enclaves, regardless of the legitimacy of their cause, this establishes a precedent for cults like Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (Warren Jeff's polygamists) in Hilldale AZ-Colorado City UT. Or for that matter, Muslim Sharia ruled enclaves and "no-go zones" as has been the case in Europe.

Where do you draw your lines? It is more or less plausible to suspend the Bill of Rights if there is a clear and present danger. If one has no right to cry fire in a crowded theater, if there really is a fire and the cop starts issuing orders, do as he says rather than preach the Bill of Rights. If a hurricane, flood or riot is fully manifest, and the governor has declared a state of emergency, you'd best start following directions given by the National Guard. There is a saying that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and this saying has been used to justify trampling on civil rights, but there are mechanisms and litmus tests that are and ought to be applied before the Bill of Rights is flushed down the toilet.

'Clear and Present Danger' is a decent place to start.

So how large an arsenal is a clear and present danger if the owners of the arsenal have never abused their weapons?

How many attacks by muslims justify discrimination by religion? At what point do you raid a muslim habitation and leave the conservative 'militia' group across the street alone?

How much should one dwell on the lessons of Waco? Provoking the sort of folk who stock arsenals can lead to unfortunate results.

I can ask these questions rhetorically in a forum, but suspect there are judicial precedents that provide solid answers. A local cop or mayor deciding enough is enough isn't enough. If there is a real danger, sure, but massive action against those who have stayed within the law, those who haven't threatened or harmed anyone, would be problematic.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Where do you draw your lines? It is more or less plausible to suspend the Bill of Rights if there is a clear and present danger. ...

Once the "movement" has transgressed into "The Commons", or once the movement begins to abuse vulnerable people, then it seems pretty clear.

A thought experiment: Let's say a group assembles a pile of weaponry and ammo and holes up in a house on private property and simply sits there. Does nothing much else. This makes it kind of a Ruby Ridge situation. I would say, stay away from those folks. They're not a threat ... yet. As long as they stay put.

The recent examples include the abuse of 14 year old girls being indoctrinated and then married off or sexually abused by old men, or both. And the Bundy situation where he and his cohorts take over pieces of The Commons which they claim for their own.

These two principles might be a place to start.

Originally Posted by TnT

Once the "movement" has transgressed into "The Commons", or once the movement begins to abuse vulnerable people, then it seems pretty clear.

A thought experiment: Let's say a group assembles a pile of weaponry and ammo and holes up in a house on private property and simply sits there. Does nothing much else. This makes it kind of a Ruby Ridge situation. I would say, stay away from those folks. They're not a threat ... yet. As long as they stay put.

The recent examples include the abuse of 14 year old girls being indoctrinated and then married off or sexually abused by old men, or both. And the Bundy situation where he and his cohorts take over pieces of The Commons which they claim for their own.

These two principles might be a place to start.

It's a start. It seems to me that the sexual abuse and trespassing on The Commons examples involve commission of a crime, while the holing up on private property example doesn't. If you draw your line in that neighborhood, it ought to stand legal scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Did they get fined for littering ?

Officer Obie didn't quite get to them, I don't think. I don't think he took their wallets either.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Office Obie didn't quite get to them, I don't think. I don't think he took their wallets either.

And considering the judge's seeing eye dog the judge ''ain't gonna look at the 8 x 10 color glossy pictures, each with a paragraph on the back telling how each was to be used as evidence against'' them. lol

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

While The Boy Named Dylann is definitely a terrorist - at least as per my definition of terrorism, which is, in full: "Any violent or destructive act committed for political or pseudo-political reasons (the latter included so as to encompass "hate crimes") against persons not known personally to the actor (thus ruling out any personal revenge motive), and against persons who cannot be reasonably considered to have had anything to do with causing the grievances the actor seeks to redress (thus ruling out assassinations)" - how is he any kind of traitor?

He certainly wasn't "levying war against the United States" - and under no circumstances was he "adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

When the Branch Davidians fired on BATF agents demanding David Koresh's surrender were they "levying war against the United States"? The attitude of law enforcement after that attack certainly suggests that law enforcement thought so. After that attack, the FBI basically treated the entire Branch Davidian community as treasonous and treated even the lives of their children as forfeit unless David Koresh surrendered. That's why they flooded the compound with flammable tear gas and then ignited it with flash bangs.
And this isn't an isolated incident. Police in Philadelphia burned out a building in which the Move cult lived--and burned up several adjacent row houses doing it. It goes back to an old definition of treason. Kill or rebel against the King's men and you are guilty of treason against the King. And the only mitigating circumstance for treason is victory.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Where do you draw your lines? It is more or less plausible to suspend the Bill of Rights if there is a clear and present danger. If one has no right to cry fire in a crowded theater, if there really is a fire and the cop starts issuing orders, do as he says rather than preach the Bill of Rights. If a hurricane, flood or riot is fully manifest, and the governor has declared a state of emergency, you'd best start following directions given by the National Guard. There is a saying that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and this saying has been used to justify trampling on civil rights, but there are mechanisms and litmus tests that are and ought to be applied before the Bill of Rights is flushed down the toilet.

'Clear and Present Danger' is a decent place to start.

So how large an arsenal is a clear and present danger if the owners of the arsenal have never abused their weapons?

How many attacks by muslims justify discrimination by religion? At what point do you raid a muslim habitation and leave the conservative 'militia' group across the street alone?

How much should one dwell on the lessons of Waco? Provoking the sort of folk who stock arsenals can lead to unfortunate results.

I can ask these questions rhetorically in a forum, but suspect there are judicial precedents that provide solid answers. A local cop or mayor deciding enough is enough isn't enough. If there is a real danger, sure, but massive action against those who have stayed within the law, those who haven't threatened or harmed anyone, would be problematic.

And those answers depend on what part of the saeculum we are in. Civil liberties tend to be restricted in a 4T Crisis situation in which there is consensus of a "clear and present danger". And those strictures are relaxed and questioned in 2T Awakenings and the beginning stages of 3T Unravellings. It's this perspective that makes Generational History so useful.
During the Missionary Unravelling, gays were tacitly tolerated in a corrupt sort of way. The idea of Free Love (Havelock Ellis and Anne Besant) was considered. Margaret Sanger was pushing birth control. Psychoanalysis opened up the human mind (albeit after Freud renounced the too subversive idea of real trauma and real sexual abuse).
Backlashes against all of this gathered steam in the 1910s and especially in the 20s and 30s in the latter stages of Unravelling and beginning of 4T. Censorship became more pervasive. Opiates and cocaine were prohibited and prohibiton of alcohol attempted. Finally, by the 1930s a persecution of gays started that would last for 40 years. Jim Crow was reinforced and was only subverted finally by the manpower needs of WWII.
So I'm not terribly surprised when Donald Trump invokes the Supreme Court's Korematsu v US decision to justify exclusion of Muslims who are seen as enemy along the lines of Japanese during WWII. Or immigration restrictions. The acceptance of new immigrants becomes intolerable during 4T Crises. The Civil War was a major exception and only because immigrants were drafted on arrival into the Union Army. The US did not have immigration to speak of during the Revolutionary War Crisis. Or WWII. Immigration becomes relaxed in 2T Highs and 3T unravellings.
And because immigration is not tolerated during 4T Crises a lot of tragedies occur that people feel very badly about in the next 1T. Genocides occur because there is no place for untolerated minorities and losers to go.
This time around, gays seem to be accepted. And race is much less of a factor than it was in previous 4Ts. But we cannot keep fighting (or attempting to police) Muslims abroad without it finally affecting how Americans feel about Muslims at home. And we probably cannot continue accepting immigrants at the rate we have been doing now that immigrants are seen as an economic threat, not just a social threat by millions of Americans.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And those answers depend on what part of the saeculum we are in. Civil liberties tend to be restricted in a 4T Crisis situation in which there is consensus of a "clear and present danger". And those strictures are relaxed and questioned in 2T Awakenings and the beginning stages of 3T Unravellings. It's this perspective that makes Generational History so useful.
During the Missionary Unravelling, gays were tacitly tolerated in a corrupt sort of way. The idea of Free Love (Havelock Ellis and Anne Besant) was considered. Margaret Sanger was pushing birth control. Psychoanalysis opened up the human mind (albeit after Freud renounced the too subversive idea of real trauma and real sexual abuse).
Backlashes against all of this gathered steam in the 1910s and especially in the 20s and 30s in the latter stages of Unravelling and beginning of 4T. Censorship became more pervasive. Opiates and cocaine were prohibited and prohibiton of alcohol attempted. Finally, by the 1930s a persecution of gays started that would last for 40 years. Jim Crow was reinforced and was only subverted finally by the manpower needs of WWII.
So I'm not terribly surprised when Donald Trump invokes the Supreme Court's Korematsu v US decision to justify exclusion of Muslims who are seen as enemy along the lines of Japanese during WWII. Or immigration restrictions. The acceptance of new immigrants becomes intolerable during 4T Crises. The Civil War was a major exception and only because immigrants were drafted on arrival into the Union Army. The US did not have immigration to speak of during the Revolutionary War Crisis. Or WWII. Immigration becomes relaxed in 2T Highs and 3T unravellings.
And because immigration is not tolerated during 4T Crises a lot of tragedies occur that people feel very badly about in the next 1T. Genocides occur because there is no place for untolerated minorities and losers to go.
This time around, gays seem to be accepted. And race is much less of a factor than it was in previous 4Ts. But we cannot keep fighting (or attempting to police) Muslims abroad without it finally affecting how Americans feel about Muslims at home. And we probably cannot continue accepting immigrants at the rate we have been doing now that immigrants are seen as an economic threat, not just a social threat by millions of Americans.

Well it's mutual. Immigrants increasingly are not interested in coming here. We see more and more expats as opposed to immigrants. The US is not attractive like it was during the 19th and 20th Centuries. Who knows, maybe I'll immigrate out of it. Maybe Argentina.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And those answers depend on what part of the saeculum we are in. Civil liberties tend to be restricted in a 4T Crisis situation in which there is consensus of a "clear and present danger". And those strictures are relaxed and questioned in 2T Awakenings and the beginning stages of 3T Unravellings. It's this perspective that makes Generational History so useful.
During the Missionary Unravelling, gays were tacitly tolerated in a corrupt sort of way. The idea of Free Love (Havelock Ellis and Anne Besant) was considered. Margaret Sanger was pushing birth control. Psychoanalysis opened up the human mind (albeit after Freud renounced the too subversive idea of real trauma and real sexual abuse).
Backlashes against all of this gathered steam in the 1910s and especially in the 20s and 30s in the latter stages of Unravelling and beginning of 4T. Censorship became more pervasive. Opiates and cocaine were prohibited and prohibiton of alcohol attempted. Finally, by the 1930s a persecution of gays started that would last for 40 years. Jim Crow was reinforced and was only subverted finally by the manpower needs of WWII.
So I'm not terribly surprised when Donald Trump invokes the Supreme Court's Korematsu v US decision to justify exclusion of Muslims who are seen as enemy along the lines of Japanese during WWII. Or immigration restrictions. The acceptance of new immigrants becomes intolerable during 4T Crises. The Civil War was a major exception and only because immigrants were drafted on arrival into the Union Army. The US did not have immigration to speak of during the Revolutionary War Crisis. Or WWII. Immigration becomes relaxed in 2T Highs and 3T unravellings.
And because immigration is not tolerated during 4T Crises a lot of tragedies occur that people feel very badly about in the next 1T. Genocides occur because there is no place for untolerated minorities and losers to go.
This time around, gays seem to be accepted. And race is much less of a factor than it was in previous 4Ts. But we cannot keep fighting (or attempting to police) Muslims abroad without it finally affecting how Americans feel about Muslims at home. And we probably cannot continue accepting immigrants at the rate we have been doing now that immigrants are seen as an economic threat, not just a social threat by millions of Americans.

I would like the US to focus on preventing radical Islamic terrorist attacks and cease any general police work abroad.

Originally Posted by radind

I would like the US to focus on preventing radical Islamic terrorist attacks and cease any general police work abroad.

Offshore police work is one very powerful tool for accomplishing the goal you cited. It would be ideal for the world to cooperate fully and openly, but our goals and theirs are never exactly the same.