A couple of days ago, I said that race mongering had gone stark raving mad, by comparing Martin Luther King unfavorably to sneering cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Tonight I have to say that the federal government, my former employer, has likewise gone stark raving mad. I refer specifically to its siege of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.
I don't know all the merits of the dispute. I'll assume arguendo that the Bureau of Land Management is 100% correct in claiming that Bundy is poaching on federal land, by grazing his cattle there without paying.
But this justifies a para-military siege? Use of dogs on Bundy's unarmed son? The stationing of snipers?
As John Hinderaker of Powerline writes, the use of that degree of force in a dispute of this character is essentially madness. Do the people at BLM not remember the disaster at Waco, where the stakes (possibly children subject to on-going abuse) were incomparably higher?
At the same time this Administration is falling all over itself to go easier on drug trafficking, with the rampant violence inevitably associated with it, it sends in a quasi-army to deal with a cattle rancher who won't pay up.
You admit you don't know all the merits of the dispute.
That's good, because you don't even know where it's taking place. (Hint: Nevada, not Texas)
There'a a 15-year-old judgment and several court orders that Bundy has been flouting.
Read up on it here:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/cattle_trespass.Par.40211.File.dat/Dkt%2056%20Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%2010-9-13.pdf
You're right, I flubbed the location. Thank you for the correction, and I have changed the entry to reflect it.
I said I assumed the BLM's version is correct.
The amount of force the government uses has to be proportionate to the harm to be remedied; this is not a war (where I agree with the use of disproportionate force), it's a guy flouting a court order about where his cows can eat grass.
It's wildly irresponsible for the government to risk the amount of harm that had the potential to occur here in order to enforce a civil judgment.
It's not even a criminal case. Do you think the government should use a paramilitary force and snipers to capture an adjudicated misdemeanant? If not, how can it justify the use of such things in a civil case about grazing fees?
I'm as law-and-order as they come, but there are limits, and the amount of force and the potential for considerable bloodshed was simply too much.
I might add that the government itself seems to agree with me. After this episode got a lot of press, BLM called it off and stood down.
This rancher's response to enforcement of federal court orders? To invite hundreds of heavily armed protesters, some carrying assault rifles, to resist the enforcement of the orders. BLM backed off in response to this lawlessness, and I'm glad they did, but the pundits who ginned this up, the miscreant rancher and the armed loonies who joined him should be ashamed of themselves:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-idINBREA3B03Q20140414
The federal government has a lot less to answer for than the right wing media who stoked this volatile situation. I would think that a former AUSA would understand and appreciate that fact, regardless of his political inclinations.
"The federal government has a lot less to answer for than the right wing media who stoked this volatile situation."
This country has a long history of freedom of the press, which freedom is sometimes, perhaps many times, used irresponsibly. This does not relieve the government of its obligation to understand that dealing with its own citizens in a civil case is not like dealing with the enemy in wartime.
"I would think that a former AUSA would understand and appreciate that fact, regardless of his political inclinations.
It's always interesting to hear what my understanding should be from someone who has voiced no objections to DOJ's playing fast and loose with the law.
If an agent working with me had organized force of this kind against a civil defendant, I would have kicked him off the case and referred him for treatment.
Two more questions: Did you approve of the government's response in Waco?
How many people do you think BLM should be willing to shoot to enforce a judgment in its favor about where cows are allowed to eat?
I think the govt. was right to back off to defuse what could have been a horrific situation. But do you think it's right to ignore several court orders, and raise an army when the govt tries to enforce them? Or should the Bundys just be allowed to live above the law?
"But do you think it's right to ignore several court orders,"
I don't think a person should ignore a SINGLE court order.
"...and raise an army when the govt tries to enforce them?"
I think trying to use force against the government is, for one thing, nuts, because you're going to lose.
"Or should the Bundys just be allowed to live above the law?"
Where oh where is this question when we're talking about people who smoke dope knowing it's illegal?
Oh, wait, now I get it. Smoking dope is In With Liberals, so the problem in that context is the feds who -- how could they be so draconian??!! -- hand you a $50 fine. By contrast, grazing cattle on federal land is Out With Liberals, so the problem in that context are these wing-nut, NRA-type vigilantes.
Here's the deal, as if you didn't know: The question is not whether anyone gets to live above the law. The question is WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE when they do so.
Giving a one-time pot smoker a $50 fine is responsible. Organizing snipers and a quasi-army to deal with (civilly) illegal grazing is irresponsible, cf. Waco.
It's just not that hard.
Nice avoidance....[etcetera].
Ed. note: The remainder of your comment is more snide and aggressive than I am going to allow, and I have deleted it. The rules for this forum are that commenters will treat this as CJLF's home, and will behave as a decently respectful guest would.
If you'd care to reformulate your comment to meet that standard, fine, it will be welcome. But this site is not going to start down the path of other sites toward belligerence, snark and insult.
WGO
Let's talk about Waco then and the Danforth report that exonerated the federal agents involved (not about their honesty on some points after the fact admittedly, but about their actions at the time). How do you deal with a situation where cult members have shot and killed ATF agents? What do you do when you fear you might have another Jonestown on your hands? How much patience is enough? More than a month, as the administration allowed in 1993, or less, or more? It's hard to know, which is why I tend to be less critical of law enforcement after the fact than you seem to be. I am curious whether you are similarly critical of republican administrations. I don't recall your outrage at the use of torture by the last administration for example, but maybe you have been and I've missed it.
This timeline puts some of Waco into perspective:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html
I agree that BLM did the right thing in backing off. As to why they felt the need to be armed in the first place, the threats off armed confrontation by the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who said he intended to start a range war and invited armed "militiamen" to join his cause, may have given federal officials some reason to think they needed weapons too. Or are guns only for "patriots" not law enforcement?
"Let's talk about Waco then and the Danforth report that exonerated the federal agents involved (not about their honesty on some points after the fact admittedly, but about their actions at the time)."
The main problem was not with the agents. The problem was with the AG who approved using a tank, no less. She didn't think that could cause a fire???
You're good at firing off questions, but refuse answers to the ones I asked. So I'll ask again:
Did you approve of the government's response in Waco? N.B. 76 people died in that episode, many of them children.
Did you approve?
You also passed on this one: How many people do you think BLM should be willing to shoot to enforce a judgment in its favor about where cows are allowed to eat?
"I am curious whether you are similarly critical of republican administrations."
When a Republican administration uses a tank leading to a conflagration that kills 76 people, you bet I'll be critical of it.
"I don't recall your outrage at the use of torture by the last administration for example, but maybe you have been and I've missed it."
It's beyond bizarre that you compare waterboarding a handful of bloodthirsty terrorists in order to obtain critical information to incinerating more than six dozen people, very few of whom were guilty of anything at all.
"I agree that BLM did the right thing in backing off."
Thanks for the concession that I'm right in thinking that the feds went too far. If you'd just said that at the outset, you would have avoided the embarrassment of comparing interrogating a Jihadist thug to burning to death a few seven year-olds.
I don't consider my remarks snide - I was answering you in the same kind of tone you used with me. But here's my reformulation, and it's simple...
What would you have the Federal government do in this case to enforce a court's judgment?
I am not familiar with that part of the world, so it's difficult for me to figure from a distance what to do. But I know you do not put lives at risk in order to enforce a civil judgment about grazing fees, and you do not treat US citizens who have not been convicted of so much as a misdemeanor with the force appropriate for meeting a foreign invasion.
One thing I would consider is seeking a court order to turn off the electricity, seize bank accounts, stop mail delivery, and intercept and seize shipments of cattle when they reach a public highway far, far from this man's property.
You don't go very far in the cattle business if you can't get your inventory to your customers, and even if you do, they can't get their payments to you.
Those are sensible suggestions, Bill.
I don't know the timeline of events, but when deploying an enforcement action, I do expect they go out with sufficient force to protect the people doing it. Given what they encountered, it looks like the force was justified. And given the forces on both sides, I'm glad it DIDN'T turn into Ruby Ridge or Waco.
The situation now, though, is worrisome in a different way. "Winning" such an encounter may give encouragement to other confrontations, which will just lead to more potentially tragic encounters.
The Branch Davidians incinerated themselves in a very sad and somewhat Jonestown like way. Admittedly, that's not the way the militia movement or Timothy McVeigh or Alex Jones saw it, but it is the way Republican Senator John Danforth saw it after conducting an official inquiry into the matter. What did I think about how it was handled? Well, it ended very badly, so who wouldn't wish for a different result, but, as my questions above made clear, it wasn't easy to know precisely what to do after Koresh's followers killed four ATF agents and had all those children hostage.
As for Cliven Bundy and his group of armed thugs, the idea that he can stiff the federal government of $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, graze his animals in areas where they threaten the habitat of endangered species and then threaten federal agents doesn't make me happy. BLM had to back off because of the violence of Bundy's followers. I'm just glad no one got killed because of it.
I think he and his follower should spend time in the federal pokey. If it's good enough for 84 year old nuns nuns protesting at nuclear facilities, it's good enough for him:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nun-84-gets-3-years-in-prison-for-breaking-in-nuclear-weapons-complex/
Human beings trespassing on (not just "protesting," as you put it) nuclear facilities is a different kettle of fish from cows trespassing (if a cow can "trespass") on some field a zillion miles from nowhere.
And then there's the fact that, as liberals like you used to know, a person doesn't get sent to the federal pokey until they get convicted of a federal crime. If Bundy has even been CHARGED with a crime, I don't know about it.
I just wish you had shown half the fury about Dzokhar Tsarnaev (whose anniversary is tomorrow) that you have about Bundy. But, if I'm recalling correctly, the only things you've said about Dzokhar are excuses (he's young, he was just following his brother), while you make zip excuses for Bundy.
My impression of Bundy (and that's all it is) is that he's a bad actor looking for a fight and with no great respect for law. Dzokhar is a stone-cold killer who blew to bits an eight year-old boy out of shear hate for the United States.
The former should get a taste of the reach of the law. The latter should get the needle -- and should get more from you than proffers of mitigation.
Bill, Bundy should just say that he's an illegal immigrant ignoring an immigration court order.
See, no muss, no fuss.
Wicked.
Let's see if our friend has a comeback to that . . . .
Lawlessness for me but not for thee from my law and order friends on the right, people who have dedicated their whole careers to the idea that laws should be strictly enforced, on CJLFs website no less, unless Powerline or Matt Drudge or Sean Hannity believes otherwise of course. And then suddenly, hard nosed ultra conservative prosecutors are transformed into real civil libertarians, who don't say boo at people who threaten federal officials with automatic weapons. Say what you will, consistency isn't the hobgoblin of your minds.
The truly wonderful thing about these charges of hypocrisy you launch is how easily they can be swiveled in the opposite direction.
To wit: "Lawfullness for me but not for thee from my cops-are-Nazis friends on the left, people who have dedicated their whole careers to the idea that laws are too strictly enforced, on the ACLU's website no less, unless Keith Olberman or Martin Bashir or Rachel Maddow believes otherwise of course."
I could go on, but I think you've got enough wattage to get the point.
Not that there's actually the symmetry you like to pretend. To say that the law should be strictly enforced is hardly to say that ANY AND ALL MEANS of enforcing it should be employed, now is it? So when I suggested non-violet means of enforcing the civil judgment here, you just walk past that with your pre-fab attack.
The truth is that I want the law enforced against the people who break it, whether they're headcases on one side (Bundy) or headcases on the other (e.g., Sharpton). I mean, ya know, Big Al also got a civil judgment against him -- the one ordering him to pay up for defamation in the Tawana Brawley rape hoax -- and for years and years he refused to pay it. (Indeed, he NEVER paid it. Some buddies eventually coughed it up for him).
Back then, were you -- in the name of the rule of law -- calling on the sheriff to surround Sharpton's house with snipers to collect the judgment?
Well, were you?
Would you mind linking to the post anywhere on the Internet where you did that?
The solution to the immediate problem is legal. Do as Bill suggested.
The larger solution is political. The BLM having SWAT teams is insane. Even more insane is the thought that the Federal government "owns" 80% of Nevada and 52% of land in the western states. It is an affront to federalism.
An analysis of stimulus and response here yields fascinating results.
Taking a look at the original Powerline article Bill Otis cited and the Reuters article I linked to. This is what happened.
In 1993, Cliven Bundy began refusing to pay government fees required to allow his cattle to graze on public lands. In 1998, the government issued a court order telling Bundy to remove his cows from the land, as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise located there. And in July 2013, a federal court ordered Bundy to get his cattle off public land within 45 days or they would be confiscated. The confiscation began this month, and the cattle will be sold to pay off the $1 million in fees and trespassing fines Bundy owes.
In 2013, local media quoted Bundy saying this: "I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as [his son] Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."
Although Bundy was in arrears for $1,000,000 in grazing fees, the BLM didn't move in on his cattle until he herded them onto Gold Butte, the habitat iof an endangered species of tortoise. Understandably, the federal agents who were collecting the cattle brought along law enforcement to ensure that the agents wouldn't be interfered with. Because they expected protestors, they set up an area for protesters to demonstrate away from the area where the cows were being collected and held. Bundy's son confronted law enforcement guarding the operation and they tasered him.
Bundy publicly declared a "range war" on the federal government and thousands of people, many armed with automatic weapons, arrived. At some point, the situation got so tense that there were law enforcement gunmen present with long range rifles. To avoid a deadly confrontation with this unhinged gang of armed rowdies, the BLM gave up.
And this elicits the response from a hard nosed, tough on crime, prosecutor that the government has gone stark raving mad; the government, not the rancher who abides by almost zero federal laws, the government, not the thugs who show up armed and dangerous to prevent the enforcement of federal court orders.
When a peaceful Occupy protester got tasered, conservative columnist Erick Erickson said it was "hilarious" and "made his day."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/erick-erickson-cnn-contributor-occupy-dc-protester-tased_n_1246573.html
I don't recall your concern about government madness in confronting those protesters, only in confronting armed "militiamen" intimidating federal agents trying to enforce a valid court judgment. Amazing!
Since you refused to answer -- preferring a filibuster -- I'll ask again:
Back then, were you -- in the name of the rule of law -- calling on the sheriff to surround Sharpton's house with snipers to collect the judgment [against him for slander]?
Well, were you?
Would you mind linking to the post anywhere on the Internet where you did that?
P.S. I'm not a tough on crime prosecutor because I'm not a prosecutor. Try to keep up.
What? Not willing to defend your post anymore? Trying the old, the best defense is a good offense approach?
[Ed. note: The remainder of your snarky, superior comment has been deleted. I told an earlier commenter that disrespect is not going to be tolerated here. Get the message or take off. WGO].