It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”
He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”
The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman's]
“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”
“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”
Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM. Stockman’s letter adds even more weight to the growing sentiment against the federal overreach.
In response to Bundy’s argument, officials from the National Park Service and BLM have pointed out that the removal of the cattle is based on two U.S. District Court orders from two different judges, the first of which was issued in 1998, yet Bundy has thus far failed to comply with the order. But the federal officials’ message has been lost amongst the claims of a police state and an overreaching federal government from Bundy’s supporters, which has included conservative media outlets.
Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.
Reid used the BLM like his own personal mercs. That was clear as day. However, I fear nothing will come of any of this. They're too entrenched with too much influence, both financial and politically. They're all dirty and getting rich off the backs of the American public. It's systemic and it's ugly.
originally posted by: Libertygal
a reply to: Bilk22
Yeah well, it doesn't fit the "You didn't build that" and spread the wealth dogma.
Harry wants to spread the wealth with Obama so badly, along with everyone elses, so let's start with his. Oh wait, he's "excluded", right?
No, it's okay, because now, people are looking, digging, into whatcis really going on. The documents, the companies, the stealth corporations hiding out there that have other intent, and morw aunlight will reach into the darkness.
That's the one thing they can't stop, and can no longer hide, now that connections have been discovered. Even the BLM whistkeblower video has some great information, and guess who it all leads back to?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what they did, how they handled it, was illegal and highly immoral, but to most Dems, that's a plus for your resume'. For a Republican, it's grounds for removal from office, right?
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish
Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:
Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.
It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish
Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:
Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.
It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?
(2) The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources. Such designated personnel shall receive the training and have the responsibilities and authority provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
e) Uniformed desert ranger force in California Desert Conservation Area; establishment; enforcement of Federal laws and regulations
Nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary from promptly establishing a uniformed desert ranger force in the California Desert Conservation Area established pursuant to section 1781 of this title for the purpose of enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands and resources managed by him in such area. The officers and members of such ranger force shall have the same responsibilities and authority as provided for in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of this section.
It's up to the states to determine if the federal government has overstepped it's bounds. Hopefully, one day soon, the states will decide enough is enough.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish
Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:
Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.
It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?
It doesn't matter who "they" think is wrong! It's not up to local law enforcement to determine who is at fault, that is for the courts to decide and regardless of their stance, it's law enforcement's job to enforce the court's ruling.
Or maybe you could be so kind as to show me where in the statute it states that it's up to local law enforcement to determine who is right and who is wrong.
originally posted by: Bilk22
Yes let's attack the messenger. It's apparent that those who side with the BLM also feel they're not required to follow the rules as they expect Mr. Bundy to do. It's clear the BLM did not follow the rules. What is also clear is Dirty Harry didn't say "hey those are residents and constituents in my state. They're being treated like terrorist and not citizens of the US.: Oh wait he does believe they're terrorists. My bad. Guess anyone getting in the way of him fleecing America are terrorists in his eyes.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: thesaneone
This started in 93 not 2008.
So it begs the question ... why Now?