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.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: thesaneone
This started in 93 not 2008.
So it begs the question ... why Now?
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: Flatfish
Please state for the record that you believe absolutely zero bias exists in the courts.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Flatfish
Please state for the record that you believe absolutely zero bias exists in the courts.
It doesn't matter what bias may or may not exist in the courts.
If they feel they have received a bum ruling, they can appeal it to a higher court. Nowhere does it say that local law enforcement are to serve as judges or juries, deciding the issues for themselves. It's their job to enforce the courts rulings, whether they like them or not. Anything less IMO, is just grounds for their dismissal as law enforcement officers.
Mob rule has no place here in America.
originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: thesaneone
This started in 93 not 2008.
So it begs the question ... why Now?
Five Letters
O
B
A
M
A
(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.
originally posted by: Bilk22
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: buster2010
So Obama was president in 98? This started long before Obama became president.
Why the BLM Battle at Bundy Ranch Matters
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.
The court gave the BLM the authority to remove the cattle not Obama.
originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: xuenchen
You are correct, Section (e) I quoted was for California, but the 1st paragraph quoted, enabling the Sec. of Interior to establish and train LEO applies to all BLM land.
xuenchen, one other possible reason for the "timing" of the removal of the tresspass cattle could be that environmental groups have threatened to sue the BLM for not doing their job.
Big talk from an anonymous poster on the internet.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Bilk22
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.
I don't know exactly where you got the idea that it's up to the states to determine when and if the federal government overstepped it's bounds, but I'd wager that you pulled it from a spot where the sun don't shine. If I'm not mistaken, that's the job of the courts. More specifically, the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, let's just assume you're right. Using your own premiss, you stated that it was up to the "states" to decide. I would assume that the use of the word "states," (being plural) would imply that it would take a majority of the states coming to the conclusion that the federal government had overstepped it's bounds.
All I've seen is this particular instance is a relatively small group of ignorant right-wing radicals rallying behind a common criminal just for the sake of opposing the government because after all, they are the enemy we should all be fearing.
And what a pathetic bunch of "patriots" they are too! Hiding behind women and all. More like a bunch of cowards if you ask me. I wonder how their strategy of putting their women out front would have gone over at the Alamo?
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish
It doesn't matter what bias may or may not exist in the courts.
Really?
Really??
So if bias exists and cannot be overcome through the "regular channels," what other options are there?