Obama could have stopped the militia with an open dialogue

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: the owlbear
Another specious argument simply because it did not happen. The case will be tried on what actually took place, not someone's "what if" scenario.
Obama could have stopped it with a pardon.
The governor could have done her duty and provided a means to a remedy.
The county judge could have done his duty and provided a means to a remedy.
They didn't do that. They abandoned their duty to their constituents and in doing so violated their civil rights.

You still didn't answer the question...

Are you okay with any heavily armed group "peaceably assembling" in a state or federal place and threatening armed resistance if any attempt is made by law enforcement officials to remove them from said location?

Regardless of presidential pardons or any other remedy...

It's a valid question in this thread and one I think we would like to see your answer to.

originally posted by: onequestion
In my opinion what should have happened is that the president should have gone on live television and began an open dialogue with the militia for more than one reason.

1. He could have talked them out of the occupation peacefully and coerced them to surrender.

2. By creating a national dialogue with the militia he could have helped addressed a growing anti government sentiment by addressing the issues brought to light and helped bring he country together.

These leadership qualities are what we need to expect from our presidents. What we have now is a joke, these people are a joke. Congress, the senate all worthless scoundrels with zero leadership qualities and a total lack of a moral compass.

Weak minded cowards.

Hey, I'm finally getting around to addressing the op.

Sorry 1Q,
Just don't see it that way.
The weak minded cowards were the ones who holed themselves up with guns on federal grounds and expected revolution.

The United States government has made it clear, we do not negotiate with terrorists, or in this case, a bunch of yokels with guns and a distaste for authority. Still, they made their sentiment clear with their armed standoff on federal property and refusal to comply with orders to leave.

It would have set a very bad precedent addressing the snacks and socks rebellion. Others have laid it out better in the first three pages than me.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

It was a felonious armed takeover of a government building. Nothing peaceful about it. They should all (except the dead moron) be incredibly thankful it came to an end with arrests and Federal felony charges. It could have been much worse.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

So I guess if want to gather my buddies together we can send a signed petition to the President of the United States demanding that restaurant prices be lowered, and the when it goes ignored, we arm up and take over the local Applebee's? I mean, after all, we are just exercising our rights, huh? Stupid. it isn't peaceful, it isn't protest, and it isn't effing LEGAL!!

What it is, is a violation of multiple city, county, state, and Federal laws.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

So I guess if want to gather my buddies together we can send a signed petition to the President of the United States demanding that restaurant prices be lowered, and the when it goes ignored, we arm up and take over the local Applebee's? I mean, after all, we are just exercising our rights, huh? Stupid. it isn't peaceful, it isn't protest, and it isn't effing LEGAL!!

What it is, is a violation of multiple city, county, state, and Federal laws.

I like the Crapplebee's angle.
I doubt we will get a response, though.
Diggin dodged me three times already, so I don't think the enthusiasm is there for defending the snacks and socks dildo rebellion.

a reply to: diggindirt

He could have prevented the initial protest march from ever happening had he taken up his famous pen and signed a pardon for the Hammonds.

I think that would have been a very wise choice.

Why pardon some redneck trash criminals?

No, this is not Obama's fault.

originally posted by: CB328
Why pardon some redneck trash criminals?

No, this is not Obama's fault.

That is debatable. If Obama's judicial appointees were the ones that put the Hammonds back in jail through double jeopardy then it is very much Obama's actions that started this fiasco.

a reply to: onequestion
Not happening when probably 70% of the country was in agreement the Bundy's and the militia are domestic terrorists. Amongst politicians it was probably unanimous these're domestic terrorists. You don't negotiate with terrorists. And you know politicians, they're about following the letter of the law and using the courts, so from their perspective it was a doubly lawless circus and none of them wanted to be associated with it. And so Finicum was killed and we're not any better than before.

Like it or not, that seems to be the state of affairs.

The one thing this whole mess highlights for me is the power of perspective and partisanship and also the difficult in measuring a person. Finicum seemed like a good guy, but he made mistakes on hte day he died. I go through in my mind and ask if the authorities could have went about it differently to produce a different outcome. But it's endless and frustrating. We pick up the pieces and try to learn from it.

Another thing: I learned about mob rule. I'm convinced when people are majority and confident, they do dirty things to the vulnerable. It must be human nature. It's like picking on somebody because they're smaller and insecure. We're supposed to mature and grow out of that. Maybe it sticks around, but we get more deceptive how we employ it.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

It was a felonious armed takeover of a government building. Nothing peaceful about it. They should all (except the dead moron) be incredibly thankful it came to an end with arrests and Federal felony charges. It could have been much worse.

I have seen news reports that some areas were booby-trapped with explosives. The last I read (sometime this week) was that they are still working to identify possible traps.

The refuge will have to spend several years cleaning up the damage that's done (I'm speaking from experience in helping conservationists restore damaged lands.) I don't know how much damage was done to the bird specimens and other material there.

Very few people seemed to support them - I'm certainly not one.

originally posted by: onequestion
In my opinion what should have happened is that the president should have gone on live television and began an open dialogue with the militia for more than one reason.

1. He could have talked them out of the occupation peacefully and coerced them to surrender.

2. By creating a national dialogue with the militia he could have helped addressed a growing anti government sentiment by addressing the issues brought to light and helped bring he country together.

These leadership qualities are what we need to expect from our presidents. What we have now is a joke, these people are a joke. Congress, the senate all worthless scoundrels with zero leadership qualities and a total lack of a moral compass.

Weak minded cowards.

He wouldn't have accomplished much unless he caved into their demands.

They wanted attention. They wanted sympathy that they couldn't graze their cattle on protected Federal lands. They wanted sympathy for people who'd done something really dumb - not once, but twice. Having the President call them would have made them feel they were legitimized and powerful and they would never have given up until the got their demands met.

Having a few people hold something hostage to achieve a goal that is not supported by the majority is a tactic that never works and alienates potential allies -- just ask the Black Panthers. The militia could have learned this by studying history, but apparently history isn't on the books, either.

Reply to Flatfish:

You have the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

Correct.
To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress ( verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.

If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.

I've given the definition of "to petition" above. It is the act of filing a formal, written request. However, the framers of the Constitution didn't stop with the right to petition, they specified that the petition was for "redress of grievances" which by the very nature of the word---verb transtitive---means that action is required by those to whom the petition is addressed.
I don't know how to make it any plainer than simply using the definitions of the words used by the authors of the document.

Please show how the meaning of redress does not include actions by the recipients of the petition/s.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

So I guess if want to gather my buddies together we can send a signed petition to the President of the United States demanding that restaurant prices be lowered, and the when it goes ignored, we arm up and take over the local Applebee's? I mean, after all, we are just exercising our rights, huh? Stupid. it isn't peaceful, it isn't protest, and it isn't effing LEGAL!!

What it is, is a violation of multiple city, county, state, and Federal laws.

Another specious argument because government has no control over the cost of food in a restaurant. Petitions for redress of grievances to the government must concern government's actions. So it is your question that is specious, not my recounting of the rights contained within the First Amendment.
When petitions are filed with government, the very use of the word "redress", a verb transitive, demands action of the government because the word means, in a legal setting, "the provision of a remedy or a means to a remedy." How can a remedy or means to a remedy be provided if the government takes no action at all?
Perhaps grammar classes are needed as well civics classes?

a reply to: onequestion

I dunno. I think the Oregon standoff was handled as well as it could have been by the authorities. They can't help it if a bunch of people who don't know the law make a martyr out of someone who forced the authorities to kill him.

a reply to: Byrd

Those reports of booby traps were obviously false.
www.usnews.com...

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — FBI officials said Friday they haven't found any rigged explosives or booby traps at the national wildlife refuge in Oregon that had been seized by an armed group.

Unless you have other sources which say differently?

So, are you saying that because there are only a minority of people who support them, they don't have the same rights as the majority? Specifically the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? I see no clause which limits the rights of a minority of people to petition for redress of grievances, indeed, the First reads, "the people", not "a majority of people who hold the same opinion" have the right to petition...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
"Redress" is an action word, a verb requiring action---in this case, it requires action of the person/s to whom the petitions are presented.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.... but you obviously know more about law than they do, after all you saw it on the interweb!

Please, I've explained to you that a "government policymaker" isn't necessarily an elected official who has sworn an oath to the Constitution. Using a Supreme Court case about labor relations to make an argument about a civil right issue is just plain ignorant. I don't know how much plainer I can make it so that you will understand.
You have not provided a court case that says that elected government officials don't have to respond to the people who elected them. I know why you've not provided such a case---because it doesn't exist. Because it would contravene the First Amendment and even the Supreme Court can't re-write the Constitution, only interpret it.
It isn't me that is mis-quoting Supreme Court documents based on Google word searches---that was you in your former posts about a labor relations board case involving government policymakers.

originally posted by: diggindirt
You have not provided a court case that says that elected government officials don't have to respond to the people who elected them.

I have, but you refuse to accept the facts

even the Supreme Court can't re-write the Constitution, only interpret it.

Which they have done in this case, but you do not like their interpretation! But you not liking that does not change the reality.

originally posted by: diggindirt
they don't have the same rights as the majority? Specifically the right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

They have the right to petition the government, they do not have the right to get a reply!

President Obama had no more obligation to talk to these welfare ranchers than; he is obligated to calm every 3 year old who throws a tantrum when they don't get their way.
Moochers demanding a handout is hardly a cause worth the President's time.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: diggindirt

He could have prevented the initial protest march from ever happening had he taken up his famous pen and signed a pardon for the Hammonds.

I think that would have been a very wise choice.

Indeed, it would have taken the wind out of their sails before the gale gained force. Admitting that wrongs have occurred is a sign of strength in the real world, not so much in the political world. I don't understand the thinking of his advisers on this one.