General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Regardless of what response you favor, BLM did back off in the face of armed intimidation [View all]
If the Girl Scouts had showed up, instead of armed people assembling to interfere with the BLM's official activities, BLM wouldn't have ceased official actions "because of our serious concern about the safety of employees."
So, yeah. We are talking about the government shutting down an official action in response to at least the threat of or implications of a self-styled anti-government militia... assembled for the purpose of stopping the action.
That doesn't mean the federal government needed to make war on that assembled dilettante militia, but when people with guns block government functions, even by merely the reasonable implication of force (which is what intimidation is), that is typically a matter for the government's police function. Right? It's not some administrative negotiation. It armed intimidation for the purpose of and having the effect of preventing the government functioning.
Which tends to be a big deal. That doesn't mean air cavalry was indicated, but it isn't easy to recall all those times the federal government tries to do some official function and then cancels it because of fear of an armed mob assembled for the purpose of stopping the action.
He said that the agency had made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands. Kornze called this a matter of fairness and equity.
"We remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year," said the BLM director in the release. "After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially" ...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610