DogofWar1

I encourage everyone to go find EDP445's video on Doug Pederson. Please note: ALL THE WARNINGS. I'm not kidding. At one point he lifts up his shirt up and exposes his manboob when talking about Chip Kelly. So again, ALL THE WARNINGS. But it was so great anyway.

I mean, I'm not saying that they should just go in and mow them down, but power should have been cut immediately, a perimeter set u somewhere down the road to prevent free movement, and once reports of threatening e-mails and calls to the sheriff came in, followed by reports of residents being followed and watched by cars, units should have been dispatched to quickly find all those vehicles and look at all of them closely. At this point, any suspicious activity in the community likely comes with reasonable suspicion to be tied to the crimes at Malheur, and there are plenty of vehicle search loopholes that can be used for searches. Of course there is the possibility that one of these kooks would shoot first, in which case feds would shoot back. But by being so fearful of someone shooting first, they've allowed that town to be turned into something like we'd see in a Kurt Russell movie. I mean, look at this nonsense: For ****s sake, this **** is straight out that Scarecrow court from "The Dark Knight Rises," snow covered buildings and all. If every single one of these people who showed up and participated in this isn't arrested and charged with a wide ranging battery of federal felonies, the federal government has basically demonstrated it is worthless in the face of white supremacist terrorism.

Aww, I missed the snacks, and all I got was this stupid glock...

I'm really disappointed with the Feds on this one. Even capturing them as they leave will feel somewhat hollow (not totally, but a little). I mean, they've been so passive in attempting to avoid another Waco that they went fully the other direction. Now you've got employee's with their information potentially compromised, and a whole community has been harassed by people directly in threatening manners.

Supreme Court could overturn, but that's very unlikely. Slightly less unlikely if Hillary or Bernie win and several conservative justices leave the SC, but still unlikely. SC, more likely, could take cases that could weaken Citizen's United. Blunt some of the open ended nature of it. Allow restrictions by special interests in other areas. Stuff like that. It wouldn't be a major shift, it'd be small shifts over numerous decisions, ultimately leading to a functional overturning. Congress has limited power in this arena, too strong of a restriction would be unconstitutional per CU. However, they certainly aren't doing as much as they can. Nor is the FEC, which, due to needing unanimous votes and the 2 GOP members refusing to enforce anything, isn't really doing anything. A Constitutional Amendment certainly would do it. That would require a huge contingent of people and politicians that is tough to imagine. It's not impossible though, and there's definitely a large chunk of the country that wants something like that, but I think that'd only translate to sufficiently large majorities in only about 20ish states, which isn't enough. There's a lot of frustration with special interests and corporations giving money in politics, so it's not inconceivable. I think it there was a strong enough wave it could be done, it's just not very likely in the short term. It's a tough situation because there's just so much money tied up in preventing change, or even enforcing the law as currently written. However, indeed, getting special interest/corporate money out of politics would help in a lot of areas, including gun control. Money, like blind ideology, warps legislation and creates negative outcomes.

Hillary Clinton clearly gave them the idea. Sounds like the reports of them accessing computers are picking up steam. Saw some stuff about accessing employee data, including SS#s. That's a pretty big deal.

Sounds like Eagles are just interviewing everyone they think will piss off each other team in the east the most. Rumors about Jon Gruden, a Coughlin interview. Who from Dallas? Jimmy Johnson? Bill Parcells? Wade Phillips? They can't have Callahan, he's ours!

Forget the Feds, Beware of Jumbo.

This kind of stuff is why I don't like the idea of going easy on them. They've invented fictions to ensure their own righteousness. The real world doesn't matter. They'll be pissed off at the government no matter what is done. Action inflames, inaction emboldens. In the end, either choice likely leads to more of these "standoffs." My concern is that we'll start seeing the "mob" cascade effect, that is, people who would not normally engage in these illegal activities suddenly start to because others have (like with recent mass shootings and Columbine). The FB warriors coming out IRL. Can such a cascade be stopped? I don't know, but I doubt leaving these groups to their own devices will create positive outcomes in the long run. Arresting the ring leaders who commit illegal activity likely has the best chance of scattering their followers; for the mob cascade to work where significantly human coordination is necessary, ring leaders are necessary. These extremist groups might actually be one problem where cutting off the head might kill, or at least severely weaken, the body. Also, and I'm not advocating escalation, but has anyone called their bluff on the "we'll shoot if they try to arrest us" thing? Legitimate question.

That's not really the point. If you're comparing their respective level of regulations, you naturally have to take into account the inherent danger of the thing itself. Guns are orders of magnitude more dangerous than speech, it makes sense for there to be more laws on it. Not to mention, speech is, well, speech. Firearms are physical objects, coming in all sorts of shapes, sizes, forms, and formats. Lots off extra potential points of regulation throughout the conception to private ownership process. Rather, the point is there's wiggle room between the present situation and the line where the 2nd amendment is crossed, but you'd think we'd already crossed it listening to the NRA and their purchased congressmen. It goes back to that quote the NRA put in their lobby of the 2nd; it's incomplete, and so perfectly sums up their views. It kills our ability to actually have any sort of gun debate in this country. They're so committed to blocking any policy changes on guns that they actively worked to end research into the topic. I don't think there's a group with the NRA's power committed to doing for the 1st what the NRA does for 2nd, especially with respect to the potential limits on government regulations and the constitutionality of them.

The 1st and the 2nd are roughly similar but in today's climate they are treated somewhat differently. The 1st says no laws shall abridge speech. Supreme Court has said it's not an unlimited blank check. Congress makes laws restricting speech in some forms. Lots get challenged in court. Some stand, some don't. General understanding pervades society that 1st Amendment's free speech is not unlimited (well, most of the time, comment sections on the internet notwithstanding). Copy, Paste for 2nd Amendment. Except lobby and supporters get WAY more pissed off about anything done to it. I'm trying to think of a specific time frame where the 1st's Free Speech was defended as zealously as the 2nd is today. I would imagine it'd be around the time of the 1918 Sedition act, but a quick glance at Wikipedia doesn't seem to suggest it was opposed widely and zealously. Not sure of other instances.

The right man for the job:

Please. No. Please. Faith in humanity...dimming...American exceptionalism...ending...nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Great, now we all know how this will go. 1. Someone there says something super racist with Trump guy around or involved. 2. Someone asks Trump about it. 3. Trump maybe sorta voices minor discomfort but also maybe not. 4. Trump goes up in the polls. I'm primarily talking about charging, since that's the next step and a jury will handle the conviction phase. I'd avoid charging them for things like sodomy though, unless interviewing their farm animals turns something up. Stay tuned on that one. I still think there's a possibility of something like treason sticking, but I'll grant that among the myriad of potential charges it is probably the least likely to stick. I think having it charged sends an important message though. Sodomy, while a hilarious charge, probably doesn't. It's an interesting question as to whether armed FBI agents count as military for such a charge. I feel like it's one of those things that frankly could go either way in a Circuit Court. I've recently been reading up on the Rajaratnam case where the Circuit Court, and to a lesser extent the trial court, basically handwaved a lot of the legal questions in favor of the government. I could see a judge finding something like "the charges were sufficient to warrant a response by the United States military, above and beyond normal law enforcement matters. The FBI, while not necessarily considered a traditional wing of the military, was clearly chosen to stand in for the US military in this instance. Where armed agents of the federal government are stationed at a scene and traditional military forces would have been warranted due to the severity of the circumstances, such federal agents may be considered military for the purposes of armed conflict." I could also see them saying "nope, nice try though." There's part of me that thinks the argument could fly. The other part of me still wants to do it even if it won't because there's something fun about breaking ground on new interpretations of law. It's like painting a unique picture. But with lots of words and stuffy people in suits.

Been away all morning, so lots to sift through, haha. I think we place very different levels of importance on the armed occupation of a federal building. I understand completely that it's empty and not in use at the moment, but it's still a federal building, and they're still armed and have threatened violence if the government tries to do what it is entirely within its rights to do, that is, re-occupy the building and arrest them for their crimes, even if that crime was something small like trespassing. When they merely had a disagreement, and were protesting, that was fine. That's perfectly within their rights. But then they took the building. That's the conflict, not the disagreement. I think the "nation" section might be a stretch, but it still has some footing. Consider that in 2006, Adam Gadahn was indicted on treason charges for helping Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was not a "nation" in the traditional sense either. Al-Qaeda was certainly more organized and vocally anti-American, and of course had already committed atrocities against the US, but the key is that "nation" is not perfectly defined. Now, does a bunch of sovereign citizens thinking they're a militia count as a "nation?" Maybe, maybe not. Probably not. But it's a classic prosecutor tool to charge them with the worst and plea deal down to some lesser stuff. I think there's enough to get the charge through the door. Public reaction, however, is a different story and might prevent such a charge from being levied against them. But that's more of a backroom calculation than what "can" happen. As for the "forces" part, it's tough to know at this time what the full federal response is. Information is scarce. We know they don't have a bunch of feds right there with a hard perimeter, which is understandable with the lengths they're going to prevent another Waco, but whether they have a force in the area just down the road or not, we don't know. Probably won't know until they try to leave. If 200 armed troops hop out from behind bushes a thousand yards down the road, that'd probably constitute a military force. But we'll see. Again, classic prosecutor tool to hit with the worst then negotiate to a position less bad but still favorable to the prosecutor. If you can get an indictment for treason, and don't think it won't set of actual violent reactions nationwide, I say go for it. Oh, I'm not advocating for shooting first or drone strikes or anything like that. When I said "hit them with everything," I meant legally, after they've been arrested. My ideal resolution to this would be them to get arrested peacefully (somehow, we'll see if that can happen), charged with a boatload of things, put in front of a jury, and the justice system allowed to run its course. It would demonstrate that the government will not allow themselves to be taken lightly, but that we're still a nation of laws and that they will be afforded the full protections those laws afford, as well as receive consequences for violations where they've committed them, after being convicted by a jury of their peers, of course. The feds should avoid doing anything more than basic indirect disruptive tactics at this time. Cutting power and phones is good. Ideally they'd block the roads but they seemingly haven't done that. I certainly would avoid sending armed individuals in there right now. If they had indeed been set up for months, getting in there and dislodging them might have made more sense, but these guys seem to have screwed up pretty badly so more than likely they'll slink away on their own in the next week. I would advocate, at that time, apprehending them, and doing so peacefully if possible. Frankly, it's a luxury so many are NOT afforded in their interactions with law enforcement, and so it's frustrating to me to say, but I feel as though allowing them to shoot first is the best option. As for the comparison to armed college takeovers, hundreds of individuals were arrested during those protests, and quite a bit of force was used to dislodge them. That level of force likely is not necessary here, and arguably we would not want to use such tactics again, but it would not be inconsistent with previous events. Armed takeovers, even for the best causes, must be taken very seriously. In the aftermath the social justice aspect can be examined more closely and weighed, but prior to that, any occasion where firearms are present should be taken seriously from a law enforcement standpoint. That doesn't mean shoot-em-up, demonstrate judicious use of the use of force continuum, but enforce the law.

Debatable, at a minimum. 18 USC 2381, Treason, says: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. There are two key components there; 1) allegiance to the US and 2) levying war. As much as they seem to hate the US government, they do say they are loyal to the US Constitution, and more importantly, are citizens, so 1) is met. Levying war probably correlates to "act of war." 18 USC Ch. 115 doesn't actually have definitions set out, but 18 USC Ch. 113B does have a definition section and defines "act of war": (4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A)declared war; (armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or ©armed conflict between military forces of any origin; B and C both could fit, potentially. Both the US and these individuals are armed. Further, taking control of the federal building was an act of force against the government. Sure, no one resisted them, but by breaking, entering, and occupying the facility they committed an action against the laws of the United States. A cold conflict, but a conflict nonetheless, and again, both sides are armed. They could be considered military forces. This group has worked with militia groups and could be described as one. They were marching with the Idaho Three Percenters militia. Groups like the Oath Keepers, White Mountain Militia, and Praetorian Guard are considered domestic terror threats by the FBI, and they supported Cliven at his ranch. Ragtag though they may be, they are arguably military forces. The "two or more nations" section is interesting as well. Consider that the Bundys do not consider themselves under federal jurisdiction, due to being citizens of the "sovereign state of Nevada." Is it two nations if one of them is not actually real but the people legitimately think it's real? It's an interesting question, and I'm honestly not sure, but it's worthy of consideration. Then there's the fact that they planned to stay for years (their crappy logistics and supply lines notwithstanding) and have sought to hand federal lands over to state and local governments, but also individuals, specifically ranchers, for ownership. Now, a transfer of ownership might not be considered the creation of a separate state, but they seem to wish to make these lands exempt from eminent domain, one of the fundamental powers in the US Constitution. That suggests some sort of separate governing authority. An alternative state, perhaps? It's not all that far-fetched. Treason would, naturally, have to be proven by the government in court; as well documented as this silliness is, they are innocent until proven guilty, though there's probable cause literally all over the internet. Classifying this as domestic terrorism has been previously discussed, so for the sake of brevity on that point I'll simply reiterate my view that an armed takeover of a federal facility for the purpose of changing federal land ownership and releasing convicts satisfies the definition of domestic terrorism. But there are further acts which this takeover may fall under: 18 USC 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Their taking over of a federal facility with firearms certainly sounds like "rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United State or the laws thereof." They are advocating that people ignore the laws and authority of the federal government and take control of the land and to join them in the occupation of the facility which they took over. 18 USC 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy - If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Bundy himself discussed how they've planned this for years. That seems like "conspire to...oppose by force the authority thereof" or "conspire...by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof." Heck, even 18 USC 2389 - Recruiting for service against United State - Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in armed hostility against the same; or Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting station for the enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in armed hostility against the United States—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The refuge could certainly be considered a recruiting station, as they advocate people coming there to join them, and considered they are armed and hostile to the federal government, their takeover of the refuge being a hostile act, they'd probably fall under this too. I mean, I get that this group is hilarious and is more akin to a comedic parody you'd see in SNL than an actual national military. I get that no one was in the building and that thus far no shots have been fired. I get that the Feds are treating this for the most part like a joke, and letting the winter cold do its thing. But even though their actions appear to be pale imitations or parodies of what we likely think treason, domestic terrorism, rebellion, seditious conspiracy, and recruiting for service against the United States would look like, they, at the very least, should be considered as sufficient to arrest them based upon probable cause for these crimes, scary words and all. Arrest them, charge them, try them, and if a jury finds them guilty or not guilty of the above, that's fine either way. But letting them off easy is what happened at the Bundy ranch in 2014, and it led to this in 2015. Hit them with everything, let a jury sort it out.

Yeah, it's absolutely hilarious, and on the one hand, I'd pay to help them get a camera in there to just see the looks on their faces (double money if we get audio), but on the other hand, this is still treasonous domestic terrorism and should be taken seriously. Hilarious, stupid, easily mocked treasonous domestic terrorism, but still serious nonetheless.

The sooner this ends, the better, but arrests need to happen. The Bundy brigade will pop up again, undoubtedly, they're likely setting up a cottage industry for themselves where they'll probably (ghost)write books and give speeches in between outright treasonous actions like this one. End it now. When that guy comes out to try and go back to his Nevada ranch, arrest him. Let his cows wander, the fact that he committed domestic terrorism and treason (poorly planned, but still), and his biggest worry is wandering cows demonstrates they have no fear that committing treason comes with consequences. He needs to be shown that it does. They all do.

I'm really glad things worked out this year, since with all the firings, I'd hate to be in the market this year. Top coaching talent is going to be swallowed up fast and viciously. It makes for likely instability if you find yourself on the outside looking in, and there's certainly no guarantee those inside will fare much better. Coughlin isn't a bad guy, and is a very good coach. Wish he hadn't been stuck with the Giants so I could like him more. Garrett doesn't scare me at this point, so he can stay. He's been exposed as an average coach reliant on his QB. That's not really a knock, probably 90% of coaches are like that, but he needs Romo. Romo is that team. The next coach could roll in and be 12-4 with a healthy Romo, or he could hurt his back, and they'd be 4-12 again. Absent a truly exceptional coaching talent, their coaches and pretty much functionally interchangeable. Let Garrett stay, or kick him out, things are probably not changing. Heck, even of the random Sean Payton rumors happened, it wouldn't help much. Brees is Payton, as was that bounty defense. That isn't to say Payton is bad, but he isn't going to raise Dallas up suddenly.

That Onion article is pretty darn good. Rick Santorum's segment on MSNBC makes him an early frontrunner in this.

It sounds like when they didn't disperse peacefully over the weekend a plan of action was put in place, which will start with cutting the power. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/oregon-wildlife-militia-standoff-power-cut-off Took too long, in my opinion, kids gloves for these guys is not what I'd like to see, but over the next few days if they truly don't have power or phones, then things should start moving pretty quickly after a night or two.

A crackdown is necessary. I'd prefer them to just sit in prison for life on treason and domestic terrorism convictions over killing them, but indeed, the Bundys need to be made an example of. It was one thing when it was their property and ranch, and the like, but now they're in a completely different state, taking over federal installations. They are literally a roving rogue state, attempting to undermine the United States of America. They are no different than any other group that would attempt to establish their own state within the United States by force of arms, and should be put down as an armed rebellion. Letting bygones be bygones is only going to embolden them. Life sentences for each and every one of them. Maybe even throw the Bundys in Guantanamo, just for the fun of it. And if they're stupid enough to shoot first, well, our armed forces know what to do.

Holy crap, he IS a cartoon villain.

Snacks, they say...