Thoughts on the Bundy acquittal
My initial reaction to the news of the Bundy group's acquittal on all charges was pretty much the same as everyone else's here seems to be. But then I dug in a bit to see why. Here are my thoughts - see what you think.
After the early report I found only a little bit of detail in a story from "The Oregonian" online. Apparently, the defense team argued their case on the contention that the Bundy group were exercising their 1st Amendment rights of protest, claiming they were engaging in "civil disobedience". Bundy's occupation of the Malheur Refuge was a desperate attempt to gain a forum where their legitimate claim to be heard (right of petition) would be recognized.
That strikes me as a very clever defense -- and possibly a legitimate one, though I am not sure of the latter point. Clever: it places the Bundy action immediately into the same category of action as was undertaken, also in violation of the law, by civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s -- actions rightly cheered by liberals then and now, and even by many conservatives now. As liberal minded people, we should rightly pause before we move to condemn the Bundy group for their action: would we wish that the civil rights movement should have been crushed by the overwhelming force of state power? I don't think so.
"But they had guns" - yes, they did. So did the Black Panthers. So did the Young Lords when they took over an East Harlem church to use as a clinic and cafeteria to tend to the health and daily needs of a community historically persecuted, exploited, and ignored - whose non-violent and unarmed claims were consistently dismissed and ignored by the political apparatus of a nation pledged to protect the natural rights of all persons.
This doesn't mean the Bundy group is right - and it certainly doesn't change the fact that they are daft eedjits. We shouldn't have to agree with them to admit the sanctity - and necessity - of the principle on which they based their defense. As Justice Holmes said (no doubt in penance for his horrifyingly bad decision in Schenck), "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." And in the face of a soft totalitarian state like ours, we ought not to be too quick to take the side of the state against the claims of the people. If the Bundy group's claim was as specious in fact as it sounds on its face, it ought to have been easy for the State to counter it. Yet apparently they did not.
As I noted above, I am not yet convinced of the real soundness of the 1st Amendment defense - I have not seen enough of the detail of the trial; and I do not know the relevant case law. But at this point, I humbly suggest that instead of thinking of the verdict as a victory of the eedjits over sensible folks (though it may be that, too), think of it as an important victory for principles of justice in a time when those principles have been steadily eroded for 40 years. I guarantee you, if the Bundy group had been black or brown or red, they would have all been shot long before they reached a courtroom. And if they had been anything other than Christian, they never would have made it to a courtroom, but would be shipped to Guantanamo or some other dismal gulag in the archipelago of American empire, where they would have wasted away their lives in a tiny cell, all pretense of habeus corpus ignored.
Comments
Not much different than Occupy Wall Street.
More trees, fewer people. But the principle is the same.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
They vandalized the building, broke down fences
and bulldozed a section of the property where there were native american artifacts...like DAPL. Had armed checkpoints, and pointed weapons at people. Just like OWS.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Speech for me not for thee.
Like OWS didn't make a mess either.
Both occupations are political expressions that should be defended on 1st Amendment grounds, regardless of what you think about particular speakers or their messages.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
They did make a mess
They didn't bulldoze stuff. They didn't point guns at people. I count neither of those as speech. I don't know anyone who does.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
You know at least one.
The Bundy's activities are political speech under any Constitutional definition, and under the law are subject to the strictest scrutiny before the government may suppress it.
You may object to the manner of the speech, but that doesn't change the importance of protecting its expression.
Otherwise, the petty grievances you use to shut someone else up one day may be used to shut you up the next.
The real travesty is that not more people understand that.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
If I point weapons at people to protest a perceived injustice,
"Free Speech" will not be my defense.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Guns are Constitutionally protected too.
You may have a problem with that, but pointing a gun in this context is a form of political speech, and has been in Western states since before they were states.
Actually shooting a gun at someone is another matter, but even shooting in the air probably counts in this context.
Again, this is not about you or what you would do. It's about defending the rights of people you may not agree with because one day you may need those same rights yourself.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
They have the right to carry guns
I have no problem with that. Threatening people with them, law enforcement or otherwise, to make their point, is indefensible, sorry. It's not a free speech issue. Threats of violence are not protected; should not be protected. You are rapidly expending all kinds of credibility.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Pointing a gun at a person used to be considered assault.
Maybe it still is...I would guess that it is still assault in most places
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Yeah well...
If intellectual consistency in defense of free speech makes me unpopular, so be it.
I wouldn't be the first.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
You're spouting bullshit.
Brandishing of weapons is illegal in every state except under very prescribed circumstances and the Bundy's fail that test as they were committing criminal offenses at the time of brandishment. Give it up, dude. You're way out of line and totally full of shit.
Have a nice day.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Brandishing firearms
at people, threatening a BLM employee and stalking her, threatening the duly elected sheriff, etc. do not constitute a proper exercise of one's first amendment rights.
SCOTUS has long held that threats of violence do not entiltle one to protection under the first amendment. The Bundy folks made numerous explicit and implicit threats against law enforcement and federal workers on social media, to reporters and to individuals such as the Sheriff of the town.
This verdict was a case of jury nullification plain and simple.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Different issue.
As I understand it, they are still subject to prosecution for other activities outside the protest itself.
Don't have a problem with that. But the myopia on this thread about what constitutes 'valid' protest under the first Amendment based on their clear dislike of the people involved is completely counterproductive.
These lame justifications for suppressing political speech you don't like make you all sound like the same bunch of "law and order" right wingers you pretend to hate.
You're all working for the clampdown and you're too full of bias to even see it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
'Threats of Violence' are actually fairly well protected.
The test is whether the speech was a 'true threat', and the Supreme Court has traditionally been very reluctant to find the test was met.
As you see, it's not just far right radicals that enjoy protection for advocacy of violence.
In another case The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana upheld that principle again in favor of anti war protesters:
There is a long, long line of historical cases dating back to the Red Scare of 1919 and before of the government alleging threats of violence in order to suppress the speech of leftists, socialists, communists, progressives, etc. etc.
Progressives need to be very careful about how much freedom of speech we are willing to deprive others, because historically it is WE who have been the ones most vulnerable to government suppression.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I'm sorry, I see a difference between speech and guns
saying "If they ever make me carry a rifle..." etc. is NOT the same as actually carrying a rifle, driving around town, slowing down as they pass the houses of those who want them out of town.
Standing in front of a mass of armed police/soldiers and saying "#$^ you, pigs!" is not the same as going to the local diner with your machine gun and glaring at everyone.
You're right...
But that's not what happened here.
Happy to discuss this case further, but please stick to actual facts and leave the Quentin Tarantino movies out of it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Those fact patterns in the cases you cited
are clearly distinguishable from the actions taken by the Bundy group:
They brandished firearms openly, refused entry at gunpoint to anyone who wanted access to the buildings they broke into, and they specifically threatened to shoot anyone trying to oust them from their illegal occupation. That is not the fact pattern that SCOTUS addressed in the first amendment cases you cited.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Was there any actual violence?
(Except of course one of their own getting shot by the Feds while travelling to a rally in town?)
Did they not all surrender peaceably after that?
You are erroneously conflating threats of violence with actual violence.
The key takeaway from the cases I cited (along with the entire Brandenberg line) is that threats and acts are two very different things.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
there was a threat of violence, not the verbal kind
the feds would have removed them quickly except that they believed (thanks to the statements of the Bundy group) that trying to do so would result in a shootout.
I understand that the law protects people who have guns. I understand that you can't assume a group calling itself an armed militia can't be arrested until they actually shoot. It's like how husbands who threaten their estranged wives can't be arrested until they actually kill them. I understand that that's the law.
As for Finicum, he got shot because the group threatened violence and when he reached for something (his wallet? his comb?) the feds took it in context.
But yes, I understand the law.
Speech is more than just verbal.
Chaining yourself to a tree to protest environmental degradation is speech. Burning a flag is speech.
So if you are in favor of the Feds removing unarmed Bundys, are you also in favor of the NYPD removing unarmed Occupy protesters?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I don't believe I said that
I said the feds would have removed them if they'd been unarmed. If they'd been unarmed I'd have been more likely to have thought favorably of them. I'd have disagreed with them on their issue but that's not the point.
It's precisely the point.
Any restrictions on speech must be content neutral otherwise they are always subject to abuse, and that abuse historically falls hardest on the left side of the political spectrum. Deciding people's rights based on whether you think 'favorably' of them is a slippery slope that Progressives need to be very wary of.
But I get what your saying about about using guns as a form of protest (not a fan either), but I think you are confusing your opposition to the manner in which the protest is carried out with the Bundy's right to protest in the first place.
The Bundy's had every right under the 1st Amendment to occupy the facility in protest of government policy. They also have the Constitutional right to do it brandishing weapons (1st and 2nd Amendments). Just because you disagree with the latter shouldn't negate the former.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
perhaps I wasn't clear
when I say my disagreeing with their issue is not the point I mean just what you said. The political disagreement is irrelevant.
Gotcha.
I understand.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I agree that
"Brandishing firearms at people, threatening a BLM employee and stalking her, threatening the duly elected sheriff, etc. do not constitute a proper exercise of one's first amendment rights."
But neither do they constitute "conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs", the crime they were charged with - and of which they were acquitted.
Your conclusion is therefore a non sequitur: "This verdict was a case of jury nullification plain and simple." By what short circuit did you arrive there? I ask the question with respect. My gut response to the verdict was identical to yours. But I found the defense reasoning curious, and then I started thinking about it - and wondering if my own desire to conclude that the result was wrong was a consequence of my prejudice rather than a careful and neutral analysis of the situation. The counterexamples I provided in my essay above were the tools I used to try to find some equanimity.
Are there groups of people in this country who are such a danger to the Law and to Justice that we think the government ought to crush them with force, snuff them out? It does not seem to me that the Malheur group pose such a serious threat. Bankers and corporations, on the other hand, very clearly DO pose such a threat, as they have made it their explicit interest to profit at the expense of the People and the planet. Personally, I would prefer to see the government exercise its coercive power against THAT group. And until it does, I am very uneasy about supporting the actions of the government against any other group in the US that is demanding to be heard and respected - black, brown, red, or white.
I agree with you
There is a very obvious difference between the nature of the Bundy occupation and that of OWS or of Standing Rock.
The fact of that difference bothers me a lot. It seems to me that a civilized society would treat a non-violent occupation of thousands with more dignity and respect than a gun waving occupation of a dozen.
But I am not sure that the difference matters to the perspective through which I suggested we might see this. When the Kerner Commission reported on the urban "riots" of the '60s - quite violent events - they concluded that the so-called riots were really rebellions: that they were political acts carried out by a group of people in the US who had been historically maltreated and ignored, and who lacked access to political power to have their voice heard and heeded through the normal channels of debate. In this case the presence or absence of violence is not the decisive issue in the determination of the difference between a criminal act and a political act. What is decisive is the presence or absence of effective means to achieve redress of grievance through "normal" political channels.
The defense mounted in the Malheur case suggests they see themselves in something of the same light. I know it would be stunning for some here to see this or even admit the possibility - and I'm honestly not sure I believe it myself - but what if the tense frustration of the gun-toting rural white redneck crowd in the US derives from the same origin? I.e. they feel themselves to be and are an embattled and repressed "minority". What if the particular form of their protest - guns and cowboy hats and pickup trucks - is the consequence not of their Bad Attitude and General Disrespect for Law, as we all are eager to assume, but instead is the consequence of their own peculiar culture. The Malheur group expresses their dissent (a speech act) in their own particular 'idiom', which is different than the idiom of the Black Panthers or the Watts Uprising or OWS because it comes out of a different social and cultural milieu.
Number of Occupy arrests is 7,775.
Number of Wall St CEO's, who oversaw the banks that committed fraud and lead to trillions of dollars bilked from the public coffers, pension accounts and home values, arrested: 0
Number of ranchers posing as phony defenders of civil liberties convicted: 0
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
I sense
the immediate need to disassociate and separate the situation of the Bundy actions against those of our native Americans at Standing Rock, ND. But I'm hopelessly cynical. Even if I wasn't--and assuming that's what this is--I'm sorry, but I'm not buyin' it. If the Bundy Bunch were exercising their freedom of speech, then so are those natives exercising theirs.
One of these groups has been terrorized by America's armed militias. The other has been puffed up for publicity's sake and let go, once they served their purpose.
See if you can guess which one is which.
I agree, there is a difference
And you touch here on what I think may be a strong counterargument to my hypothetical:
"One of these groups has been terrorized by America's armed militias. The other has been puffed up for publicity's sake and let go, once they served their purpose."
There is a long history in the US of white "militias" serving as a convenient cat's paw for entrenched elites, against "communists", against "foreigners", against African Americans, Native Americans, etc. That history began with the debates over the Second Amendment, and went on up through slave patrols, Pinkertons, KKK and various hyper-nationalist groups in the 1920s (including the reborn KKK and the American Legion) and the White Citizens Councils of the 50s and 60s. Thus did these groups "serve their purpose" - and for that reason were rarely held culpable for their violations of law and rights.
But the Bundy group was not acting against black people or against socialists in this case - they were acting against the government. Which seems ironic. On the one hand, it suggests they are the same right-wing nut-jobs they always were - for surely they are attacking the government because of its raging 'socialism' under a center-right black Democratic president. The ironic part is that they feel left out, forgotten, repressed - in much the same position as the groups they historically beat up on. AND they are making use of a form of action - occupation - and a trial defense that have historically been employed by those same groups. That strikes me as a very interesting development, historically speaking; and I am fascinated by it.
You and I agree, I think, on the moral standing of the Bundy group: they have little to stand on. But to argue that their political rights derive from their moral standing strikes me as a very "conservative" sort of argument -- the kind used against Michael Brown, against the Black Panthers, against "welfare queens". I would prefer to argue that their political rights derive from their human nature.
here are my random thoughts on the Bundy thing
juror #4 successfully threw his weight around, getting juror #11 kicked off the panel. Juror #11 was a definite "guilty" voter. Juror #4 sent a note to the judge saying juror #11 was "biased" because he had at one time worked for the Bureau of Land Management. The judge, probably thinking it wouldn't matter since the verdict was going to be guilty, said sure, and kicked off juror #11. Then, in my opinion, juror #4 was able to browbeat the rest of them. Juror #4, in an email today, said he didn't like the prosecution's "triumphalism". What the heck does that mean? He didn't like the attitude? the demeanor? So to teach the prosecution a lesson he voted to acquit?
I think when it all comes out we'll see that this juror #4 was a really bad apple and jurors 1 thru 3, 5 thru 10, the new #11 and 12 were weaklings who got run over in deliberations.
Making it worse, juror #4 was insisting that whatever the Bundys did wasn't "intentional", as if that makes it ok, yet this is the same way Hillary got off in the summer. She didn't "intentionally" compromise confidential material. We joked about it, how we'd use that if a cop stops us for speeding. "Sorry, officer, I didn't intend to go that fast". Well it looks like that juror fell for it and was a perfect point man for the defense.
By the way, juror #4 is a student (don't know how old...he could be a long-time student) at Marylhurst College so I would think he's better educated than the rest of the jury and more comfortable with acting like he knows something.
Remake of “Twelve Angry Men” for a U.S. that’s moved right? n/t
Shahryar,
the Bundy Gang travelled from their homes in the southern tip, I believe that is where they live, of Nevada to Oregon to stage their protest. That seems pretty intentional to me.
Can you point us to more information about the trial?
I will assert that the "protest" was not about land at all, but about water, specifically the fresh water of Malheur Lake. I would like to know who put the Bundys up to the "protest". I doubt they dreamed it up by themselves, and, sorry, I don't believe they travelled hundreds of miles on account of some rancher being fined for illegal burning.
I will also point out that without the fishermen, bird wachers, hunters and hikers who visit the refuge annually, there would be no town of Burns at all.
Mary Bennett
The Oregonian has good reports on this
I like to call that paper "the Boregonian" but they're doing a good job on this.
A few days ago Juror #4 wrote a note to the judge. You can see it in this article
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/federal_judge_dismisse...
Juror #4 mouths off after the trial, requesting anonymity
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in...
Juror #11 says it was a personal attack based on something deliberately taken out of context
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/baker_city_man_bounced...
Thank you for the links, Shahryar.
I agree with your assessment. Juror 4 is a piece of work. There is a lesson for us all here. Just be nice is no longer a useful strategy for how to conduct one's life.
Mary Bennett
I will point out
That the community needs more than tourists to survive. I am from the Olympic Peninsula so I know what I am talking about.
Dear pswaterspirit
I have lived in Eastern Oregon, though not in Burns itself. I do know that many Eastern Oregonians like their desert small towns for things like hunting, fishing outdoor sports and so on. Some folks like the solitude, and they don't care to see their towns turned into rural slums so that some out of the area plutocrat can make a killing exploiting natural resources like the water of Malheur Lake.
Mary Bennett
I can see the reaction to prosecution "triumphalism"
In knew some of this before, but not too long ago Chris Hedges wrote about how federal prosecutors royally fuck over poor defendants and especially black ones. Very rarely do defendants go to trial as the prosecutors then load up on charges condemning a life in prison if the person is found guilty. These prosecutors don't lose. They have and use god-like powers everyday against people. They are not used to losing or even expecting to lose as the court system just chops up normal people accused of crimes.
There was an article in the Oregonian about the lead prosecutor and he was portrayed as one bad ass legal mother fucker. He like prosecuted Mohamud he was such a bad mother fucker. Really, that prosecution was his bad ass moment? And you know, I think these guys thought of themselves as some bad ass mother fuckers.
So yah, I can see these prosecutors going to trial, not much experienced as they mostly handle plea bargains, and they assumed an position of absolute power and privilege and arrogance as they are simply not used to losing or having judges rule against them.
I suppose the government frustration at having been beaten expressed itself when the defense lawyer was beaten up and tasered by what federal marshals. No outrage at that. Think that was a message to other defense lawyers challenging the system.
The outcome may not have been due to bad jurors, racism, etc. but inept prosecutors who chose to file charges they couldn't defend.
They were not exercising 1st amendment rights
1st amendment guarantees peaceable assembly of the people. These guys were not peaceable at all. They destroyed property, threatened to murder people, made numerous terroristic threats... there's just no way to defend their actions as protected by the 1st amendment in light of that. If the only thing they did was some vandalizing, then i'd have to begrudgingly defend the bastards, even though they weren't wanted there by anybody.
Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theater
This classic expression of first amendment limitations was an odious decision:
With odious consequences:
The Schenck case was overruled:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/?clien...
Expressive conduct has been classified as symbolic speech:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7019/Freedom-Speech-Expressive-Conduct.html
The first amendment defense in the Bundy trial was a sham defense. The judge must have allowed some very unusual jury instructions. The judge must have also have been very lax during voir dire and helped the defense get a favorable jury. Very bizarre.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
A Sham Defense
For purposes of clarification, freedom of speech does not include the right to physically threaten another person with violence. The conduct of the Bundy Bunch was clearly criminal and indefensible. The facts of the case and the law are crystal clear. The first amendment defense was a Hail Mary shot into the legal ozone.
The judge rigged jury selection and jury instructions to get a predetermined verdict of not guilty. The D.A. took a dive. This was a political show trial and a mockery of justice.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Looking on the Bright Side
I don't get how this jury would let them off, but the prosecution must
have done a terrible job.
They are fortunately though still in custody awaiting trial for the previous standoff at the
Bundy ranch.
Their lawyer was tackled and tazed because he
was disrespecting the judge and demanding that Bundy be allowed to
walk away a free man.. The judge said he was to stay in custody...
So at least the judge in the case was no fool.
After all, those are some bad hombres with guns and a danger to society.
I am glad they are still locked up.
Why aren't any of these Freedom Luvin Militia...
Heading over to the Dakota Access Pipeline Protest?
Oh wait..
The Koch Brothers need that to carry their oil...
No sympathies for the Cloven Bumdy Klan and their Sage Brush Rebellion hotspot...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
the militia says they want to go to DAPL
in support of the protesters but that they wouldn't go unarmed and have been told not to show up if they've got guns.
'a' militia.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I believe it's *that* militia
anyway, they've appropriated terms like "militia" and "patriots". They're really paranoid kooks with guns, playing cops n robbers, cowboys n injuns, listening to that godawful country music that's not for real unless the singer wears a cowboy hat and sings in a phony southern accent.
What I noticed about the Bundy matter:
The matter had been pending a long time. The D of J could have moved against Bundy for a long time, but did not. Then, a story potentially embarrassing to the Obama administration hit the headlines and Bam! the D of J went after Bundy and knocked the potentially embarrassing story out of the news.
Sadly, like everyone else, I no longer remember which story the Bundy matter knocked out of the headlines. But, judging from excerpts from the wiki account quoted below, it happened some time in April, 2012, a Presidential election year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
It's my understanding that the Bureau of Land Management
made three criminal referrals, over the years, to the Dept of Justice to take action against the scofflaw Bundy. This is the proper procedure for the BLM.
The DOJ didn't lift a finger although that was the job of the department.
Bundy's cattle also went on to some of the land in Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the National Park Service forbade its park rangers from taking action even though the cattle were degrading the park lands. The NPS has a requirement to protect their resources to leave them unimpaired for future generations.
The Dept of Interior response, in part, was to have more than 100 square miles become a de facto law enforcement free zone in deference to Bundy.
The BLM also caved in to holders of grazing permits last year in Nevada when the drought made the land in NW NV unsuitable for grazing. The BLM told the ranchers to get their cattle off until rains came and conditions improved. The ranchers refused and the Obama administration gave in and let the land suffer. Let our land suffer.
It's important to know that those who hold BLM grazing permits pay less than 50% of what a private land owner would charge for grazing and it's also true that these ranchers pay less to graze their cattle than they would pay in state taxes if they themselves owned the land.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 35% of methane emitted in the contiguous 48 states come from cattle. Methane is 30 times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 but doesn't persist in the atmosphere as long.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Indeed. Thank you, duckpin.
I just did a quick look for newsworthy events in 2014. Nothing jiggled my recollection. There was a kerfuffle with Obamacare and Sebelius's resignation. I don't know whether or not that was the story I noted at the time, though.
http://www.infoplease.com/news/2014/current-events/us_april.html
You're welcome HW. Perhaps you remember that Bill Clinton
fired his BLM director, a man named Baca, because this director wanted the lessees to pay market rates. But - No - cattle, and kowtowing to special interests come before protecting the federal land owned in common by US citizens.(Hope I am remembering correctly, think I am)
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Because how federal land is used and by whom is all up to Bubba?
The arrogance of these people! You can hear it in the demands that Trump not challenge the election results, even if he thinks they're crooked, as though the election is somehow about only him and Hillary. I had the same reaction when I read that Kerry supposedly said he didn't challenge because he did not want to seem to be a sore loser, as though it were about his image and not about all Americans, but especially the ones who had supported him. And now, everything is about Obama's legacy.
We need a whole new batch of politicians--but the Democratic Party supports incumbents über alles.
Baca wanted BLM lands to adhere to a best use concept
compatible with citizen ownership of the land. His background was in management of state owned land.
In some cases, grazing is a good use. The BLM also has authority to grant permanent easements if a city is expanding up to BLM lands and legitmately needs the extra room. In some cases, the scenic and ecologic values outweigh anything else and the parcel needs to be granted wilderness status.
The ethos of the western rancher culture is use the nearly free land until it becomes a desert. Due to the undemocratic nature of the US Senate where the states with significant BLM managed areas have 14 Senators and a population far fewer than California that has 2 Senators, most administration bend over backwards to mismanagement BLM land in favor of the Idahos and Wyomings.
Thus, the BLM is captured by the RW rural ranchers who get our land to exploit at far below market value and, if rented from a private landowner, abuse the land without negative consequences they would suffer in court. The Special Use Permits signed by grazers and not enforced properly and the BLM let's the ranchers run and ruin our land. Bill Clinton made sure this would continue when he fired Baca.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Jury Nullification
You're never supposed to say it out loud. LOL
jury nullification
jury nullification
jury nullification
jury nullification
People power over the courts.
:-)~
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Jury+nullification
Peace
Has been legally valid since the Magna Carta.
It's actually a primary reason the jury system exists.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It was used a lot in 19thC England.
Jurors were refusing to convict criminals for petty thieving and the like because they knew the thieves would be hanged if convicted.
Mary Bennett
Was the trial held in the heart of Bundyville?
This administration has shown us that justice is clearly not blind. She's dripping bling.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
The trial was held in Portland, OR, a "liberal" city
As private interests seek control or outright ownership of
public lands, I expect to see selective enforcement of the First Amendment. Those seeking to protect public or tribal lands from private depredations will be persecuted and prosecuted in spite of their rights guaranteed under the constitution including journalists reporting the struggle.
On the other hand, those seeking more private and corporate control of public and tribal lands will, IMO, find their constitutional rights much better protected. I don't see this ruling as precedent setting for any but those who support the interests of the 1%. The rest of us are screwed.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I agree with your analysis. The fake militia(s) are protected
by 14 to 18 US Senators in the west who want the public lands, mainly BLM and US Forest Service, given to the states. These states were given vast tracts when they became states and it's in their constitutions that they, the states, recognize these lands as forever federal. What is driving the unfolding events are the holders of vast wealth who want to own these federal lands as personal property and the Wealthers know the states have a history of ceding their state lands to private interests.
The Malheur takeover and the Bundys in Nevada are just part of the upper class using arising situations to further their selfish ends. In my view, if the Rich are successful in moving BLM lands from federal to state ownership, people like the Bundys will soon be out in the cold but, for now, they are useful to the privileged class.
When Nixon appointed Rogers C.B. Morton to be Secretary of Interior, they was an uprising from western senators because the Secretary of Interior "had" to be from the west. To placate them, Nixon had to promise to appoint all westerners as under secretaries and other influential positions within Interior.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
A Botched Prosecution
And
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-malheur-l...
Links at the end of the article to opinion pieces:.
Opinion: Was the Malheur occupation legal, or did the feds botch the Bundy case?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bundy-oregon-malheur-201...
And: Opinion: In acquitting the Oregon militants, a white jury determines that the law doesn’t apply to white protesters. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-malheur-bundy-occupation...
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
I want to understand the implications of a guilty verdict
The not guilty result has many shocked many. But in reading, the charges were "all defendants were found not guilty of charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers and not guilty of possession of firearms in a federal facility. " The conspiracy stuff seems sorta strange. As for possession charges, I admit not knowing the law but under Obama it is legal to carry in nationals forests, and people must carrying must state laws, which in Oregon are rather permissive. Offhand seems a stretch to get the longest sentence.
There is a history by federal prosecutors to abuse laws for situations never intended to be used. PETA was once sued under RICO.
It looks like the AG went with charges having the biggest impact. Let me brainstorm--could people doing sit-ins and occupations be then subject to these sorts of conspiracy charges with major prison time say for doing a sit in at the office of a House or Senate representative? RICO was used to implicate innocent by standers. Seems the conspiracy charge could be used to implicate say family members who drove some protester to the bus stop? Look at the original charges against such people as Amy Goodman.
My guess is that the charges that the Bundy gang that could have stuck would not result in major prison time. Charges like trespass? Ruining an Native American archaeological site? Probably probation.
I would like to hear from civil liberty lawyers on the implication of a guilty verdict on say for example antiwar protesters blocking the front gates of military installation. Could they be charged and face years of prison for impeding federal officials?
So were the charges political motivated in the sense that the AG knew that simple charges like trespass, destruction of an archaeological site would have resulted in charges of of racism as they may have resulted in probation and fines rather than prison time? Or maybe hubris. Chris Hedges writes about how at an disadvantage poor prisoners especially black prisoners are against federal prosecutors who will raise charges if some defendant goes to trial. Which happens rarely. Something like a little over 90% of federal prosecutions are plea bargained. Have to ask the question--was the verdict due to proprietorial hubris and had nothing to do with race? How many of these AG lawyers actually have substantial criminal trial experience? They are used to having nothing but success and have god-like powers over people with a compliant court system. Is it hard to imagine that a good experience trial lawyer would kick their asses in court?
As for belief that if the they were black, etc. Well, I don't remember any BLM protester being shot and killed by the police (as happened in Oregon). The worse beat down I have seen of BLM protesters was in Baton Rougue under the orders of an African American mayor against mainly white protesters. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? As one poster noted, over a 1,000 OWS protesters were arrested after violent suppression orchestrated by a DOJ under the control of an African American president and African American DOJ (I believe Holder was DOJ head). Portland OWS produced an iconic picture of what was happening when a cop directly sprayed mace into the face of a female protester.
I think the LA Times printing a racialist slant on the verdict
is so bogus that it can be dismissed out of hand.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I am not at all sympathetic with the Bundy group
I regard them as ignorant and irresponsible, based on my reading at the time of their claims (and the history of their claims leading up to the Bundy Ranch standoff event of 2012). Their arguments about land and sovereignty and the authority of government strike me as absurd and indefensible. I agree that The Bundy group was treated differently - from start to finish - because they are white; there is no question about that. There are few things in our society today that I personally deplore more than racism and ignorance and guns - but I am trying to prevent my biases from shaping my judgment of the trial result.
In the general discussion here today - for which I think everyone - most have ignored the fact that the government charged the Bundy group with "conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs". THAT is the charge of which they were acquitted. The defense appears to have argued that "preventing federal employees from doing their jobs" was NOT what brought the group together, but was only a side-effect of their gathering. Maybe I am misinformed, but that seems a to be a reasonable defense, and I have not seen anyone here today show otherwise.
I tried to make my point by placing the action taken by the Bundy's in another context, so that perhaps skeptics here could see past their own biases against ignorant white racists with guns (the same ones many share with me). Let me try again. Suppose a strike action by workers fighting for what they saw as their legitimate rights were to close down the rail system from Chicago outwards in all directions. Would we approve of the government charging the striking workers with "conspiracy to stop the mails"? This actually happened, of course, in the Pullman Strike of 1894. And so, by attaching mail cars to their trains, the gleeful railway robber barons were able to appeal to the Federal government for relief by means of this trumped up charge, and the striking workers were forced back to their jobs (when not fired outright) literally at gunpoint.
We do not have to like the Bundy group or to agree with its cause in order to respect the right they claim. The right of ordinary people to stand up against entrenched power and claim redress of their grievances is fundamental to our political system and the theory that underlies it. I am not willing to sacrifice that right because I happen to disagree with the claims, or the attitude, or the skin color of the people doing the standing up. A society in which the state can use force to suppress the claims of ordinary people to justice is not a free society, it is a machstaat (or as someone here pointed out recently, an "inverted totalitarianism", RIP Sheldon Wolin).
What is WRONG about this case is NOT that the Bundy group was treated - from start to finish - with respect and dignity. What is WRONG is that other groups with much stronger claims to justice continue to be ignored and repressed. I speak of course of the ongoing action at Standing Rock, which claims far more participants than ever did the wold-eyed Bundy group, and which is engaging in a cause whose benefit to all of us is most obvious.
I disagree that the Bundy group was treated differently because
they were white.
Obama wanted to avoid another Waco incident and was willing to let federal and state officers be threatened and impeded to avoid publicity.
At Waco, 4 ATF officers were shot and killed while they were trying to serve a court issued search warrant. The ATF officers had every legal right to be where they were and they were murdered.
The scene reverted to the FBI and that agency kept people from entering and leaving until the final assault to arrest the murderers.
I don't believe race played a part in either of these incidents.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I think your theory makes sense
The Bundy group had guns, as did the Waco group. They expressed a willingness to use them, as did the Waco group. It is easy to see that those factors might result in a different approach. You may be right on that. The lesson would seem to be that if people want their protest to count, they should bring guns?
Of course, it was precisely for these reasons that groups like the Black Panthers took up guns in the latter '60s. They expected the weapons to cause restraint in the actions of the police. That turned out to have been a fatal miscalculation, which resulted in a nationwide assault on the BPP coordinated from the Federal level on down to local police. The AIM met the same result.
It seems to me the Waco thing in no way rules out race as a factor. Seems hard to believe that the Bundy group would have been treated the same if they were black or brown or red - either by the State or by the jury of peers. Can you give me a historical example of black or brown or red people standing with guns and expressing their willingness to use them, in which the police forces (broadly speaking) of the nation extended such courtesies? I can think of none. Is that just because it hasn't happened lately?
Well said:
We should wholly reject arguments that pit one set of protesters rights against another's. All that ever does is create a civil liberties race to the bottom.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Standing rock would not be
Treated like it has been in Oregon. We value other westerners and we bond over our mutual dislike of the federal government and those who think we exist for their personal pleasure and convience. For starters Oregon would have involved them in the process. Second the local tribes have already taken on and defeated big oil several times.
Oregon vs North Dakota
I saw that same comment elsewhere today - was that you too? I think that's very interesting. My assumption has been all along that the state and local authorities in ND were not acting spontaneously, that they would not have undertaken such a concerted and determined response without instructions from higher authorities in the Federal Government. It seems clear the the Fed has been very much "invested" in the completion of this project from the start - from the pure fraud of the Environmental Impact Reports to the apparent disregard for treaty rights. I wonder if Oregon could have withstood that?
For starters I am an Indian
So I am keyed in to how governments relate to the first nations with in their borders.
The state of North Dakota granted the permits. They also caused the move from above Bismark to its current location. It was the governer of North Dakota who declared a state of emergency and called out the national gaurd. He was also the one who did not include them in the planning.
Now compare that to the state of Washington where I am from. We are under tremendous pressure to allow oil by rail and huge oil ports. Here we are led in out fight against them by the Lummi tribe. All of us are joined in one fight to stop this. City after city have refused to permit it. The most conservative city gave the danger to the vast oyster beds of the local tribe as the reason. Oregon has a very similar attitude.
14 of the 15 ports are now dead in the water.
I wonder why things are so different in ND?
I am glad to hear you have been successful in OR. I can't help but wonder, if this pipeline was routed north of Bismarck - much farther from Standing Rock Res - would there have been such a protest? I am very happy that people are out there taking a stand on this. I think more of us ought to do the same when we can. Place obstacles to corporate power and supposed 'rights' wherever we can.
The US Fish&Wildlife Service has officers that enforce the laws
in refuges like Malheur. Due to staffing cutbacks, none were assigned to Malheur at the time of the takeover but the regional office of the USF&WS could have sent officers there routinely or in response to a complaint from Malheur staff. USF&WS officers were impeded from their law enforcement duties by the threats of violence and occupation of refuge offices and usurpation of refuge buildings and equipment by the trespassers.
The reason several of the recent defendants were not released was because they have charges pending in Nevada where they brandished their weapons and prevented the officers from enforcing a court order. Federal court orders often begin, "Upon receipt you shall bring in 'so and so' for trial(or similar)." It's a lawful order from the judicial branch for action by sworn officers. These defendants are facing more serious charges including illegally impeding officers in their lawful duties. There are no First Amendment rights here, an armed gang forced a task force of more than one department to retreat in order to avoid a shootout. It doesn't matter that the Obama DOJ waited and waited, it's still an open charge and these men will be brought back to NV to face this charge and others.
I think many,even those found not guilty, will be liable for civil actions against them.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I have a thought ‽
I am of Eastern Oregon and related to people of this sort. So, I know them well. Perhaps this "victory" will embolden them to do some more really stupid stuff. My long term observations suggest this to be not unlikely.
I have not read any of the trial documentation so I cannot comment on the veracity of the verdict. But, if these fine citizens are emboldened to take this to the next level maybe the result will be less favorable than they can imagine. The myths of the Wild West, and the Self Made Man just might blowup in their collective faces. Reality has a way of delivering a kind of Karma that is comical . . . from a certain point of view.
I really appreciate your perspective
coming as it does from the region. But I still hope you are wrong!
Thanks for the appreciation.
Many in Eastern Oregon (including some of my relatives) are steeped in the tradition of "we stole it fair and square" and the indians should just shut the fuck up. As for them meddling environmentalists, they should go back to La-La Birkenstock land. You-all might think of yourselves as not part of the élite, but from another point of view you certainly are a part of the privileged in this country.
I attended a Happy Canyon show in the early 1970s wherein many of the young members of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation refused to participate. The tension around Pendleton was palpable. The old order was dying out and the new just weren't interested in taking it anymore. I cannot (and would never consider) speaking for my friends in the confederation. But some day, I fear, an idiot like Ammon Edward Bundy will go too far and some real unpleasantness will ensue.
I'm fine with freedom from government interference with free
speech, no matter who's doing the speaking. I am not convinced that much of what the Bundys did is free speech, as opposed to trespass and violence. If they were upset about someone being arrested for setting fires, it seems the place to protest that is outside the jail or courtrooms involved, not taking over the refuge. The takeover of the refuge seems like something else, like establishing their private little playground, nothing to do with free speech or having the government address grievances.
But I don't live there, so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. It does seem like the prosecutors brought the wrong charge - conspiracy to deny employees access? That sounds like it would be hard to prove.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
This article describes some of the impact
the Bundy Gang had on the Refuge and on the surrounding community:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/03/09/burns-paiute-make-f...
Urinating on sacred burial sites????? Would someone like to explain how that can be described as "free speech".
I wonder if it would be possible for the Burns Paiute Band to seek civil damages against the occupiers for desecration and willful destruction of their cultural heritage? The Bundy's and friends also need to be billed for cleanup costs, and what about revenue loss of Burns merchants who depend on the tourists who visit the Refuge.
Mary Bennett