It's simple. The government needs to give these domestic terrorists an ultimatum: vacate in 24 hours

[Drunken Irishman]

...or we firebomb the building. They want to play hardball? Time the federal government stop pussyfooting around and play hardball. We did it in Waco. We can do it in Oregon.

[arcane1]

1. No.

Burning people to death who are squatting in an empty building, affecting nothing?

"We" burned children to death in Waco. Is that a good thing?

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Give them an inch and they'll take a yard.

They're terrorists. Treat 'em as such. These aren't squatters. These are people openly looking to attack the government.

Give 'em an ultimatum. If they don't accept it, well you tried.

[arcane1]

3. "openly looking to attack the government" by breaking into an empty building and sitting there?

Somehow I think our multi-trillion-dollar military isn't afraid

[Drunken Irishman]

4. lol condoning right-wing militias. Unbelievable.

[arcane1]

11. You lie. I don't condone them, I object to burning them alive.

Why are you on this dishonest trip? Maybe you should sober up and stop telling lies about DUers.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. lol

Oh okay. You're certainly not downplaying this by just calling 'em poor wittle squatters doing no harm.

Forget that one of the terrorists left a goodbye message on YT saying he was going to die a free man.

But they're just squatters! No big deal!

Get real. Stop appeasing right-wing domestic terrorists.

[JackInGreen]

77. If you think turning yourself into a militant bombmonger

Is the right response, they've already won.

[demwing]

84. Handling this sanely isn't appeasement

we always jump on the cops for over reacting. Why toss that out the window here?

[MohRokTah]

91. Same shit was said during the Bundy Ranch standoff

We coddled the terrorists then.

The result was emboldening the terrorists.

Blow. Them. AWAY.

It's all they understand.

[GGJohn]

95. Yeah, let's go and make martyrs of them, that's the way to do it.

So far, all they've done is occupy an empty building, no violence against anyone yet, but you want to deprive Americans of their civil rights, rights that are afforded to them under the Constitution.

I thought this was a progressive site?

[MohRokTah]

97. More of the same shit that was said back then.

All that happened was they were emboldened to engage in armed insurrection.

All they understand is the gun.

Time to use a few on them.

[GGJohn]

98. So your solution is to kill them before they've committed any violence against

anyone?
You would prefer to make martyrs of them, embolding the other nuts out there?

[MohRokTah]

99. My solution is to send in armed federal troops wearing body armor to peacefully remove them.

If the terrorists open fire, blow them all away.

[GGJohn]

100. So you want to escalate the situation so that there will be violence and killing?

How about just cutting off the utilities and waiting them out? Sooner or later they'll tire and give up and then they can be arrested without the bloodshed you so desire.

[MohRokTah]

103. The situation was already escalated by the terrorists armed insurrection.

This is the only way to handle terrorists.

We coddled them on the Bundy ranch and not a single arrest was made.

That emboldened them to this armed insurrection.

So yes, send in armed federal troops. It's all they understand.

[GGJohn]

105. I can't believe that I'm reading this shit on a progressive board.

Glad you're not in charge.

[pangaia]

178. I can. But only because I've seen it before. From a select few.

[GGJohn]

101. Yeah, that worked out real well at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[MohRokTah]

104. Worked fine at Waco.

I have no problem with Waco.

At Ruby Ridge, they failed to take out the main terrorist.

[GGJohn]

107. Yeah, because those children and women deserved to die because of.................

[MohRokTah]

109. David Koresh was responsible for every death, not the federal government. eom

[GGJohn]

111. The Feds didn't have to assault the compound like they did, they could have waited a few more

weeks, the Davidians were ready to give up.
I'm not saying the Feds lit the fire, it's pretty obvious that the Davidians lit it, but there would have been no fire if the Feds had just continued to lay back and wait them out, which is what I suspect and hope they do with this situation also, not storm the place and start killing.

[MohRokTah]

114. The time for waiting had come and passed.

I put no blame at all on the Feds.

All terrorists understand is violence.

[GGJohn]

118. Bullshit!!!!

There is plenty of time to try other remedies than killing Americans to satisfy your bloodlust.
What possible harm will it do to negotiate with them and try to bring this to a peaceful end?

[MohRokTah]

119. Nope. Everything had been tried.

I fully support the assault on Waco.

100%.

It was the right thing to do and the right time to do it.

[GGJohn]

122. You are one sick puppy if you believe that killing is preferable to negotiations

to try to avoid bloodshed.

[MohRokTah]

125. They already proved they were heavily armed and were violent.

I have no problem with what happened at Waco.

[GGJohn]

132. What violence have these militia assholes committed yet?

So far, all they've done is to occupy an empty building, no hostages taken, no shooting done, so why escalate the situation?
I'm trying to wrap my head around your bloodlust to kill when it's totally not necessary.

[MohRokTah]

135. Fine, then when armed troops enter the building to remove them...

they'll come out peacefully.

Problem solved.

[GGJohn]

138. Again, why are you so eager to escalate the situation?

What is wrong with cutting off all the utilities and waiting them out? Sooner or later, they'll tire of their game and give up, then the justice system can deal with them, as it should be, all this without the bloodshed you so desire.

[MohRokTah]

139. The incident was escalated by the terrorists when they took over the building while armed.

Coddling terrorists results in emboldening them to greater action.

[GGJohn]

141. So you want to escalate it into a possible shootout to satisfy your desire for bloodshed?

Pretty sick dude, pretty sick.

[Lizzie Poppet]

154. Your irrational bloodlust duly noted.

Kindly have the common courtesy, however, to never refer to yourself as "progressive."

[cali]

151. Good to know who you really are: Someone who has no problem

with the horrible deaths of 21 children and several pregnant women. In your own words, you have no problem with what happened at.Waco

[Ed Suspicious]

177. You're sick. Dude, seek help.

"I have no problem with Waco."

[sarisataka]

153. There are an alarming number

of pro-violence posters on this subject. I am surprised how quickly they will throw out the Constitution and are willing to declare war on American citizens. It is easy to see none of them have been in an actual war else they would not be so quick on the draw.

Progressive- it makes one wonder. We are accused of only valuing one Amendment, yet we see posters advocating ignoring all of them and going for authoritarian solutions.

[GGJohn]

156. Funny, I'll bet that most of those advocating violence to end this occupation have

never actually been in actual combat, except maybe Call of Duty or some such video war game.

It appalls me to know that progressives on this board are quick to go in with guns blazing and kill those idiots.

[Lizzie Poppet]

158. Well, a few may have been in a fistfight...

...given that I very much suspect their rottweiler mouths have written a few checks their chihuahua asses can't cash.

[demmiblue]

106. This is crazy talk and has no place on DU.

Sure they should face strict reprecussions (through the courts), not mass murder.

I am pretty sure the admins of this site would really frown upon posters advocating violence/murder. I have seen posters in the past tombstoned for such behavior. They don't want DU to have the reputation of hosting such vile sentiments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. The mistake at the Bundy ranch was not law enforcement

not shooting these guys to next week (as satisfying as that may be) it was that none was charged for things like taking aim at Federal officials, even with photo of this federal felony.

People should have been arrested, charged and tried for that. And if found guilty had the book thrown at them. Law enforcement is supposed NOT TO ESCALATE and end things peacefully, the DA is supposed to file charges, or the Federal prosecutor.

That was the problem, not law enforcement not going in guns a-blazing, By the way, federal troops, really... seriously... pose comitatus (as weak as it is these days) is still the law of the land.

[LiberalArkie]

176. 100% correct. And we hardly ever agree on anything

[pangaia]

180. It is becauae of people with your take on things,

that I am voting for Senator Bernie Sanders.

[GGJohn]

89. Slowly step away from the bottle,

and you get real, doing what you suggest would just inflame the other RW kooks out there with the possibility of more bloodshed, is that what you want? Govt. agents killing Americans on national TV?

Nope, that's not the way to go, cut off all the utilities and wait them out, they'll tire of it soon enough and then arrest them as they come out.

[daleanime]

112. Exactly.....

it's disgusting that I'm actually reading "kill them all" in DU. Scares the hell out of me where we're headed if we can't force Bernie past TPTB.

[GGJohn]

115. Me too,

I would expect this kill them all shit over at Freeperville, not on a progressive board.
I hope the Admins take a good hard look at some of the comments here and take action.

[hack89]

127. Using Napalm is a progressive value, don't you know?

[ohnoyoudidnt]

7. Shut off water and power, blast spotlights into the windows.

They can't stay inside forever. They want the government to fire the first shot. I don't think that is a good idea.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Probably not...but I tire of them thumbing their nose at the government.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

19. So am I.

I'd prefer to see them arrested and sent to prison without a firefight. There are a lot of these nutjobs waiting for a spark. Federal authorities already screwed up by not addressing them sooner. They cannot be allowed to just walk away this time, but I would rather see handcuffs than bodybags.

[demwing]

85. I don't think that's a reason to kill

"thumbing their noses"

Fuckers should not be turned into martyrs.

[Matariki]

52. Spotlights and the Barney theme song.

And whatever kind of music rednecks hate. Certainly not murder. They'll surrender soon enough.

[KingCharlemagne]

94. Jimi's "Star Spangled Banner" played at 11? - nt

[GGJohn]

96. That would drive them nuts, those racist assholes

would have to listen to Jimi, a black man, playing the National Anthem.
I love your idea.

[KingCharlemagne]

108. Thanks. For variety, maybe a little

Loggins and Messina "Your Momma Don't Dance and Your Daddy Don't Rock and Roll"? (I have always HATED that song!

[GGJohn]

110. LOL, even better,

keep them on a loop playing 24/7.

[KingCharlemagne]

113. I started out calling for the 82nd Airborne, but now Im

just trying to keep my coffee from coming out through my nose!

[GGJohn]

120. Which is ironic,

I believe Jimi was with the 82nd during his Army days as a paratrooper.

[KingCharlemagne]

126. Wow! Totally unintentional on my part although, now that you

mention it, I think you might be correct.

[Ed Suspicious]

185. And the theme from the hit television show - Teletubbies.

[MADem]

57. Whatever you do, don't let the delivery guy from Domino's or Wok This Way pass in any food!

And if they really want to be cruel, they should start cooking steaks on the grill for the law enforcement people.

[peacebird]

68. Shut off power and water, block access and wait. Pretty sure they didn't take unlimited supplies

in with them.

Let them come out with their tails between their legs when they are cold and hungry. Then arrest them all. Oh, and block their WiFi & cell phone access so they can only speak to the police.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

74. And very loud, non-stop music. 48 hours of Rick Astley should do it. nt

[TheMightyFavog]

159. Nah, I say throw on some Snoop Dogg or Dr. Dre.

Bombard them with hip hop.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

116. I agree.

Cut the power and water, block access so no food etc gets in and wait...............it may take a week or two but they will grow tired of the game. Then arrest them and let the system take its course.

[pnwmom]

60. We don't need to create a bunch of martyrs. We can arrest them the slow, boring way.

Choke off their access to the outside world. They won't be able to last without their munchies.

[glinda]

18. It is a Refuge. Fire is not a good idea. They better get firefighters ready.

[Lizzie Poppet]

157. True, although it's snowing pretty heavily just now.

The refuge HQ butts up against the lake, too. It's a pretty isolated compound: some reports have given the impression that it's actually in the town of Burns. It's not. If there's fire there, it likely couldn't spread.

Not that I'm for one moment condoning the calls for bloodshed I've been seeing. How those folk can call themselves "progressive" when they spew shit like that is beyond me. I have no use for these RW assclowns, but escalating into outright violence is NOT the right answer.

Right now, getting forces into place is going to take a while. It's a long way to any significant population center (Burns is less than 3000 people), and the roads are not good right now: snowstorms occurring over the entire region.

[CBGLuthier]

28. Their (Waco) death is on Koresh's hands not "ours." Your kind of thinking is what motivated

Mcveigh to kill 170 people in OKC.

[arcane1]

34. It is the OP that said "We did it in Waco." n/t

[CBGLuthier]

36. No, the OP said we took care of the situation, your post said "we" burned children to death

[arcane1]

37. Direct quote from the OP "We did it in Waco." n/t

[CBGLuthier]

38. DQ from your post, '"We" burned children to death in Waco. Is that a good thing?'

The OP attached no value judgement along the lines of "burning children to death " as you did. Those children burned to death because their parents were religious looks who stockpiled weapons.

I think , as in Waco, the federal government must not tolerate this situation. If some of these assholes brought their children along, that is THEIR fault.

[Jake Stern]

148. No, David Koresh and his band of religious wack-a-loons burned children to death

by refusing to surrender to a lawful warrant.

The responsibility for the deaths at Waco rests solely on the shoulders of the Branch Davidians.

[SciFiRK]

5. The PTB created this situation

when they didn't go after those idiots that pointed guns at the Federal Officers. Someone said they were trying to save lives, course it would have been a lot different if they weren't white.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Agreed. It's why they can't back down now.

If they do, they'll keep pushing and pushing until shit really gets real.

[demwing]

86. Agreed, sort of... DO NOT back down

but DO NOT kill them unless they've started the violence.

[libodem]

6. Be careful about advocating violence

You can get yourself in trouble on this board. That being said Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragic incidents.

Besides the culprits are not POC so they can get away with being assholes.

[arcane1]

12. The OP is wasted and trolling. No need to take them seriously or support them. n/t

[libodem]

20. K

[Nye Bevan]

10. So, you think the Waco approach was correct? (nt)

[XemaSab]

13. Why 24 hours?

Tell them to GTFO immediately and if they don't, teargas the place.

[demmiblue]

14. Kill 'em, kill 'em all! 'Murica... fuck yeah!!11

What a stupid post.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. Why not?

Aren't we supposed to kill terrorists before they kill us?

[demmiblue]

25. .

[DeadLetterOffice]

43. Results of your jury service

On Sun Jan 3, 2016, 12:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7492906

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling this poster dumber than a box of rocks is offensive, even if they disagree with their point.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 3, 2016, 12:17 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A box of rocks is a good argument
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[catnhatnh]

15. I suggested elsewhere

Set a perimeter and a short deadline for surrender. Then cut off utilities and most importantly cut off and jam communications. Then just wait. Think they have enough firewood to heat for a whole winter???

[sarisataka]

21. Skip the middle men

Don't militarize the police- just use the military on criminals.

Excuse me, I was looking for a progressive site I visit. I thought it was here but I seem to be mistaken.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. We're not talking criminals. We're talking terrorists.

Do you think we should kumbaya 'em out? Hell, the only reason they've done this is because we backed down in Nevada and allowed 'em to get the impression we won't take the fight to them.

[sarisataka]

30. So now we can

Declare certain criminals, who are U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, terrorists? Thereby deny them all Constitutional rights and simply execute the lot?

About that progressive site...

[Drunken Irishman]

40. How is it denying them their constitutional right?

They're illegally holed up in a federal building.

What is progressive about letting anti-government terrorist organizations get away with their bullshit? What is your solution? Just smile and wave at 'em?

[sarisataka]

45. Typically

People who break the law are arrested. Then then face trial for their crimes but have rights enumerated in Articles 4-7 of the Bill of Rights, among other rights of the accused. The deprivation of these rights in some high profile cases has led to nation wide protests.

Is there a statute that says 'firebomb people holed up in a building'?

I eould suggest following normal SOP for people who have barricaded themselves in a building. This is hardly the first such incident.

[RKP5637]

79. K&R! n/t

[LuvNewcastle]

146. There's a sane response.

Why get violent if we don't need to? It's easy for them to say these things about strangers, but what if they had a relative in that building? The OP is needlessly provocative, and thankfully most people in America wouldn't be happy about such a reaction. This is nothing to joke about. We shouldn't consider killing people unless they are a threat to law-abiding citizens.

[joshcryer]

47. I think the arsonist guys are terrorists.

But I think the Bundy people are on the edge of that, I don't think they've done anything terroristic yet. Taking over government buildings is not in itself terroristic. Burning forests down, using planes to target firemen to build back fires (which the guys they're protecting were convicted for).

They are certainly domestic terrorists in training, though, and it's only a matter of time until one of them does a Timothy McVey (Jerad and Amanda Miller were an example of that on a smaller scale).

[RKP5637]

83. I agree! Also, one problem is they feel more emboldened and likely a few are

not too stable. I've always thought while some feel they have a legitimate claim, there are likely some that go along for the sport of it, unhinged, rather than any cause and will possibly go over the edge. The Bundy affair made them feel more empowered and this is an upward ratchet of emboldening them.

[arcane1]

24. The OP would prefer to make liberals look bad by pretending they are advocating murder.

It's a common theme these days.

[sarisataka]

31. I wish I could say

I'm shocked by these proposals. They should only be seen on sites we do not name but they pop up here too often.

This is a particularly egregious example.

[Drunken Irishman]

42. I doubt any non-progressive site would advocate torching the place...

I'm guessing those at Freerepublic and other right-wing sites are cheering these terrorists on.

[sarisataka]

46. Really?

I doubt any non-progressive site would advocate torching the place...

So only a progressive site would advocate torching the place.

I have to sleep on that and see if it makes sense in the morning. If that is the opinion of the majority of posters here I am definitely in the wrong place.

[sarisataka]

155. I have tried, really hard

to wrap my head around your premise. I cannot equate "firebomb" with "progressive" in any rational way.

I'm sorry.

[Drunken Irishman]

41. It's so liberal of you to dismiss this militia as just squatters...

You yourself said they weren't even looking to attack the government. In your words, they're just 'breaking into an empty building and sitting there?'.

What a quaint picture you paint of these terrorists. Almost like the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Era, right?

[stuarttman63]

22. Remember Philadelphia

Back in 1985, faced with what they considered to be a similar challenge from the MOVE organization in Philadelphia, the state police dropped a firebomb on the house where MOVE members were holed up, burning to death a number of them which included children and setting a huge fire which spread into the neighborhood and destroyed 61 homes. In contrast, the Cliven Bundy stand-off was a comedy of errors and a blatant show of how differently African-Americans who challenge the government are treated as opposed to whites who do the same. I don't like the government using force against citizens but it would be good to see the Cliven Bundy crowd treated exactly how MOVE was.

[ljm2002]

81. No it would not be good to see them burned alive...

...it would be immoral and worse than ineffective, as it would galvanize support for their "movement".

But we can't let them off easy either. I think the posters who suggest jamming their communications and not allowing any food or water in have the right idea. They need to be arrested and held accountable. This cannot stand.

[flamingdem]

26. Solution: blast reggae and pot smoke

at them so they chill out🤑

[DetlefK]

73. Or blast Dubstep until they snap.

[SheilaT]

27. Okay, I've missed something here.

What in the world are you referring to?

[Electric Monk]

29. Armed "Militia" takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1301924
http://www.democraticunderground.com/126210179
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027492732

[SheilaT]

93. Thanks.

The OP gave no context whatsoever, and everyone else who chimed in clearly knew what was going on.

[doc03]

32. I suppose all the Republican a---holes running for president and

Faux News will be there by morning. Hannity will try to incite violence.

[underthematrix]

33. nah. I would block their communications

turn off the water, electricity, gas, close roads, etc. I would let them leave and arrest them in their homes at 3am

[greymattermom]

50. Remove anything that's federal or supported by federal money

since they don't want it, right? That would probably include water, electricity, gas, roads, etc.

[Lizzie Poppet]

164. It's a very isolated location.

As such, I suspect it's pretty self-sufficient in that regard. You can cut off electricity, but they have generators, apparently: you'd have to wait out their fuel supply. Water will be from a well. If they have gas, it will be propane; I couldn't spot a tank on Google Earth, but there are some trees that might have blocked the view. Roads will be easy to interdict: there's only one way in, basically (I've been to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge HQ several times). Right now, Mother Nature's doing a decent job of that: it's snowing pretty steadily.

Basically, I say place the compound under siege and wait them out. Their choice of location may be really hard to assault without casualties, but the same things that make it defensible (isolated, open country all around, stone buildings, etc.) mean they can't escape, either.

[LonePirate]

35. Once they have been convicted of terrorism, they will lose their gun rights. How delicious!

I say we pipe in some rap music because these assholes are racists, too.

[L. Coyote]

39. Can't we just send in some Muslims?

They are afraid of Muslims, right?

Seriously, turn the place into a prison, build a wall, and make them pay for it. Let them have their own tiny country with no exit, ever!

[joshcryer]

44. You really can't do anything until they shoot or kill someone.

Any large crowd situation can backfire badly, especially this day and age. If it's anything like the Nevada squat there are also probably women and children there.

It's also a political year so you're looking at the residing President not wanting to make huge waves which could cause controversy for the elections.

Obviously what you'd want to do would be to send in the National Guard, send in an intermediary that tells them they have 24 hours to vacate the premises, and then tear gas them and send in armed guardsmen to take it over. But you're looking at loss of life on both sides over such an action.

So the correct course of action is to simply wait it out. And, importantly, don't just let the offenders get away with it. Go to their house a week after it's all over and arrest them at least on trespassing charges.

[cali]

48. Wtf? That's insane.

[Ichingcarpenter]

49. ''...or we firebomb the building''

I suggest you edit or delete this thread

I'm not a part of your ''we'' I don't advocate mass murder. Because you are.

[cali]

55. Sick stuff.. And you are absolutely right. The op is advocating mass murder

[Ichingcarpenter]

58. just alerted I gave him time to edit it or delete it

'over the top'' inflammatory post to say the least. I gave him over 20 mins.

DU doesn't need this stupidity we have enough already.

[pansypoo53219]

51. siege them. cut off the power, water, and seek them up. they can breath, but thats it.

bunch of thieves.

[ucrdem]

56. Jam the radio, TV and wifi too.

That will hurt.

[ucrdem]

53. Convict them in absentia and peacefully seize their livestock and vehicles while they're "away."

They'll return in a hurry.

[TheMightyFavog]

54. Firebomb them? Do want to make these guys martyrs?

Don't you remember Obi-Wan Kenobi's famous line from Episode IV?

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

Just cut off the utilities and surround the place. No one comes in. No one leaves unless it is to surrender. They'll eventually relent when they get sick of cold canned beans and having to sleep in close proximity with said canned bean eaters every night.

[KingCharlemagne]

102. Don't mean to make light of the situation, but I am so

chanelling "Blazing Saddles" right now!

[DrDan]

59. make them all martyrs . . . . great idea

[stevil]

61. Nope

Let cooler heads prevail and diffuse this in good time. Its better for everyone this way. Prosecution (hopefully) can follow without bloodshed.

Good night

[Yo_Mama]

62. Just another Occupy movement. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

66. Armed with guns and threatening to murder Federal Employees...

[ljm2002]

82. Hmmm...

...I don't remember Occupy referring to themselves as "militia" or being heavily armed -- or armed at all, for that matter.

There does seem to be an essential difference there...

[KingFlorez]

128. Occupy didn't take over federal property

[democrank]

63. Firebomb the building?

Let`s not and try something reasonable instead. Start by waiting them out and attempting a rational assessment of the options.

[egold2604]

64. After 24 hours, cut off all electricity and water and chain the doors shut from the outside

Call out the National Guard to surround the building. Also jam all cell phone signals. It is very cold there and without heat and water and food they will soon surrender. At that point, put them on the terrorist watch list and no fly list, make it illegal for them to own guns and ammo.

Under no circumstances are any of the Federal or State police to shoot back. Put up barricades around the building so our police and national guard can be safe from any shots from inside.

Again, starve them out.

[NutmegYankee]

67. You couldn't achieve that with a watch list.

While some support restricting the purchase of guns based on being on a watch list, actually removing them (making illegal to own) will require prosecution in a court per the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Rights apply to all in the USA, even these scum fuckers.

[demwing]

87. "after they surrender"

we lock them in another building, one with guards and cages, and we leave the there for a very loooong time

[NutmegYankee]

65. We didn't firebomb Waco - the nuts inside torched themselves.

We just got to watch their mass suicide on live TV.

[mmonk]

69. Charge them rent and wait them out.

[meaculpa2011]

70. Yeah, that's the way...

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/12/move-30-year-anniversary/

"We" didn't do it in Waco. "We" didn't do it in Philadelphia, either.

[NutmegYankee]

71. As long as they are not violent, we should not be violent.

If they do start to fire on Government Employees however, then yes, call up the National Guard to suppress the insurrection.

But until that happens, this is just civil disobedience.

[DetlefK]

72. I have a better idea: Terrorize them.

1. Lay siege. Cut of electricity and water. Jam the radios. Block all roads. No food goes in there as well. (150 grown men? That's 150 pound of food and 2 liters of drinking-water per day...)

2. Bring in some big-ass speakers with big-ass bass and blast them with 120db Dubstep 24/7. Or arab songs and chantings. 2-3 days of sleep-deprivation and they will break.

3. The Pentagon has some nice chemical weapons up its sleeve, e.g. a stink-bomb so strong that people will literally run away in terror. This is THE opportunity to field-test them.

[KingCharlemagne]

133. Re: your idea #3. My wife says the Feds should just give me one of

those big cans of Campbell's Pork and Beans. She claims I have already been field tested and found more than worthy!

[GGJohn]

140. LOL

[KingCharlemagne]

144. +Infinity! - nt

[ileus]

75. Burn them out like the did those Branch idiots.

2 things....



1. either these guys will go back to work on Monday (or before they run out of vacation time)


or...


2. make an example out of them that all those sovereign citizen / militia types can go by

[JackInGreen]

76. Ffs

Burn em bomb em blow em out.
Are we at 'loonywarmoneringconservatives.com'?

[bklyncowgirl]

78. I say we build a wall around it and call it the new Oregon Federal Penitentury. nt

[leveymg]

80. ^^^^^This one ^^^^^

[Chemisse]

88. Good plan! n/t

[GGJohn]

92. I like it. eom.

[Kablooie]

129. Actually not a bad idea.

If the building could be barricaded so no one could go in with supplies, also water and electricity turned off, they could be starved out. It would take a long time because these fools probably have enough emergency food to last a long time but after a year of them sitting there like idiots in a stupid building by themselves any support that exists now would fade away.

Just dealing with their fecal waste could become a major issue for them.

[Baitball Blogger]

137. What a great idea.

[MohRokTah]

90. The time for coddling terrorists was over on the Bundy Ranch

This is what comes from coddling terrorists. You embolden them.

[Kablooie]

117. Why don't we have sleeping gas?

Blow it in, put them all to sleep then arrest them all.

Using violence is exactly what they want. Just like ISIS, they want to force the US government to start attacking to make themselves martyrs and turn the population against law enforcement.

If this is truly planned they could have agents all over the country ready to start violent protests as soon as they can incite the government to use force.

It's a dangerous movement that has to be put down but it's also a very delicate situation.

It's also absolutely insane.

[GGJohn]

136. Just ask the Russians how well that turned out when they tried the same thing

a number of years ago.

[TheMightyFavog]

162. Besides, i could see those kooks as the kind of folks...

...who would pack gas masks for this kind of stunt

[GGJohn]

163. I wouldn't doubt it, considering how fucking paranoid they are. eom.

[Kablooie]

169. Then send in a robot conker.

That would be a bulletproof robot that conks people unconscious.

DARPA, are you listening?

[petronius]

188. Nice! A weaponized whack-a-mole. Painted like a like a giant

grinning clown, I hope...

[Lizzie Poppet]

161. The issue with any kind of gas there would be getting it in the building.

I've been to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge HQ, which I believe is where they're holed up, according to reports. It's in pretty open country, quite isolated from anything else (it's not actually in the small town of Burns, which some reports may have made people think). Wide open fields of fire, in other words. Getting close enough to introduce gas would place whoever did it in deadly danger if the militants decided to open fire. These jerkoffs chose pretty much a perfect location for this asshattery.

I agree with you: this has to be handled delicately and patiently to avoid creating martyrs (and to avoid being the party that escalates into actual violence). Wait them out. Cut off electrical power so they have to rely on their generators. Establish communication, if possible (which I suspect it is: their intent is to be noticed and their grievances heard). Don't make this into Ruby Ridge or Waco.

[Kablooie]

170. Helicopter in a huge, plastic dome and drop it over the complex.

Then they would be sitting dukes. (of Hazzard)

[-none]

121. We do it all over the Middle East too.

What's the difference between our terrorists and their terrorists? I'm not seeing all much difference.

[Baitball Blogger]

123. Waco was a terrible mistake.

They should resolve for a peaceful end, then put those terrorists in jail for the rest of their lives.

[tularetom]

124. In Waco, we roasted some children

Not our best moment.

Making martyrs out of a bunch of delusional fools isn't a good idea. There will be unintended consequences.

Best to just wait them out.

[NutmegYankee]

160. WE didn't roast any children.

The children's parents roasted them when they chose to commit suicide with an end-times cult.

[brewens]

130. Did they forget women and children to hide behind? That's what they usually do.

[MissB]

165. Latest Oregonian article notes that they plan to have kids arrive today.

Really hope that the authorities prevent that from happening.

[KingFlorez]

131. I agree

If these fools wants to act like thugs, they should be treated like thugs.

[JHB]

134. No. There are no hostages, it's the only building for miles.

Just set up a perimeter and blast 'tweener music at them 24/7.


I understand the feeling, but just think where else that principle will be applied.

Also, don't point to Waco. It's a neon-sign example of "botched".

[GGJohn]

142. Jeesus, the desire for bloodshed by some on this thread sickens me

and here I thought this was a progressive board.

[JEB]

143. If they don't clear out before the Spring Migration,

they'll have to deal with an angry horde of birdwatchers. Little old ladies with binoculars will certainly set them straight. Malhuer is an isolated spot that has spectacular numbers and variety of birds passing through. I've seen a great horned owl from the deck of that building. Very disrespectful behavior that most locals and visitors will not tolerate. Let them advertise their own ignorance until they alienate the local people as well as the whole country.

[JHB]

147. Now there's a weapon of mass destruction (of inflated egos)...

...scolding by the Grey Magpies.

[JonathanRackham]

145. Winter is here. Let the cold do its work.

Cut off the utilities. Food will only last so long. Ignore them and let them fade to obscurity. Seriously, just walk away. The violence by proxy people propose just feeds into their imagined justification of what they're doing.

It's always easier when someone else is delagated to pull the trigger.

They can't defend their turf if no one is posing to attack them. Give them no attention, the ultimate counter measure.

[JCMach1]

149. Good points, but when they surrender, how about Guantanamo since most of them have declared

themselves 'sovereign'

[Bonx]

150. Hello Authoritarian left

[cheapdate]

172. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

is a tremendously important wildlife habitat in the Northern Great Basin. I don't especially agree that expecting my government to remove a contingent of armed and dangerous individuals from the visitor center of this exquisite public property is an example of the "authoritarian left."

[Bonx]

175. So "vacate in 24 hours...or we firebomb the building" is reasonable ?

It won't be much of a facility after it is firebombed.
Also, the wildlife may not benefit from the pollution from the facility burning to the ground.
Oh, and also the multitude of people that will be burned alive. Some might say that is a problem too.

[cheapdate]

186. I want those assholes removed as quickly

as possible, by force if necessary. They have taken up arms to defend their 'right' to commit arson and run their stinking cattle through a protected wildlife preserve. I don't expect for a moment that the Obama administration is going to 'firebomb' the building.

If there was only one reason to justify creating a state in the first place, it would be precisely to prevent assholes like these from spoiling and degrading precious habitats like this one that a lot of dedicated people spent years protecting.

[deathrind]

152. Surround the building.

Shutoff the power/water and wait them out.

[wundermaus]

166. Sounds like the occupiers may have a legitimate grievance -

I am no lawyer and only a layperson on such legal matters but could this be a case of double jeopardy where you can not be sentenced twice for the same crime? They ready served their sentences as dictated by a state judge but a federal judge wants to increase their sentence after already serving.

Is it possible to be sentenced (and time already served) for a crime by a state jury and judge and then be overruled by a federal judge after the fact? It may be true the state judge sentenced them to serve terms that were too short by federal standards but is that not the fault of the state and or federal judicial process? An additional 4 years incarceration seems excessive when compared to the original sentences already served.

IMHO, Sounds like double jeopardy to me.

Key things to know about the militia standoff in Oregon -
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/key-things-to-know-about-the-militia-standoff-in-oregon/

[cheapdate]

174. I think you can be tried and sentenced by multiple jurisdictions for the same crime. n/t

[GGJohn]

179. Here's what I found.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in-different-states.html

Can I Be Charged Twice for the Same Crime in Different States?

While you cannot be charged twice in one state for a crime that you were acquitted or convicted of, you may be charged twice in different states for the same crime. For instance, your conduct can be treated as two (or more) separate criminal acts if that conduct violated the laws of more than one state. Furthermore, if that conduct was a federal offense, you may be tried and convicted in both a state and federal court. This is known as the "dual sovereignty doctrine," and it is an exception to the "Double Jeopardy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

Double Jeopardy The constitutional protection against double jeopardy—being charged twice for the same criminal act—prevents prosecutors from repeatedly bringing charges against a defendant in hopes of eventually getting a guilty verdict. While double jeopardy is a common law concept dating back to Ancient Greece, it is guaranteed in the U.S. by the Fifth Amendment. But if a single act violates the law of two states, the law treats the act as separate offenses and thus not in conflict with the Double Jeopardy Clause. A second state with a case against a defendant may decide that a conviction in the first state is sufficient, so it does not necessarily mean more than one state will bring charges. Therefore, it is up to the discretion of the particular prosecutor, as with other criminal cases.

Although I don't think this applies here, from my understanding, the judge ruled that the other judge didn't sentence them to the appropriate time so he added on more time.

[Babel_17]

183. IANAL but I thought it was ruled that the sentencing was illegal

Statute dictates the minimum sentence that can be applied. In the past, many fine judges have been appalled that they had no choice but to send away non-violent criminals for life, or 20 to life, due to third strike laws.

This judge thought he could assign a sentence lower than what the statute dictated. A higher court corrected him on that. The jury had already found them guilty, and presumably they knew the sentencing that went with that.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the judge was averse to being the hammer in this case.

[Eleanors38]

167. Like your name.

[larkrake]

168. just drop sewage on them with a slurry bomber

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. That worked so well to create martyrs at Waco

[NutmegYankee]

181. The Gov't didn't firebomb Waco.

The religious nutjobs inside Jim Jones'd themselves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. But some of that got going

when the borrowed APC was used.

Still, the point stands. WACO created some lovely martyrs.

[EriktheRedder]

184. Wow. What?

I am new to this site, a friend recommended it. But holy cow this is not what I expected. If this is modern day progressive democrats, I want no part and won't be here long.

[Lizzie Poppet]

187. Sorry you had to see this thread so early in your tenure here.

The bloodlust displayed is nauseating. Fortunately, the worst offenders are few in number...