If a militia group breaks into and occupies a Federally owned building and won't leave, is that a crime, treason, terrorism, or Patriotism?

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:12:41 -0500

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

The story:

Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."

The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.

The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.

He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.

"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."

Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.

Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.

The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.

Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.

The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.

Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.

Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.

"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.

At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.

"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.

Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.

"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.

Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.

-- Les Zaitz

What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

An estimated 300 people joined a protest march in Burns Saturday to support a local ranching family. None of the anticipated trouble developed.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 3 at 2016 2:53 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:53:05 -0500

It will not end well for these men.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 3:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 03:07:37 -0500

So much for the well regulated part.

"Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move."

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Jan 3 at 2016 3:26 AM

LTC Trent Klug — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 03:26:13 -0500

For the record, your survey doesn't have enough choices.

I have no problem with them occupying the building on a straight First Amendment argument. This kind of display has been done since our county's founding and its been non-violent...so far. If it becomes violent, then the gloves rightfully should come off.

Where I do have a problem with this is they are trying to prevent convicted arsonists from going to Federal Prison. I cannot support them as I fully support the trial system of this country and have no time for these morons, just like I would have no time for the "Occupy" movement protesting the convictions of the dummies convicted of trying to blow up a bridge or those who supported the "Christmas Tree" bomber from a few years back.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jan 3 at 2016 4:20 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 04:20:18 -0500

I would say terrorism and crime.

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Jan 3 at 2016 7:03 AM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 07:03:46 -0500

Let us speak truth to power.
If it were any other group that conducted this activity, we would be reading about mass arrests or a MASCAL event

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jan 3 at 2016 7:52 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 07:52:50 -0500

It is primarily criminal activity at this point. As I have said on other threads, everyone has the right to protest peacefully, once that protest turns into criminal activity (civil disobedience) then they have entered a realm where a price will need to be paid. The charges may be criminal trespass, carrying of firearms on federal property, criminal mischief etc.

Occupying a remote building on a wildlife refuge creates little issue for most of us. Not as big a deal as blocking interstates/highways, train stations, airports, smashing windows and causing damage to property in a city center or major metropolitan area but still activity that we cannot simply allow with no consequence.

My guess is little will ultimately be done unless it escalates. We are releasing thousands from federal penitentiaries right now with more serious raps on them than trespassing or carrying of firearms on federal property.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 3 at 2016 8:33 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 08:33:03 -0500

In this particular case MAJ, the Hammonds have had their rights and private property violated since 1964. They have been trying for over 50 years to comply with ever-changing government regulation (often times that regulation was and is illegal). At this point, what other choice do they have but to stand up and revolt? How is this any different from the government tyranny that our Founding Fathers fought 200+ years ago?

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Jan 3 at 2016 9:08 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:08:52 -0500

I'd add insurrection to the list.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 3 at 2016 9:23 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:23:25 -0500

Another option might be 'political' in that the gvt will probably do everything in their power to make sure this does not become an 'major incident' which could cause political issues for the administration. Much as the Bundy affair when the gvt apparently backed down and de-escalated the situation before it got out of hand and provoked an armed response of some sort. Then demonstrators went away and Bundy could claim victory over the gvt. One incident like Waco is enough for the country.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 3 at 2016 9:39 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:39:12 -0500

People have the Right to Protest. We have the Right to seek redress THROUGH THE COURTS for our grievances. We do not have the (Protected) Right to use Force (Violence) during said Protest. That is not Protected.

That is the difference between Speech & "Inciting a Riot." To draw a parallel between the classic "Fire in a theater" (fraudulently) argument.

Furthermore, the People always have the Right to Defend themselves, however "Proactive Defense" is premeditation, and although justified is not a Legal excuse.

Now, the Government doesn't really "own" property, they hold it in Trust for the People (the People own it), and they "control" it. That doesn't mean anyone can access it any time however. This situation is Trespass to the point of Criminal Trespass.

The issue with the other choices is that it doesn't really meet the definitions. Treason is defined by the Constitution, however rebelling against the Government is the overarching theme of our Protected Rights (Bill of Rights), or more aptly Restricted Powers. Terrorism is about instilling fear in the populace to evoke changes in Policy. This does not seem to be the case, as we are looking at "hard targets" (government controlled). Patriotism is a close second, however this gets more into ideological interpretation than "love of Nation."

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 9:43 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:43:50 -0500

You mean like when the unions occupied government buildings in Wisconsin? You do know that the militia is "we the people" and the last I checked union members are people also. Did you protest the unions occupying government buildings or did you post the article because you are trying to draw parallels to militias and those not identifying as democrat?

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote

Wis. Democrats Flee To Prevent Union Bill Vote

As an ever-growing throng of protesters filled the state Capitol for a third day, 14 Democratic senators left the state. The lawmakers want to avoid giving the GOP majority in the state Senate the quorum it needs to vote on a bill that would eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jan 3 at 2016 10:58 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:58:22 -0500

So far, we know only that they have violated several laws knowingly (thus, yes to "crime" in a legalistic sense).

There appear to have been no attacks or threats of attacks on civilians/non-combatants/others aimed at changing a government's or society's actions (thus no to "terrorism", at least at this point). NOTE: They are clearly looking at changing government and/or society's stance on "public lands". That intent doesn't make it terrorism. Coupling it with a METHOD does. So far, that has not happened.

We don't have evidence that they are levying war against the U.S. (Not to say that they WON'T, but we don't do thought crime, just the actual kind), adhering to the enemies of the U.S., or giving the enemies of the U.S. aid and comfort. (thus no to "treason")

Patriotism..... Well, that really goes to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? I can think of a bunch of people who were actively hostile (and treasonous, but the constitutional definition) the the established government on this land, rose up in armed rebellion, and are now used as the images of patriotism and called "founding fathers" of the usurper nation. I can also think of another group who tried to do the same about a 100 years later, and it went .... poorly for them. I can also think of a lot of wack-job groups and malcontents throughout the years.

IF the cause of the action is the specific cases of these two ranchers and the dude from Navada, that leads me to thing one opinion (self interest is not patriotism). IF the cause of the action is the principles as claimed in their most recent statements, that leads me to another opinion (a very legitimate grievance, which I have some sympathy for - if not for their methods). It could lead someone with different foundational beliefs to a different opinion, ranging from "treasonous bastards who must be hung" to "new founding fathers" and all points in between. If the cause of the action is other than portrayed, that will obviously lead to different opinions.

History is indisputably written by the victors. That said, the justice of a group's cause is determined by its philosophical foundations. (Justice of the cause is different from Justice of the actions).

I give full credit to local law enforcement for their mature handling of this situation and I hope they continue in the same vein.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 11:52 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:52:04 -0500

The Hammonds were convicted of arson. That is why they are to report to jail.
The protesters don't like it, so they marched in protest, occupying a federal building. So far, so good. They have a right to peaceably assemble and protest unjust actions.
Where they go wrong is in the threat of violence and inciting others to show up armed. One could chalk that up to brash words from hotheads, but if that translates into action, they become criminals.
They have a Second Amendment right to bear arms against a tyrannical government that attempts to take their rights and property. Not to take federal property over. They are trying to carefully couch their words, because they are playing to a very specific audience, but they either need to exercise their right to petition the government with their grievance or face the consequences of their actions.
They do not want to do that, because their whole point is to stick it to "the man".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 5:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:38:08 -0500

It's an insurrection and it needs to be put down. Yes it's criminal, I don't believe it's risen to the level of treason yet, I don't believe it's terrorism yet either... it's definitely not patriotism. Declaring your own interpretation of the Constitution to be more valid than that of the Supreme Court and then bearing arms to enforce that interpretation isn't patriotism, it's treachery.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 3 at 2016 10:03 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:03:29 -0500

I respect "Non-Violent" protest and understand sometimes you have to make a stand and "Trespass" but when you are carrying a Weapon Violence is Implied and at that goes from merely being a "Trespass" Minor Crime to a Felony in my Book. At Best you are a Criminal Thug and you do fit the Definition of a Terrorist, whether the Gov't Charges you or not!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 4 at 2016 12:35 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:35:38 -0500

I get a bit torqued at Rambo wannabe's that are so skewed, they break some well established laws to do what their spokesman says "We're occupying the People's Place". Who the hell are they to decide some family can't go see a visitor center on a particular day because they're more entitled. They give ammo to the uberliberals who want to take a number of rights away. So in the end, they serve no real purpose in keeping our country free and are a distraction to the real conversations that should be occurring.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jan 4 at 2016 8:52 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:52:43 -0500

Great question, and interesting that your survey includes "crime" and "patriotism". Can it ever be both? Were our revolutionary leaders both? They haven't (yet) harmed a single person, and they haven't even mentioned a betrayal or takeover of the government, so terrorism and treason are pretty much off the table. Both of the others then.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 9:15 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:15:06 -0500

It's criminal, it's sedition, and since they're using threats of violence to influence the lawful government, it's terrorism.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 4 at 2016 9:53 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:53:08 -0500

None of the above. It's called civil disobedience, a very commonly used device to bring attention to a grievance. Typically it's employed when a simple petition for the redress of grievances fails to produce any results. This is endemic in this age when the press serves as the propaganda arm of the government and fails to publicize any news that is adverse to the "official" narrative. Of course, all who employ civil disobedience must be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions. After all, responsibility for one's words and actions is the hallmark of a free people exercising individual liberty.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 12:15 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:15:37 -0500

I am not sure ... let see if they start shooting ... then I will jump into the conversation. :)

Response by Maj Matt Hylton made Jan 4 at 2016 12:19 PM

Maj Matt Hylton — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:19:57 -0500

I picked "Crime", but the better option would be Sedition because:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

They have not committed treason, but are committing sedition.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 12:31 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:31:41 -0500

What would you call an organization that uses the threat of lethal force to intimidate the government into changing its policy? I mean, if they're Muslim, like the shoe bomber that didn't kill anyone, duh they're a terrorist. These guys, on the other hand, are a bunch of god-fearing patriots so they must just be wayward children guilty of a lesser crime like "trespassing". We should accommodate them and lead them back into the fold. </sarcasm>

Good thing they're not brown, otherwise someone might have felt threatened by now and shot them in the face.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jan 4 at 2016 12:44 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:44:41 -0500

If you are Black Lives matter or Occupy Wall Street. You are social justice warriors. But you occupy an abandon building in the middle of no where. Waving an American flag you are considered s terrorist. If Obama pulls a WACO will he blame Loretta Lynch. Like Clinton blame Janet Reno?

Response by SSG Samuel Sohm made Jan 4 at 2016 1:51 PM

SSG Samuel Sohm — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:51:13 -0500

Crime

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jan 4 at 2016 2:07 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:07:33 -0500

I chose Crime because all the other choices can fall under Crime.
Occupying and protesting are one thing, yeah you have to get your point across and protesting is a great way of doing it.
The biggest problem is that they brought guns onto Federal property and its against the law as far as I know, unless the law has been changed.
I do realize that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but we also have to follow the law while bearing those arms and if your weapon is not allowed in certain places they until the law is changed you should not bring said weapons there.
Still an armed stand off is just something bad waiting to happen. So far cooler heads have prevailed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 1:05 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:05:23 -0500

I had to laugh when I saw a couple of names the internet had given to these guys:

Y'all Qaeda. Vanilla ISIS

and they're waging YEEHAWD.

Response by SSgt Ray Stone made Jan 5 at 2016 10:01 AM

SSgt Ray Stone — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:01:37 -0500

Its terrorism plain and simple, if Black, Brown, or Muslim Americans did the same do you honestly believe the FBI would stand idly by. And the media coverage sucks also. The Baltimore and Ferguson protests were dissected and analyze daily, and lets not forget about how the media covered BLM. Sick of the hypocrisy

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 5 at 2016 10:43 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:43:40 -0500

It's all a question of perspective and timing. I do not endorse the actions these men have taken, nor would I take them. I am interested in the arguments on both sides. And if I were in charge of the tactical situation on the Government's behalf would strongly urge caution and velvet gloves. Not too hard to stop resupply and wait for the occupiers to get bored and hungry.

John browns actions were considered heinous by even Northerners when they happened. If he had executed his action just a little bit later after the opening of hostilities he might have been hailed as heroic for drawing confederate attention and resources from the front. And I think we can all agree the ultimate goal of his action was noble (ending slavery?) funny how we still judge that action as negative based mostly on timing.

The founders and the rebellion against the crown is another correlated example, but a rebellion against taxation and debt that occurred right after it was quashed (shays and the Whiskey rebellions).

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 5 at 2016 1:03 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:03:20 -0500

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jan 5 at 2016 3:32 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:32:46 -0500

This is a law enforcement problem, and should be treated as such.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 5 at 2016 7:25 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 19:25:31 -0500

I suppose that depends on whether the Federal government even has the authority to "own" operate, or otherwise control such a property. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution tells us this about the ONLY properties the Federal government is permitted to control.....
"Congress shall have the power.... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

This brings into question where the Federal government came to be in possession of "Federal wildlife preserves". Is there another Amendment to the Constitution giving the Federal government the power to own Federal parks, wildlife preserves, watersheds, and a whole host of other designated properties that are not listed in the Constitution? Keep in mind the 10th Amendment tells us...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, if the power to own, operate, or otherwise control such properties is not specifically granted the Federal government BY the Constitution, then those lands belong to the States, or to the People, respectively.

I would also add that the Federal government owns approximately 1/3 of all land in the US. Unconstitutionally so, one might suggest by any objective reading of the Constitution.

Respectfully interested in your answers to these questions.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jan 5 at 2016 8:00 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:00:33 -0500

Its called trespassing. Just wait them out, its cold, they will get tired and leave.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Jan 6 at 2016 12:44 AM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:44:00 -0500

I've been following this. There is a lot going on with this. Much of it sounds illegal and done to harass locals off their properties. Taking over a wildlife refuge office is a way to bring these things to light, but I think they could have done it without all the threatening rhetoric and bluster. Yes, its a crime to invade and occupy federal property, but it is also a crime to fence off private property and deny the owner access. Since when is fighting a fire on your own land a criminal offense?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 7 at 2016 11:09 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:09:24 -0500

For those of you who are intent to throw the word "Terrorism" out there... Here are the legal elements of the crime of "Domestic Terrorism". Keep in mind that EACH element must be present to satisfy the legal definition and to be considered a crime...
"Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

Lastly, consider the first element..."involve acts dangerous to human life", and then ask yourself if you could prove to a jury that breaking into an abandoned building and then doing nothing, is dangerous to human life.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jan 9 at 2016 4:48 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 16:48:25 -0500

MAJ Bryan Zeski When these armed felons occupied the bird sanctuary, it was a direct result of the governments weak kneed (and cowardly) lack of response to the situation at the Bundy Ranch when militia thugs drew down on law enforcement officers.

This lack of action emboldened these thugs and again the government seems to be passive in the face of this challenge. Force is necessary with these people. Lack of force is just a precursor to another takeover.

Response by CW4 Brian Haas made Jan 9 at 2016 6:13 PM

CW4 Brian Haas — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 18:13:49 -0500

Crime, but just remember...our forefathers were criminals and committed treason.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 6:39 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 18:39:33 -0500

I would say it's Crime. If they're in there talking about actually overthrowing the government or betraying us to our enemies, add in Treason as well. Unless or until they start attacking people, particularly innocents, to make their political point, it's not Terrorism. The people they ostensibly came to support and most of that community don't seem to want them doing this. I don't see the Patriotism in it at all, it seems to me that they mainly want control of federal land transferred for selfish reasons that will benefit their own narrow interests. Provoking a possible armed confrontation for the sake of control of land that they never owned so they can profit off of it is in no way Patriotism.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jan 12 at 2016 12:54 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:54:25 -0500

Crime...

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Jan 12 at 2016 2:34 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:34:21 -0500

They are just common criminals.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jan 12 at 2016 8:52 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:52:42 -0500

How about the first three for sure, but sure the heck not Patriotism.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jan 19 at 2016 3:42 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:42:02 -0500

Now what would have happen if these guys had been Black, Mexican, Muslims etc..

Response by SGT Paul Mackay made Oct 27 at 2016 10:05 PM

SGT Paul Mackay — Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:05:19 -0400

Patriotism.