Posted on Jan 3, 2016
If a militia group breaks into and occupies a Federally owned building and won't leave, is that a crime, treason, terrorism, or Patriotism?
27.7K
450
317
8
8
0
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?
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Terrorism
Patriotism
Terrorism Patriotism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 42
11
11
0
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.
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.
(11)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CW3 Kevin Storm - It's worth noting the approach local law enforcement is taking. There is a cordon around these dudes. But it's a cordon of media vans. LE are doing a great job of low key/non-escalation.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Vincent Stoneking, agreed. It is easier to wait them out than to force them out; they are not in a position to harm anyone where they are.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
The only problem with this approach is it encourages further acts - A good hard smack up side the head is needed here. But then again...that is my solution to problems when dealing with obstinate idiots.
(0)
(0)
MAJ David Blackwell
If the government would just ignore them, the problem would just fade away. They are not destroying property and are not harming anyone. It is ridiculous that our government frees terrorist and sends them back home. That’s it in a small nutshell.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
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.
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.
(10)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
GySgt Carl Rumbolo perhaps you may remember what AIM did back in the 1970s to the Bureau of Indian Affairs building during their protest.$700k in 1972 dollars. The Feds did not go after them.
Have these morons damaged the building that wasn't even locked when they entered it? No, they haven't. Have they threatened anyone? No, they haven't.
Have these morons damaged the building that wasn't even locked when they entered it? No, they haven't. Have they threatened anyone? No, they haven't.
(3)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
LTC Trent Klug - They have occupied a federal building, they are armed - end of story. They are not wanted there by the locals, they are not wanted by the folks who actually went to jail. Several of them are members of hate groups, and several have proclaimed allegiance to known separatist groups with ties to domestic terrorism - or do you support the free man of the land and sovereign citizen movements.
A number of the leaders in this 'militia' are known to have called for the overthrow of the government. Do you think a group of black or american indian activists would be treated with the same forbearance?
A number of the leaders in this 'militia' are known to have called for the overthrow of the government. Do you think a group of black or american indian activists would be treated with the same forbearance?
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Trent Klug - I would propose that if students were to bring weapons onto a campus and foribly enter and occupy a building, they should also be tear-gassed out immediately. Actually, I think that's exactly what would happen.
You can't compare this to the American Indian Movement at all. Any discussion we're having about the Constitution and land rights is operating under the assumption that it was legitimate for Europeans to appropriate the Western hemisphere from Native Americans, who really have every moral right to occupy whatever they want, whenever they want, except we killed most of them so they're mostly content enjoying life in the shitty reservations where we've left them to rot. So operating under the assumption that all that was ok...
I think it's absurd that anyone would give any pause to consider the legitimacy of the complaints of these terrorist insurgents. In both the Hammonds and Bundy cases, whatever you may think about the legitimacy of the federal government administering public land, the land DEFINITELY does not belong to neither the Bundys nor the Hammonds. In fact, the only reason that they have a claim to the land they DO own is probably because the federal government gave it to their ancestors using one of the Homestead incentives in the 19th-20th centuries. So however you look at it, private citizens do not have arbitrary claim to use property that they don't own towards their own interests. Since doing so effectively excludes other citizens with an equal claim to public land from using it for THEIR interests, I don't see how it isn't legitimate for the federal government (ostensibly representing the citizenry) would get to be the arbiter over whether/how someone like Bundy or Hammonds gets to use public land.
Again, I repeat, the land that was burned down/grazed on was NOT the property of either Bundy or Hammonds, so they have no right to do anything with it. Given that it's public land, and the State of Nevada (explicitly) and the State of Oregon (at least implicitly) allow the federal government to manage it because it makes sense for economies of scale. The government, as a representative of all the other citizens of the country with an equal claim to derive value from public land, makes determinations on its use.
You can't compare this to the American Indian Movement at all. Any discussion we're having about the Constitution and land rights is operating under the assumption that it was legitimate for Europeans to appropriate the Western hemisphere from Native Americans, who really have every moral right to occupy whatever they want, whenever they want, except we killed most of them so they're mostly content enjoying life in the shitty reservations where we've left them to rot. So operating under the assumption that all that was ok...
I think it's absurd that anyone would give any pause to consider the legitimacy of the complaints of these terrorist insurgents. In both the Hammonds and Bundy cases, whatever you may think about the legitimacy of the federal government administering public land, the land DEFINITELY does not belong to neither the Bundys nor the Hammonds. In fact, the only reason that they have a claim to the land they DO own is probably because the federal government gave it to their ancestors using one of the Homestead incentives in the 19th-20th centuries. So however you look at it, private citizens do not have arbitrary claim to use property that they don't own towards their own interests. Since doing so effectively excludes other citizens with an equal claim to public land from using it for THEIR interests, I don't see how it isn't legitimate for the federal government (ostensibly representing the citizenry) would get to be the arbiter over whether/how someone like Bundy or Hammonds gets to use public land.
Again, I repeat, the land that was burned down/grazed on was NOT the property of either Bundy or Hammonds, so they have no right to do anything with it. Given that it's public land, and the State of Nevada (explicitly) and the State of Oregon (at least implicitly) allow the federal government to manage it because it makes sense for economies of scale. The government, as a representative of all the other citizens of the country with an equal claim to derive value from public land, makes determinations on its use.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
CPT (Join to see) - Well said 1st LT - a point I have been trying to make to many of the folks here who think these chuckle heads are something like 'patriots'
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
It's criminal, it's sedition, and since they're using threats of violence to influence the lawful government, it's terrorism.
(8)
(0)
6
6
0
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!
(6)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree, civil disobedience is best performed unarmed. When your armed you've taken things to an entirely different level.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel, I agree.
I think now you're getting into the realm of rules of engagement for law enforcement. Can the protesters bear arms? Tacitly, yes, but they are hazardously close to using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The weapons themselves do not constitute a threat, but the words of some of the protesters do. So is there hostile intent/ action?
I think we are going to find out if the protesters are confronted.
I think now you're getting into the realm of rules of engagement for law enforcement. Can the protesters bear arms? Tacitly, yes, but they are hazardously close to using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The weapons themselves do not constitute a threat, but the words of some of the protesters do. So is there hostile intent/ action?
I think we are going to find out if the protesters are confronted.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
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."
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."
(6)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) - Yes, but Richard Reid was a Radicalized (Converted) Muslim and member of a Terrorist Organization (Al Qaeda). It's hard to dispute him being a terrorist.
The Charleston Shooter, Dylann Roof I agree gets into a gray area, however strictly from a "personal" interpretation we are talking Mental Health and Mass Killing (Hate Crime).
The last two you mention, we again see Radicalized Religious extremists, although an Ideology can have that happen, but the goal we see with your examples is the GOAL was to KILL, and that would RESULT in changes of policies. It was fear based incentive. "Do this, or more of this will happen."
This specific case presents a "nuanced difference" in that very little "harm" is coming from the specific actions. Crime definitely.
The Charleston Shooter, Dylann Roof I agree gets into a gray area, however strictly from a "personal" interpretation we are talking Mental Health and Mass Killing (Hate Crime).
The last two you mention, we again see Radicalized Religious extremists, although an Ideology can have that happen, but the goal we see with your examples is the GOAL was to KILL, and that would RESULT in changes of policies. It was fear based incentive. "Do this, or more of this will happen."
This specific case presents a "nuanced difference" in that very little "harm" is coming from the specific actions. Crime definitely.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Trying to label these actions as terrorism is simply incorrect. Crimes are made up of elements, and the elements of the crime of Domestic Terrorism are as follows, and EACH of these elements must be satisfied, and provable to in a court of law, not most of them , or some of them, or one of them, but ALL of them.
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾Appear 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
◾Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
So, unless any of you who are claiming this is terrorism, please explain how you would convince a jury that breaking into, and occupying an empty building "Involves acts dangerous to human life..."
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾Appear 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
◾Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
So, unless any of you who are claiming this is terrorism, please explain how you would convince a jury that breaking into, and occupying an empty building "Involves acts dangerous to human life..."
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
CPT (Join to see) - Though you are correct, the shoe bomber wasn't successful, are you suggesting that placing plastic explosives in one's shoes, boarding an aircraft full of people, and then trying to detonate that bomb, one assumes to cause a catastrophic event likely to kill everyone on the aircraft, does NOT "involve acts dangerous to human life..."? That his actions didn't "appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"? That it didn't "Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."? I think ALL of the elements apply, a prosecutor, and a Jury agree.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT L S - Not surprised in the least. Professed followers of the Bundys also killed two Vegas cops in 2014.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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".
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".
(5)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Now seriously, you go from the 'right to peaceable assembly' and jump into the Second Amendment....long reach there. The fact of the case is that the two folks who went to jail (by the way for arson set to cover up poaching on a federally protected wild life refuge), specifically disavowed the protesters.
Further the protesters are carrying arms not under the 2nd amendment but openly declaring opposition to the government and calling for it's overthrow. That makes it sedition and terrorism and should be dealt with in the same manner as the Whiskey Rebellion (look up your history, a group of citizens didn't like the tax on whiskey, so the took up arms - gee what happened?) or how about the John Brown rebellion ...or the Mormon rebellion ....the 2nd amendment isn't about taking up arms against the government. I refer you to an excellent editorial in the NY Times - the final paragraph is telling:
"The simple message Mr. Bundy and his band must hear is this: If everyone with a gripe against the government responded by threatening federal officials with weapons, America would no longer be a nation governed by the rule of law. Their grievances, like everyone else’s, can be addressed. But not before they put down the guns."
Link to editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/guns-anger-and-nonsense-in-oregon.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Further the protesters are carrying arms not under the 2nd amendment but openly declaring opposition to the government and calling for it's overthrow. That makes it sedition and terrorism and should be dealt with in the same manner as the Whiskey Rebellion (look up your history, a group of citizens didn't like the tax on whiskey, so the took up arms - gee what happened?) or how about the John Brown rebellion ...or the Mormon rebellion ....the 2nd amendment isn't about taking up arms against the government. I refer you to an excellent editorial in the NY Times - the final paragraph is telling:
"The simple message Mr. Bundy and his band must hear is this: If everyone with a gripe against the government responded by threatening federal officials with weapons, America would no longer be a nation governed by the rule of law. Their grievances, like everyone else’s, can be addressed. But not before they put down the guns."
Link to editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/guns-anger-and-nonsense-in-oregon.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Guns, Anger and Nonsense in Oregon
The armed takeover of federal buildings by a self-styled militia is illegal and dangerous, and it displays a misreading of history.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo - Read my second paragraph again, Gunny. We are not in disagreement.
I would say that elevating this band of muldoons to the Whiskey Rebellion or any of the others you cite elevates them more than they deserve. They just aren't that important.
I would say that elevating this band of muldoons to the Whiskey Rebellion or any of the others you cite elevates them more than they deserve. They just aren't that important.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
1SG (Join to see) - 1SG, it's all about precedent. Over the past 20 odd years we have seen a fairly constant uptick in these idiots, I can list a whole series of 'occupations, stand-offs, acts of rebellion, intimidation of federal and local law enforcement' using the same general attitude and ideology.
I use the Whiskey Rebellion as a specific example because if you read the writings of folks like Washington, Madison, et. al. the prevailing thought at the time was if they came down hard on that incident, there would be less likelihood of additional situations. The Mormon rebellion was handled the same way.... the adage that those who don't remember history.... applies.
I use the Whiskey Rebellion as a specific example because if you read the writings of folks like Washington, Madison, et. al. the prevailing thought at the time was if they came down hard on that incident, there would be less likelihood of additional situations. The Mormon rebellion was handled the same way.... the adage that those who don't remember history.... applies.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
LTC Bink Romanick
Cpl Jeff N. If you use the accepted definition of terrorism it also fits. It's easy to minimize the actions of these thugs to fit an ideology.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
LTC Bink Romanick . Bink, you might recall that the BLM movement really started during the George Zimmerman trial and rotted in Ferguson MO. It would be a falsehood to say there was no violence in Ferguson. There was rioting, shootings, lootings, arson and a host of other crimes committed. Many law abiding citizens lost businesses and livelihoods. The same could us true in Baltimore, the next larger BLM event. There were the same dynamics as Ferguson. To act as thought no one was threatened or no damage done is a fantasy.
Occupy Wall Street had plant of violence too. You might recall the smashing of windows, looting, criminal trespass, rapes (in the camps) etc. etc. etc.
I would like to see your definition of terrorism, as the events in Malheur Refuge so far is civil disobedience (a crime but not terrorism). So far, no property destroyed, no arson, no looting, no rapes or shootings etc. While there will be a price to pay for their behavior it is not terrorism and there was far more violence in both the BLM protests and the Occupy protests and you know it.
Occupy Wall Street had plant of violence too. You might recall the smashing of windows, looting, criminal trespass, rapes (in the camps) etc. etc. etc.
I would like to see your definition of terrorism, as the events in Malheur Refuge so far is civil disobedience (a crime but not terrorism). So far, no property destroyed, no arson, no looting, no rapes or shootings etc. While there will be a price to pay for their behavior it is not terrorism and there was far more violence in both the BLM protests and the Occupy protests and you know it.
(0)
(0)
LTC Bink Romanick
Cpl Jeff N. You can have your opinions but not your own facts. BLM started after Ferguson and after the choking death in NYC. Not after Zimmerman. As to occupy much of the misbehavior was committed by outside elements. Go to the FBIs definition of terror and these thugs fit it.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
LTC Bink Romanick Bink, once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance. The only one with their own set of facts is you. Here it is, straight from the BLM web site:
#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was post-humously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our de-humanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.
______________________________________________________________________
I proved my point about when and how BLM got it's start. Why don't you post the definition of terrorism you seem to think they (the group at the wildlife refuge) fit. The only person with their own set of facts appears to be you. That is probably only a surprise to you though.
#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was post-humously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our de-humanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.
______________________________________________________________________
I proved my point about when and how BLM got it's start. Why don't you post the definition of terrorism you seem to think they (the group at the wildlife refuge) fit. The only person with their own set of facts appears to be you. That is probably only a surprise to you though.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
SSG Gerhard S.
It's nice that you would say that SFC Joseph Weber , but how does your opinion square with the elements of the crime of Domestic Terrorism when their actions fail to meet the first element of that crime? Namely... "Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"? Just Curious.
(0)
(0)
SFC Joseph Weber
SSG Gerhard S. - armed occupation of a federal building and promising violence if the government interferes. I'd say there are a lot of lives at risk right now.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SFC Joseph Weber , I agree that lives could be at risk,... Though lives are at risk when anyone gets behind the wheel of a car.... The first element of the crime that must be proven to satisfy the charge of Domestic Terrorism though, is that it must "Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"?
Walking/breaking into a vacated building with guns slung over one's shoulder does not rise to the same level. Perhaps it fits another crime, but clearly not Terrorism.
Respectful regards
Walking/breaking into a vacated building with guns slung over one's shoulder does not rise to the same level. Perhaps it fits another crime, but clearly not Terrorism.
Respectful regards
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
It is not civil disobedience to occupy a federal building with firearms, call for the overthrow of the government and establishment of order based on crackpot 'free man of the land' theories. - and by the way, Amon Bundy is one of their leaders, he objects to taxes . What did the founding fathers do when the farmers in Western PA decided they didn't want to pay whiskey tax and offered violence ...or the Mormon rebellion...or John Brown's raid...... so learn a little history...it's not a peaceful protest, it's a bunch of self-righteous yahoos who have some crack pot idea about it being the 'peoples' land...which people...the American Indian...btw the wild life refuge the federal building sits on was originally an Indian reservation by treaty...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT L S - Captain; An estimated 20% will totally reject the contents of the article because of the identity of the publisher. A further estimated 20% will totally reject the contents of the article because of the job history of the person being cited. A further estimated 20% will have never heard of the article - so it will have no impact on them whatsoever. A further estimated 20% will totally reject the contents of the article because it implies that President Obama's administration is less than perfect. A further estimated 20% will totally reject the contents of the article because it implies that the Republicans demanded that the US government do something which, in retrospect, it shouldn't have done.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
GySgt Carl Rumbolo - Gunny; You mention the "Mormon Rebellion". Might I suggest that the Wikipedia article on the "Utah War" is a good place to start to learn the actual history of whether there was a "rebellion" or of a "well regulated militia being (found to be) necessary to the security of a free State" involved there.
Since there is absolutely no historical dispute that the Mormons were loyal to the United States of America (despite the fact that they had been [essentially] forced to chose between their religion and flight to preserve their lives and property) and since there is absolutely no historical dispute that the US government acted against the Mormons WITHOUT actually investigating the charges against them, and since there is absolutely no historical dispute that one of the primary motivations of the US government was to suppress the Mormon religion (regardless of what the First Amendment said), and since there is absolutely no historical dispute that the US government was going to impose its will on the Mormons at the point of a gun (and without consulting the Mormons), calling the actions in Utah a "rebellion" (rather than a "resistance to government oppression") gets problematic.
On the other hand, the Mormons were "THEM" and the US Army was "US" so it's pretty obvious who the writers of the textbooks are going to hold up as acting correctly.
Since there is absolutely no historical dispute that the Mormons were loyal to the United States of America (despite the fact that they had been [essentially] forced to chose between their religion and flight to preserve their lives and property) and since there is absolutely no historical dispute that the US government acted against the Mormons WITHOUT actually investigating the charges against them, and since there is absolutely no historical dispute that one of the primary motivations of the US government was to suppress the Mormon religion (regardless of what the First Amendment said), and since there is absolutely no historical dispute that the US government was going to impose its will on the Mormons at the point of a gun (and without consulting the Mormons), calling the actions in Utah a "rebellion" (rather than a "resistance to government oppression") gets problematic.
On the other hand, the Mormons were "THEM" and the US Army was "US" so it's pretty obvious who the writers of the textbooks are going to hold up as acting correctly.
(0)
(0)
SFC Patrick Weisskopf
This is the second time the BLM ( Bureau of Land Management has entered land they claim is federal and has been ran by civilians for years since I retired. Out here in the civilian world I see both sides to these arguments. One of the guys leading this crap in Oregon is the son or grandson of a Bundy from Arizona. That Bundy had been running land as his father and his father and his father had since 200 years ago. The BLM came in and started stealing his cattle and shooting them on sight. This land grab by a government claiming it was theirs when it belonged to a family before Arizona became a state and had been managed by them for so long, I would stand with that Bundy to protect what's his. The reason the BLM tried to take that land was because a US senator has a son who works for a windmill company that could have been worth millions to them both. Young Bundy in Oregon, no. What he is doing is criminal but not terroristic. Patriotic yes, with Sr Bundy, not with Jr. Bundy. The fight must be right. There should be a stop put to the government when they try to strong arm farmers for their land. Never forget what our oath is/ was. When you get out, your oath is never recended. Constitution first, government employees, someplace down the food chain
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google