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
1
1
0
1
1
0
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).
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).
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Also, I'm going to toss in that terrorism requires an intent to terrorize (normally through killing and sometimes property destruction) in order to cause political change.
Calling this terrorism is very dangerous. It further expands radically enhanced powers in ways that we probably don't want to.
I applaud the governments actions in the situation to date, these folks aren't hurting anyone and will likely wear out their own resolve before spring. It's fun to play military for a week or two. But a couple months into a deployment, who still wants to play?
Calling this terrorism is very dangerous. It further expands radically enhanced powers in ways that we probably don't want to.
I applaud the governments actions in the situation to date, these folks aren't hurting anyone and will likely wear out their own resolve before spring. It's fun to play military for a week or two. But a couple months into a deployment, who still wants to play?
(1)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Capt Richard I P. - While to an extent I can understand your position, but given that these types of 'protests' do result in terrorizing some level of the population (several locals have stated they feel terrorized because they are afraid of what might happen) - also some of those yahoos have a record of pointing guns at people.
Given that, and the fact they have openly said they don't recognize the government..an armed response is probably justified.
HOWEVER -after the debate in this thread, and listening to the more moderate stances (leaving out the extremist view that these idiots are some how patriots), I think perhaps waiting for some period is worthwhile. Though by late spring, I'd opt for the airstrike followed up by a ground assault - just a pair of F-18 with 4 Mk84 per aircraft... :)
Given that, and the fact they have openly said they don't recognize the government..an armed response is probably justified.
HOWEVER -after the debate in this thread, and listening to the more moderate stances (leaving out the extremist view that these idiots are some how patriots), I think perhaps waiting for some period is worthwhile. Though by late spring, I'd opt for the airstrike followed up by a ground assault - just a pair of F-18 with 4 Mk84 per aircraft... :)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG Gerhard S. - I appreciate your reply, and I'll address the your question and statement about the word "seize" first: yes, I think that seize IS what they did. By your definition, they took something suddenly and with force. The fact that no one was in the building just meant they didn't have to use force on people. They broke into a locked Federal building. They continue to maintain that force. Also, people HAVE been threatened - they have made it clear that their intent is to not leave and will use force to remain in place. That is a warning and a threat.
Multiple people there have stated that they would die there rather than leave. One guy made a 15 minute video to his family and others about why he thought he would die there and he encouraged others to come and do the same.
As for the Bonus Army (which I hadn't really read into before - so thanks for the info!), I think it speaks directly to what I said. The government was patient, I suppose, with the Bonus Army on their steps - initially. After that, when they brought in the tanks, tear gas, and bayonets, that was less... "non-interventional." Also, the Bonus Army DID have a mix of black, white and other skin colors.
I think I missed your point of the Bonus Army, but I appreciate the history!
Multiple people there have stated that they would die there rather than leave. One guy made a 15 minute video to his family and others about why he thought he would die there and he encouraged others to come and do the same.
As for the Bonus Army (which I hadn't really read into before - so thanks for the info!), I think it speaks directly to what I said. The government was patient, I suppose, with the Bonus Army on their steps - initially. After that, when they brought in the tanks, tear gas, and bayonets, that was less... "non-interventional." Also, the Bonus Army DID have a mix of black, white and other skin colors.
I think I missed your point of the Bonus Army, but I appreciate the history!
(3)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I have been using the Whiskey Rebellion as an example, the bonus army is a much better one - well said there SSG
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
1SG (Join to see) - I DID steal your example... It was a GREAT One... I apologize for not crediting you for it, but I hope you're flattered just the same...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Samuel Sohm I wonder, do you feel the same way about the British troops that came to arrest Hancock, and Adams at Lexington, and then to seize the battery at Concord from the minority of men in rebellion in Massachusetts? Were they there,on British Colonial ground, legally engaging in protecting the majority of Colonists who were NOT in rebellion against the established government? Just curious.
(0)
(0)
SSG Samuel Sohm
SSG Gerhard S. There in lies the rub of your constructed scenario. It was (and is) a convienient strawman argument to equate the ACW with the Revolutionary War, but the two differ in a multitude of very important ways. Noone really knows who did what in regards to the opening of hostilities at Lexington, which led to a wider and much different conflict in the Colonies. Everyone knew what happened at Sumter and once SC fired the first shot, the vast majority of Northerners were unwilling to listen.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Samuel Sohm - though I take contention with your assertion that I "constructed" a scenario, as all I did is recite the historical record. And though I didn't attempt to "equate" the two wars, I was attempting to point out that one side (The British) was the legal, and established authority in the 13 Colonies, and were there to protect the majority of the Colonists who were NOT stockpiling arms, and engaging in subversive activities. Either way, the British were likely justified to fire the first shot following the destruction of property that occurred at the Boston Tea Party, and the tax rampant tax avoidance schemes occurring in Boston, and more-so according the standard of legal power, and possession you so clearly established regarding the Union forces at Ft. Sumter.
Clearly, we're not going to agree, as I understand there are chains of events, and linear timelines that operate on a cause-effect basis on both sides of an issue leading up to pretty much ANY conflict. Both sides deserve consideration, even if one side is later dismissed as lacking weight. It appears, from your words, that the only thing that matters from your perspective is a challenge of the established authority, or alternatively who fired the first shot regardless the timeline or any associated issues.
Understood, I look forward to discussing other issues with you in the future.
Regards.
Clearly, we're not going to agree, as I understand there are chains of events, and linear timelines that operate on a cause-effect basis on both sides of an issue leading up to pretty much ANY conflict. Both sides deserve consideration, even if one side is later dismissed as lacking weight. It appears, from your words, that the only thing that matters from your perspective is a challenge of the established authority, or alternatively who fired the first shot regardless the timeline or any associated issues.
Understood, I look forward to discussing other issues with you in the future.
Regards.
(0)
(0)
SSG Samuel Sohm
Indeed I take all sides of a historical argument into account, but when it comes to an historical event of such plain and bald faced aggression as Sumter, I believe that the historical record speaks for itself in the incident alone. SC fired first and on troops who were there to secure their safety. No one can say any different.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
Good thing they're not brown, otherwise someone might have felt threatened by now and shot them in the face.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - I would counter your suggestion that announcing your intention to defend yourself using lethal force when the attacker would be law enforcement in a legitimate attempt to address your criminal activity is a credible threat. If an armed suspected criminal were to respond to "put your hands up" with "I'm ready to kill or be killed", it's a clear cut case for law enforcement to use lethal force. Also, remember that they've already initiated force against whatever physical security existed for the building. I look forward to your more detailed comments.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
CPT (Join to see) - Sir, this brings us right back to the issue of civil disobedience. It is clear that many there in Oregon have issues with the Constitutional legitimacy of the Federal government controlling those lands that are not Constitutionally permitted it by the Constitution.
Henry David Thoreau was a trailblazer in this regard, and he wrote this....
"(1849) An essay by Henry David Thoreau. It contains his famous statement “That government is best which governs least,” and asserts that people's obligations to their own conscience take precedence over their obligations to their government. Thoreau also argues that if, in following their conscience, people find it necessary to break the laws of the state, they should be prepared to pay penalties, including imprisonment.
Note : Thoreau himself went to jail for refusing to pay a tax to support the Mexican War. "
"And Martin Luther King who wrote this about taking only half measures...
Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.” … Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. "- See more at: http://theindependent.ca/2014/01/20/dr-martin-luther-king-strategies-and-tactics-of-civil-disobedience/#sthash.vpnDGBw6.dpuf
Clearly, Dr. King (one of my heroes) understood that the government is not always right. When Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, she broke the law, when blacks sat at the "white" counter, they broke the law, when blacks used "white only" rest rooms they broke the law, when Germans, or Poles, or others harbored Jews in WWII , they were breaking the law. The government is not always right, and people are, and should be able to protest the actions of the government, but, as both Thoreau, and King told us, they also have to be willing to face the consequences of their actions.
Regards.
Henry David Thoreau was a trailblazer in this regard, and he wrote this....
"(1849) An essay by Henry David Thoreau. It contains his famous statement “That government is best which governs least,” and asserts that people's obligations to their own conscience take precedence over their obligations to their government. Thoreau also argues that if, in following their conscience, people find it necessary to break the laws of the state, they should be prepared to pay penalties, including imprisonment.
Note : Thoreau himself went to jail for refusing to pay a tax to support the Mexican War. "
"And Martin Luther King who wrote this about taking only half measures...
Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.” … Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. "- See more at: http://theindependent.ca/2014/01/20/dr-martin-luther-king-strategies-and-tactics-of-civil-disobedience/#sthash.vpnDGBw6.dpuf
Clearly, Dr. King (one of my heroes) understood that the government is not always right. When Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, she broke the law, when blacks sat at the "white" counter, they broke the law, when blacks used "white only" rest rooms they broke the law, when Germans, or Poles, or others harbored Jews in WWII , they were breaking the law. The government is not always right, and people are, and should be able to protest the actions of the government, but, as both Thoreau, and King told us, they also have to be willing to face the consequences of their actions.
Regards.
Dr. Martin Luther King: strategies and tactics of civil disobedience
On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we should remember King’s message was less about peace and love and more about exposing injustice
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - Thanks for your response. I absolutely agree that government at all levels is bloated, that it inefficiently manages limited resources, that it interferes with market signals at the detriment of the citizenry, that it derives an astonishingly small reduction of risk from spending on security, etc., etc. I agree with all these things. However, I still strongly believe that our form of government, as it limps along, is still better than the alternative of stripping it of its credibility in favor of giving credibility to anarchy and using violence to impose the will of activists on the rest of society.
Do I believe that civil disobedience has value? Yes. The enormous difference of context between this and the Civil Rights Movement is that these terrorist insurrectionists have the political process MUCH more available to them than black Americans did. The Bundy people own land, inherited and improved over generations after the federal government gave it to their ancestors after forcibly stealing it from Native Americans. There is no question that they are able to vote in elections, and their ancestors have been able to vote for their interests as land-owning males since the birth of the nation. They have inherited wealth as a result of government policy that has favored the pursuit of their interests throughout most of the history of the country (and in many cases, subsidized it), giving them a good chance at having better-than-average representation in court if they were to challenge the federal government (which is entirely possible). It is much more easy to understand why black Americans questioned the legitimacy of the government that kidnapped and trafficked them, had sold them as property, allowed for their abuse, then thrown them into the economy with few marketable skills after their emancipation, continued to torment them and abuse them for another century without allowing them the representation of other citizens, and continues to more subtly marginalize them through empirically proven unequal treatment and a criminal justice system that targets them directly. AND...the Civil Rights Movement was mostly civil disobedience, without armed resistance. While they protested unconstitutional discrimination, were murdered by law enforcement in he streets with impunity for years, and eventually achieved some of their goals by turning the tide of public opinion.
Given the much better position that these radicals are in to achieve the same results with less effort, I invite them to engage in civil, unarmed disobedience that doesn't pose a lethal threat to anyone and use the processes in place to achieve what they want - and if they don't...well...that's a risk you take when the government is charged to provide for the general welfare and not just the welfare of the animals that you want to chomp on grass on public land.
Do I believe that civil disobedience has value? Yes. The enormous difference of context between this and the Civil Rights Movement is that these terrorist insurrectionists have the political process MUCH more available to them than black Americans did. The Bundy people own land, inherited and improved over generations after the federal government gave it to their ancestors after forcibly stealing it from Native Americans. There is no question that they are able to vote in elections, and their ancestors have been able to vote for their interests as land-owning males since the birth of the nation. They have inherited wealth as a result of government policy that has favored the pursuit of their interests throughout most of the history of the country (and in many cases, subsidized it), giving them a good chance at having better-than-average representation in court if they were to challenge the federal government (which is entirely possible). It is much more easy to understand why black Americans questioned the legitimacy of the government that kidnapped and trafficked them, had sold them as property, allowed for their abuse, then thrown them into the economy with few marketable skills after their emancipation, continued to torment them and abuse them for another century without allowing them the representation of other citizens, and continues to more subtly marginalize them through empirically proven unequal treatment and a criminal justice system that targets them directly. AND...the Civil Rights Movement was mostly civil disobedience, without armed resistance. While they protested unconstitutional discrimination, were murdered by law enforcement in he streets with impunity for years, and eventually achieved some of their goals by turning the tide of public opinion.
Given the much better position that these radicals are in to achieve the same results with less effort, I invite them to engage in civil, unarmed disobedience that doesn't pose a lethal threat to anyone and use the processes in place to achieve what they want - and if they don't...well...that's a risk you take when the government is charged to provide for the general welfare and not just the welfare of the animals that you want to chomp on grass on public land.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski
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?
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?
(1)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Would you care to provide actual facts to back up the assertion that the Hammonds have had their rights and property violated? Their conviction was for arson, on the wild life refuge which was originally part of an indian reservation. Said arson was committed to conceal acts of poaching on the refuge - this are the actual facts of the case.
They were sentenced to terms less than the statutory minimum, and that was appealed by the prosecution, and appeals judge ordered that they serve the statutory minimum. Personally I think that part was a mistake...but
They were sentenced to terms less than the statutory minimum, and that was appealed by the prosecution, and appeals judge ordered that they serve the statutory minimum. Personally I think that part was a mistake...but
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Read any number of the articles linked to this entire discussion. The evidence is there.
Read any number of the articles linked to this entire discussion. The evidence is there.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
PO1 John Miller - Linking to right wing blogs and websites is not a 'fact' - nor is linking to left wing websites. How about actual factual evidence - court pleadings filings under the law, judicial decisions? You are going have a hard time with that one since the Hammonds here convicted for arson on federal land - land that was originally an indian reservation. The Hammonds have asserted a right to use land that isn't theirs under some vague idea that it 'belongs to the people'. Go read the actual court case, it might be worth your time.
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Actually the land was NOT originally an Indian reservation. It was owned by no one and ranchers used it, until President Roosevelt declared the land a Reservation.
Everything I've read said the "arson" stemmed from a controlled burn the Hammonds were doing.
Actually the land was NOT originally an Indian reservation. It was owned by no one and ranchers used it, until President Roosevelt declared the land a Reservation.
Everything I've read said the "arson" stemmed from a controlled burn the Hammonds were doing.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Now what would have happen if these guys had been Black, Mexican, Muslims etc..
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Crime, but just remember...our forefathers were criminals and committed treason.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
"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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google