News Was the FBI Agent Indicted in the Oregon Standoff Case?

[mheslep]

I can just speculate how the course of events would have been different if these Patriots just happened to be well-armed Muslim Americans instead of a bunch of well-armed old white dudes.

I don't know that it is relevant, but I can speculate too. If they were affiliated with ISIL as in San Bernardino, we'd all expect a great deal of wanton killing instead of press conferences.

 

[Astronuc]

Police say man arrested in vehicle stolen from refuge
http://news.yahoo.com/eastern-oregon-standoff-goes-residents-aim-calm-172105752.html

What's the purpose of granting statehood if it doesn't convey sovereignty?

States have limited sovereignty (basically within their borders), which is subordinate to the US federal) government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenther_movement

Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See also Article IV, particularly Section 3.Some good discussion herein - https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-9-7.pdf

 

[p1l0t]

Whether it's maritime law, the treatises of outer space, or plain old personal property the truth is you can only own what you can defend. Laws are for subordinates.

 

[Astronuc]

The longer the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is occupied, the more attention the group's complaints get. How will this end?
http://news.yahoo.com/does-victory-look-armed-oregon-refuge-occupiers-175656530.html

“Many who criticized [the] takeover have begun to voice support, even admiration, for the amount of attention the occupation has brought to the underlying grievances,” Carli Brosseau wrote this week in an expose in the Oregonian of how the occupation took shape.

To be sure, many Americans still want the government to round up the occupiers and reestablish federal control. Mollycoddling armed white militiamen, they say, only encourages extremism.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hardly. Terrorists set out to harm and kill so that they can terrorize. They don't camp out and hold press conferences. Maybe these guys belong in jail. But they've not acted as terrorists. More to come ...

Not "maybe these guys belong in jail". These people definitely belong in jail -- these thugs came in armed and took over a federal building (i.e. occupied, seized control, invaded, etc. a federal building), and pointed their guns at police. I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they committed a criminal act and belong in jail. In fact, instead of allowing these buffoons to hold press conferences, why not cut these off and wait until these people surrender to the authorities? And if that doesn't work, try to capture these people by force and arrest them?

And yes, I agree with russ on this, these people are terrorists. The FBI definition of terrorism is as follows: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Let's see. These thugs definitely unlawfully used force against property (i.e. federal building) to coerce a government (i.e. US federal government) in furtherance of social/political objectives (according to the words of the ringleader themselves, to "restore their land and resources back to the people"). Sounds like it meets the FBI definition of terrorism.

So yes, we are dealing with terrorists here.

 

[jim hardy]

great article, Astro - thanks !

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf

In sum, the Court in Garcia seems to have said that most disputes over the effects on state sovereignty of federal commerce power legislation are to be considered political questions, and that the states should look for relief from federal regulation through the political process. ¹¹⁷
This appeared to have ended the Court’s attempt to substantively limit federal government regulation of the states .

See also Article IV, particularly Section 3.

well now ...

Section. 3.
.......
...

... The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

looking at that little map...
Western states should have held out for a better deal before they signed on .

 

[Astronuc]

If Bundy's group or any other group believes that Federal lands should be handed over to 'local control', then they can petition the government or their elected representatives to enact legislation, and act, that would establish the transfer of land and subsequent ownership, or perhaps some framework in which the land is retained by the federal government, or state, and stewardship of the land is granted to interested parties.

I think though that Bundy's group and similar groups are more interested in personal gains at the expense of the rest of the population, i.e., they are motivated by greed and selfishness.

 

[jim hardy]

If Bundy's group or any other group believes that Federal lands should be handed over to 'local control', then they can petition the government or their elected representatives to enact legislation, and act, that would establish the transfer of land and subsequent ownership, or perhaps some framework in which the land is retained by the federal government, or state, and stewardship of the land is granted to interested parties.

People who happen to live in a place that some government bureaucracy covets need protection. That story i related back in post 16 about Florida confiscating property surrounding Pennekamp Park is absolutely true.

I share Hamlet's disdain for "Insolence of office" .
There could be something to the ranchers' complaints - don't dismiss them as whackadoodles just yet.

 

[Astronuc]

There could be something to the ranchers' complaints

I certainly expect there are issues in the various states regarding the management of federal lands. I however, disagree with the course of Ammon Bundy and his group. I think the local ranchers can from a group and protest to their congressional representatives, and if the ranchers feel ignored, then they can make a case to their neighbors and folks in the local communities. There is an appropriate political process.

Edit: From the US Constitution -
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Let Bundy and his group assemble peaceably, without arms, and petition the government regarding their grievances. However, the group doesn't seem to be willing to follow that process.

 

[nsaspook]

So yes, we are dealing with terrorists here.

Let's be real. The threat of an isolated group 30 miles from the nearest small city on frozen ground in a closed for the winter visitors center on the high desert puts those 'terrorist' in about the worst tactical position imaginable. This a more like a 'death by cop' with the FBI doing everything it can to stop them from putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger.

 

[mheslep]

Regard's domestic terrorism, 18 US 2331:

...
(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...

To graduate from simple felony, (A) and (B)(i) and B(ii or iii) must apply. In my opinion, the above well applies to the actions of, say, the Occupy http://www.kptv.com/story/15947182/police-protester-shoved-sergeant-into-moving-busof http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025. The Maheur Refuge occupation group has violated the law (A), trespass at least. Whether or not they belong in jail for that crime or not is up to a judge, not you. So far, there is no (B)(i) or (B)(iii). There is no coercion of the civilian population, as there is no civilian population in the refuge. I see no coercion of government. No firearms have been "pointed out the police". There is no act of mass destruction, etc.

 

[Astronuc]

An unknown number of armed individuals have broken into and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon. While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee and public safety; we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident. We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments.

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/Alert/Closure.html

The occupation started on Saturday, Jan 2, 2016, so staff we likely home during the weekend. I presume for their safety, they did not return. So the armed occupation is preventing federal employees from performing their duties. The sheriff asked the group to leave, and apparently the group has declined.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-000-artifacts-stored-oregon-refuge-held-armed-061523370.html
Carla Burnside, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge archeologist has an office in one of the occupied buildings. "She's since seen pictures of the occupiers in her office, . . . ."

I wonder when the occupiers will turn themselves in peacefully.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...dlife-refuge-known-for-listening-to-ranchers/

Grievances of outside protesters don’t seem to fit Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, where local Oregon ranchers and federal managers spent years working out their differences and arriving at a collaborative “adaptive management” plan.

Well, that would seem to discredit the armed occupiers.

There are about 16,000 American ranchers who graze animals on BLM lands. Only 458 of them have not paid their grazing fees for use of that land. Even among those delinquents, the vast majority are two months or less past due on their fees, which are $1.69 per animal per month. Scofflaws like Cliven Bundy, who has racked up a debt of over $1 million to taxpayers from unpaid grazing fees and subsequent trespassing fines, are extremely rare.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/03/3735647/malheur-lake-oregon-militia-explainer/

From the Seattle Times article: "Fred Otley, a fourth-generation rancher whose 93-year-old mother, Mary Otley, is still agile enough to run the swather that cuts grasses in refuge fields," has cattle grazing on the refuge.

Over the years, Fred Otley has had plenty of conflicts with federal land managers. But the current refuge leadership appears to have earned his respect, even as some disagreements still persist about management of federal lands that provide his cattle vital fall and winter feed.

Sounds like the refuge staff work well with local ranchers.

The refuge provides for migratory birds.
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/aboutSetting_Aside.html

 

[OmCheeto]

I certainly expect there are issues in the various states regarding the management of federal lands. I however, disagree with the course of Ammon Bundy and his group. I think the local ranchers can from a group and protest to their congressional representatives, and if the ranchers feel ignored, then they can make a case to their neighbors and folks in the local communities. There is an appropriate political process.

Regarding the Hammonds:

Judge sends Oregon ranchers back to prison
7 Oct 2015
...
Before the sentencing, the Oregon Farm Bureau tried to convince the BLM to drop the arson charges against the Hammonds and replace them with charges that would not require a mandatory minimum sentence, said Dave Dillon, the organization’s executive vice president.

When that route did not yield the desired results, the organization decided to circulate a “Save the Hammonds” petition that has been signed by about 2,400 people.

“We did not make the progress we thought we should, so we’re taking a more public approach,” Dillon said.

Dillon said he recognized that the Hammonds faced slim chances of receiving less than five years, given the 9th Circuit’s ruling, but said he hoped the petition may convince the Obama administration to grant them clemency.
...

In all honesty, I was scratching my head as to why the Hammonds were going back to prison, when I first heard the story. I probably would have signed the petition myself.
But once the "Bundys & Friends" group showed up, well, it was kind of a Pandora's Box affair, as I learned a bit too much, and understood why the Hammonds put up almost no fight when asked to go back to jail.

They allegedly handed a box of matches to a teenaged relative and told him to light the last fire. [ref]
Less likely to convict a teen of an adult crime.
And it would be his 1st conviction, if they did.

I don't live out there.

Oregon is a big state. Most here would say it's actually big enough to be two states.
So I don't really live out there either.

Does Oregon do a decent job of managing grazing lands ? Or do they leave that to BLM ?

Not a clue.

Seems to me it ought to be Oregon's call how many cows per acre he can run on public land in Oregon.

Not if we can pawn the job off on the Feds. I would imagine if we didn't like the way the Feds were running things, we'd make a stink about it.

If as reported BLM put a fence around a watering hole the rancher leased from the state for his cows,
well,,,
he has a legitimate beef .

You're just adding to the crap I'm finding in this Pandora's box...

Federal agents arrest rancher in water dispute
10 August 1994

'An ongoing battle'
According to one version of the
story, a 25-ton earthmover owned by
the Hammonds was parked across
the path of the fence. Susan Ham-
mond denied that her husband had
parked it there to halt more fence-
building.

A 25 ton earthmover? What on Earth were these ranchers doing with a 25 ton earthmover?
hmmmm... A D8 Cat weighs 40 tons.
So I guess it's just a big tractor.
Never mind.

----------
D8 Cat: Largest piece of machinery Om has ever sat upon. His dad worked for a faraway gold mining company, when he was 16. His Oregon based mother was sick of him, so she bought him a one way ticket to Alaska, to be with his dad. His dad bought him a one way ticket back to Oregon, at the end of the summer.
True story.

[edited per OCR correction. D8 Cats weigh 40, and not 6 tons. ps. My D8 Cat personal story was simply an example of people wanting annoying people to go away. This is about the only thing just about everyone here in Oregon is in agreement on.]

 

[OCR]

Another source...read if you want, nothing really much different, or new...

http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/01/05/the-timeline-for-the-oregon-rancher-arsonists/

 

[mheslep]

... I think the local ranchers can from a group and protest to their congressional representatives, and if the ranchers feel ignored, then they can make a case to their neighbors and folks in the local communities. There is an appropriate political process...

Why would you think petition has not already been made, for years?

Congressman Walden, representative for the Hammonds, now serving 5 years.

 

[jim hardy]

You're just adding to the crap I'm finding in this Pandora's box...

that sounds almost contumely

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
{_{I'd have used my dozer, too jh} }

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

sure it's a conservative reporter
you got to read 'em all and decide what's the likely truth.

and something ain't right about the prosecutor.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/03/unwanted_texts_and_attention_b.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...ttorney_amanda_mars.html#incart_story_package

it's a pandoras box allright

 

[StatGuy2000]

Let's be real. The threat of an isolated group 30 miles from the nearest small city on frozen ground in a closed for the winter visitors center on the high desert puts those 'terrorist' in about the worst tactical position imaginable. This a more like a 'death by cop' with the FBI doing everything it can to stop them from putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger.

Just because these weren't very bright in terms of tactical position doesn't mean that the definition of terrorism doesn't apply. The definition of terrorism, as defined by the FBI, doesn't rely on tactical brilliance or the maximum # of casualties.

I don't disagree with you though that the FBI is acting with restraint in ensuring they do everything they can to stop them from putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger. I wish that law enforcement in the US do this more often -- much of the news I've been hearing and reading about suggests that law enforcement in the US do not apply such restraint often enough (although to be fair, this applies to local police departments and not to the FBI).

 

[jim hardy]

(although to be fair, this applies to local police departments and not to the FBI).

FBI learned a hard lesson at WACO .

Billy Budd was on TCM last night... power without judgement is indistinguishable from evil.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Regard's domestic terrorism, 18 US 2331:To graduate from simple felony, (A) and (B)(i) and B(ii or iii) must apply. In my opinion, the above well applies to the actions of, say, the Occupy http://www.kptv.com/story/15947182/police-protester-shoved-sergeant-into-moving-busof http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025. The Maheur Refuge occupation group has violated the law (A), trespass at least. Whether or not they belong in jail for that crime or not is up to a judge, not you. So far, there is no (B)(i) or (B)(iii). There is no coercion of the civilian population, as there is no civilian population in the refuge. I see no coercion of government. No firearms have been "pointed out the police". There is no act of mass destruction, etc.

I disagree with your assessment of the Occupy movement of 2011-2012 (at least for the majority of the Occupy protesters) since law (A) was not broken (the Occupy protesters did not engage in acts dangerous to human lives).

As far as law (B), yes there has been no (B)(i) or (B)(iii) (at least so far as we know). As for (B)(ii) I would think taking control of a government building and refusing to give up such control without meeting their demands is a form of coercion of government, so (B)(ii) clearly applies. Therefore, the conditions required to meet charges of terrorism stands.

Of course, whether the acts constitute a crime is up for the prosecutors and a judge to decide. But if what these thugs did doesn't constitute a crime, then I don't know what does.

 

[russ_watters]

Hardly. Terrorists set out to harm and kill so that they can terrorize.

The typical definition says "violence or the threat of violence". Until the siege is over, we don't know how far these guys are willing to go. Incidents like this have turned into bloodbaths in the past.

Regard's domestic terrorism, 18 US 2331:

Right, so clearly this fits, right?

I see no coercion of government. No firearms have been "pointed out the police".

They did explicitly verbally threaten the police/government based on those guns.

..the actions of, say, the Occupy http://www.kptv.com/story/15947182/police-protester-shoved-sergeant-into-moving-busof http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025.

The obvious difference is the guns.In any case, you didn't really answer my query. I'll try to be more plain/succinct: are you saying you consider these actions a legitimate form of protest?

 

[Astronuc]

Why would you think petition has not already been made, for years?

Please show me the evidence that such a petition has been filed to Congress, or any department within the federal government.

I did find a Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit regarding the sentencing of Steven and Dwight Hammond after their conviction of arson on federal lands.
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/Ha...for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Filed-June-17-2013.pdf

The petition claims the sentence to be excessive. Well, that probably depends on the intent behind the crime. In the case of the Hardie-Hammond fire in 2001, the fire was apparently set (according to testimony) to cover illegal poaching on federal land.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

Eastern Oregon father-son ranchers convicted of lighting fires on federal land (June 22, 2012)
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/06/eastern_oregon_father-son_ranc.html

The men were convicted of arson in the 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire near Steens Mountain, where BLM leased grazing rights to them. Steven Hammond also was convicted of arson in the 2006 Krumbo Butte Fire on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steens Mountain.

They were acquitted and the government dismissed allegations that they conspired and set two other wildfires in 2006.

Given the problem of wildfires in the west, and the potential for loss of life and destruction of property, I imagine the state and federal governments would take significant punitive action against arsonists. In the case of the Hammonds, it seems due process was applied.

It does appear that filing a petition is not so easy. I expect one has to hire a lawyer familiar with the process, and for most people, that's probably an expensive proposition.

I'm curious as to what Constitutional rights the Bundys or their supporters/sympathizers seem to be claiming are being infringed, or what actions by the government are illegal or violation of the Constitution.

Rep. Greg Walden does make some points about the government, particularly the BLM, not listening to the people, and apparently individual federal employees making arbitrary decisions with respect to actions concerning access to public lands.

FYI - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/files/PL106-399.pdf

In theory, this is how the process should work.
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/recreation/steens-mtn.php
http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/steensac.php

Steens Mountain is a place I'd like to hike.

 

[mheslep]

The obvious difference is the guns.

Yes that's a difference *you* are welcome to draw, but there is no "violence by firearms" clause in the definition. In the Occupy movement there were however hundreds of assaults on police officers, sexual assaults on others, knife attacks, robberies, seizure of public access like the bridge in NYC. To my knowledge, nobody was charged under the terrorism statutes.

In any case, you didn't really answer my query. I'll try to be more plain/succinct: are you saying you consider these actions a legitimate form of protest?

No, I do not. Their act is criminal. I also don't think what they're doing is terrorism.

 

[OmCheeto]

that sounds almost contumely

Looked up that word:
I was just trying to keep things, good god my vocabulary is bad, contemporary?

This topic has already gotten so complex, that my micr-Om-eter sized brain is already getting overloaded.

sure it's a conservative reporter
you got to read 'em all and decide what's the likely truth.

and something ain't right about the prosecutor.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/03/unwanted_texts_and_attention_b.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...ttorney_amanda_mars.html#incart_story_package

it's a pandoras box allright

I agree. After watching mheslep's video of Greg Walden, I have a newfound respect for him. (Greg Walden that is. )

But getting back to the problem of "States" vs "Federal" rights, I'd like to point one thing, that was pointed out earlier:

nsaspook [ref] ;

The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs)​

These ludicrous sentences were handed out because the citizens of the STATE of California decided that they didn't like career criminals. And the US Supreme Court upheld the rulings.

I would like judges to be able to judge the actual facts of the crime and not be a rubber stamp for some rigid one size fits all federal "War On ...'' law.

Hear hear!

ps. Jim, I'm pretty sure that if I had lived through your experience, I'd be 100% on your side. But I didn't, so I'm not. But... If you go back through the forum, you'll find that I also have beefs with the feds. And they are not just personal beefs, as they affected the entire region.
Stinkin' Poop tax: "were imposed upon us by the Federal Government" [ref PF]
And, OMG!: read at your own risk. Om lost his mind one day...

 

[mheslep]

Please show me the evidence that such a petition has been filed to Congress, or any department within the federal government.

If you spend a couple minutes on Rep Walden's House floor speech, which I posted above, you'll see he refers to years of working with the Hammonds, and Walden in fact wrote and passed a law to rework the interaction between the BLM and ranchers, which per Rep Walden the BLM has routinely ignored. Walden references widely attended public hearings in the area on land issues, ostensibly to garner public opinion from locals, which again was then ignored by the BLM. Walden also mentions the hundreds of thousands of acres of routine wildfire in the area, which he indicates might well be due to BLM mismanagement, but at least should put the hundred plus acres burned by Hammond in context.

As Walden indicates, the Hammonds broke the law, and had some jail time coming. Do they deserve mandatory minimums under terrorism statues? I agree with the trial judge: no. Nor were the years of abuse from the BLM to residents in the area fair, or allow for redress.

 

[jim hardy]

This topic has already gotten so complex, that my micr-Om-eter sized brain is already getting overloaded.

i suffer from same .

ps. Jim, I'm pretty sure that if I had lived through your experience, I'd be 100% on your side. But I didn't, so I'm not.

Thanks for that, OM
As I've said I'm too far removed to know what's really going on out there.
But i don't automatically ascribe the moral high ground to the bureaucrats.

When Florida grabbed the west Everglades they let property owners keep their hunting camps and use them for the rest of their lives.
When Missouri grabbed the Current River they let people with weekend or retirement cabins use them for the rest of their lives.

I was a young man then.
It seemed to me a reasonable way to assure those unique areas could continue to be enjoyed the same way i (as well as the property owners) had enjoyed them, for the foreseeable future.
Still does.

old jim

 

[nsaspook]

Just because these weren't very bright in terms of tactical position doesn't mean that the definition of terrorism doesn't apply. The definition of terrorism, as defined by the FBI,doesn't rely on tactical brilliance or the maximum # of casualties.

I really don't think a broad definition of 'terrorism' is helpful for the preservation of civil liberties in the USA. We don't call every bank robber that kills a guard or customer a terrorist (who could also be a bank robber for some cause) because even if they are hardened criminals there is still due process. If we want to say something is more than 'just' a crime to justify a quasi-military response to it then IMO the threshold for being treated as a terrorist should be high and independent of some broad legal definition of 'terrorism'. The FBI thankfully seems to have learned some hard lessons from the past.

 

[mheslep]

I disagree with your assessment of the Occupy movement of 2011-2012 (at least for the majority of the Occupy protesters) since law (A) was not broken ...

Do you mean to say, for instance, that the Occupy blockade of the Brooklyn Bridge car lanes on Oct 1, 2011 and the associated assaults on police officers were not illegal, though 700 were arrested, but that the seizure of the Refuge shack in Oregon is illegal? (I agree with the latter BTW). The Manhattan DA's office reported there were been "2250 Occupy-related arrests" from September through June 2012.

...(the Occupy protesters did not engage in acts dangerous to human lives).

Hundreds of occupy protesters endangered and and harmed lives, as the earlier links indicate. They wantonly broke the law.

As far as law (B), yes there has been no (B)(i) or (B)(iii) (at least so far as we know). As for (B)(ii) I would think taking control of a government building and refusing to give up such control without meeting their demands is a form of coercion of government, so (B)(ii) clearly applies. Therefore, the conditions required to meet charges of terrorism stands

First step is (A), break the law, which they have done, and endanger somebody, which they have not, though they are perhaps close to it. The coercion of government (Bii) anything by seizing the Malheur Refuge shack seems weak to me, certainly not as coercive as, say, blocking off the Brooklyn Bridge or rioting for days in the street and burning shops.

 

[Astronuc]

If you spend a couple minutes on Rep Walden's House floor speech, which I posted above, you'll see he refers to years of working with the Hammonds, and Walden in fact wrote and passed a law to rework the interaction between the BLM and ranchers, which per Rep Walden the BLM has routinely ignored. Walden references widely attended public hearings in the area on land issues, ostensibly to garner public opinion from locals, which again was then ignored by the BLM. Walden also mentions the hundreds of thousands of acres of routine wildfire in the area, which he indicates might well be due to BLM mismanagement, but at least should put the hundred plus acres burned by Hammond in context.

As I recall from some recent fires, a number were due to arson. There are some fires that start with lightning. Locally, we seem to have quite a few fires in the dry season from folks throwing cigarettes out the window of their vehicles. This is usually along interstates and road ways. In some cases, cars pulling off to the side of the road can start fires in the dry grass.

As Walden indicates, the Hammonds broke the law, and had some jail time coming. Do they deserve mandatory minimums under terrorism statues? I agree with the trial judge: no. Nor were the years of abuse from the BLM to residents in the area fair, or allow for redress.

I listened to the video, and I found the act to which he is referring. It seems to be working.

In the video, Walden (~12:45-13:30) refers to a BLM manager (who was removed) in the Wallowa-Whitman/Blue Mountains area, which is northeast up in Baker and Wallowa Counties, and the possibility (~11:00-11:30) of a National Monument (~2.5 million acres) in Malheur County east of Harney. Baker County sits north of Malheur County, and Grant County sits between Harney and Baker Counties.

The Hammond's property (and Krumbo lake/creek) has a mailing address in Diamond, Or, on the west side of Steens Mountain area, more toward Frenchglen than Burns. Why Bundy and his group occupied a federal office in Burns is not clear to me, other than it was convenient.

I would agree with the Judge Michael Hammond's assessment of the law and mandatory sentence applied in this case. While it was an act of arson, which was apparently done to destroy evidence of another illegal act, poaching, it doesn't seem to meet the definition of terrorism. There was definitely criminal intent.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...sf/2015/10/controversial_oregon_ranchers.html

So what should be a reasonable sentence?

As for the proposed monument in Malheur County, Walden incorrectly stated that it was being done in secret. It's been rather out in the open.
http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/10/malheur_county_officials_set_m.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/10/owyhee_canyonlands_focus_of_fu.html

Environmental groups hope to persuade President Barack Obama to declare 2.5 million acres of federal land as the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument before he leaves office in 2017.

Looking at the map on the webpage, as proposed area for conservation would seem excessive. I think the local folks, who would be directly impacted by such an action should be given consideration based on the adverse consequences they'd experience in contrast to the perceived benefits claimed by 'environmentalists'.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Do you mean to say, for instance, that the Occupy blockade of the Brooklyn Bridge car lanes on Oct 1, 2011 and the associated assaults on police officers were not illegal, though 700 were arrested, but that the seizure of the Refuge shack in Oregon is illegal? (I agree with the latter BTW). The Manhattan DA's office reported there were been "2250 Occupy-related arrests" from September through June 2012.

First of all, if you actually check my post, I said the majority of Occupy protesters were not involved in acts of violence. Yes, there were some among the Occupy movement who stirred up trouble and engaging in violent and criminal behaviour (rioting, acts of violence against police, etc.) but these were in the minority.

Second, those Occupy protesters were arrested (in your very own quote, you stated that the Manhattan DA's office reported that there were "2259 Occupy-related arrests"). As of this moment, those thugs who seized the Refuge federal building have not been arrested.

Third, as russ already pointed out, the thugs in Oregon were armed with guns, with the intent to use it against anyone who opposed them. On top of making demands on the government with a threat of force, yes, that makes it an illegal act, and a terrorist act, by the definition used by the FBI.

Hundreds of occupy protesters endangered and and harmed lives, as the earlier links indicate. They wantonly broke the law.

Yes, and these protesters were arrested and presumably went on trial for their actions, as I've already indicated earlier.

First step is (A), break the law, which they have done, and endanger somebody, which they have not, though they are perhaps close to it. The coercion of government (Bii) anything by seizing the Malheur Refuge shack seems weak to me, certainly not as coercive as, say, blocking off the Brooklyn Bridge or rioting for days in the street and burning shops.

Again, the fact that they seized a federal building using weapons makes their behaviour coercive, thus meeting the definition of a terrorist act. Protesters blockading off a bridge is an act of civil disobedience and is part and parcel of living in a democracy. As long as the protesters conduct their protest in a peaceful manner, there is nothing criminal about it. Of course, rioting and burning shops is illegal, but my recollection was that this involved (a) only a minority of the Occupy movement, and (b) simple riots do not constitute a deliberate use of coercion, so doesn't meet the definition of terrorism.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I really don't think a broad definition of 'terrorism' is helpful for the preservation of civil liberties in the USA. We don't call every bank robber that kills a guard or customer a terrorist (who could also be a bank robber for some cause) because even if they are hardened criminals there is still due process. If we want to say something is more than 'just' a crime to justify a quasi-military response to it then IMO the threshold for being treated as a terrorist should be high and independent of some broad legal definition of 'terrorism'. The FBI thankfully seems to have learned some hard lessons from the past.

First of all, I disagree at face value the underlying assumption you are making, which is that somehow I am applying a broad definition of "terrorism". I was applying the definition that the FBI currently uses in their legal definition of terrorism.

Second of all, it is my contention that terrorism is first and foremost a criminal act, and those charged and arrested on such charges have the same rights to due process as any other criminal defendant (I will state on record that I was and am opposed to the Patriot Act and other similar acts which sought to curtail civil liberties on the justification that these were tools to fight terrorism). So on that front, I believe we are in agreement.

Third, whether law enforcement employs a quasi-military response or not is of course dependent on the circumstances and the nature of the threat to either themselves or the broader public. Not all acts of terrorism has the same degree of threat as others. In some cases, the threat to the public is limited, whereas in others the threat is both imminent and broad-based, and each case needs to be treated differently.

 

[jim hardy]

I think the local folks, who would be directly impacted by such an action should be given consideration based on the adverse consequences they'd experience in contrast to the perceived benefits claimed by 'environmentalists'.

Thumbs up .

 

[StatGuy2000]

Looking at the map on the webpage, as proposed area for conservation would seem excessive. I think the local folks, who would be directly impacted by such an action should be given consideration based on the adverse consequences they'd experience in contrast to the perceived benefits claimed by 'environmentalists'.

I would agree in principle that if the federal government is set to decide on what to do with federal land (specifically in this instead, the proposal is to set aside a considerable portion of federal land to a nature preserve), then a very important consideration is the impact that such a proposal would have on residents who live near those lands. I think it would be sensible to have an extensive process of consultation (e.g. town hall meetings) to address the proposal.

I should also add that I have no problem with local residents raising concerns or objections, or even peacefully protesting any proposed use of federal lands -- American citizens have that basic democratic right.

 

[mheslep]

I think it would be sensible to have an extensive process of consultation (e.g. town hall meetings) to address the proposal.

There have been town meetings held over the years on land issues involving the Hammonds, heavily attended, and the outcome ignored by the BLM per the congressional rep. There have been complaints made to their congressional representative going back to the 90s.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes that's a difference *you* are welcome to draw, but there is no "violence by firearms" clause in the definition. In the Occupy movement there were however hundreds of assaults on police officers, sexual assaults on others, knife attacks, robberies, seizure of public access like the bridge in NYC. To my knowledge, nobody was charged under the terrorism statutes.

And why would they be? Those sorts of left wing protests explicitly preach and make an effort to practice non-violence. They are [generally] unarmed and the violence they do is generally unarmed resisting arrest related violence. The other things you mentioned - knifings, robberies, sexual assaults - are things that happened internally in their camps and are not part of how they interacted with police/the community.

I'm really astonished this isn't clear/obvious: carrying a gun and saying you will use it to "defend" your occupation of a government installation is an overt threat of violence that building a tent or chaining yourself to a bollard on the street is not.

I'll try to put it a little more simply by citing a different example, environmentalism:
-Spiking a tree: terrorism.
-Chaining yourself to a tree: not terrorism.

One is an inherrently violent act, the other not, even if when you drag him away from the tree, he resists. Similarly, siezing land at the barrel of a gun is an inherrently violent act, even if you don't shoot the gun.

Also, the tangent you are on with Astronuc is a non-starter: there is no criteria for where there's been "enough" airing of the grievance through normal/legal channels and thereby illegal actions become warranted/acceptable.

 

[nsaspook]

If I see that overt threat of violence being used against noncombatants (the press, any civilian, etc...) I will be first to call them terrorists when they meet all the requirements:

“Domestic terrorism”

• 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.

18 U.S.C. Sec 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and…

• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including Sec 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and Sec 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

 

[russ_watters]

If I see that overt threat of violence being used against noncombatants (the press, any civilian, etc...) I will be first to call them terrorists when they meet all the requirements:

“Domestic terrorism”

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

The criterion say "or" a lot - they don't have to meet all the requirements (indeed, many are mutually exclusive), just certain sets. Indeed, it said: "or to retaliate against government conduct;", which is explicitly what this is.

Now, you bolded "noncombatants" and then "civilians", which are non-adjacent classes. I'm not sure if you recognize that a "combatant" is a fighting member of the military and a "non-combatant" is everyone else. But yes: taking up arms against government combatants wouldn't be terrorism, it would "just" be treason/insurgency/revolt. That's a fairly minor distinction that we sometimes have to make, particularly in the fights in the Middle East, but not really an important hair to split here.

 

[nsaspook]

Now, you bolded "noncombatants" and then "civilians", which are non-adjacent classes. I'm not sure if you recognize that a "combatant" is a fighting member of the military and a "non-combatant" is everyone else. But yes: taking up arms against government combatants wouldn't be terrorism, it would "just" be treason/insurgency/revolt. That's a fairly minor distinction that we sometimes have to make, particularly in the fights in the Middle East, but not really an important hair to split here.

I wish the reality of "combatant" today was that simple.

By non-combatant here I was thinking mainly about law enforcement like the sheriff while in his role as mediator. Charge the group with treason/insurgency/revolt if they do something really stupid in the future but so far it's a bit of stretch to even call it that.

 

[mheslep]

And why would they be?

I don't think either case qualifies as terrorism by the given definition (crime, violence, endangerment, coercion), but if you want to throw the term around Occupy is a closer fit. Firearms are not in the definition.

I'm really astonished this isn't clear/obvious: carrying a gun and saying you will use it to "defend" your occupation of a government installation is an overt threat of violence

Agreed, I've not said otherwise. They should call it off, give up, at least throw the guns out.

that building a tent or chaining yourself to a bollard on the street is not.

I'll try to put it a little more simply by citing a different example, environmentalism:
-Spiking a tree: terrorism.
-Chaining yourself to a tree: not terrorism.

Yes, but that is not an apt description of Occupy. Yes there was ample peaceful camping out in tents and discussion about how to change the world. Dont mistake that for an absence of riots, arson, and assaults on police officers which also occured. You are dismissing a great deal of violence as somehow irrelevant or smiley face no-victim, which much of it was not, as compared to the Refuge guys who have so far made vague threats and broke the law, but so far have hurt no one.

Also, the tangent you are on with Astronuc is a non-starter: there is no criteria for where there's been "enough" airing of the grievance through normal/legal channels and thereby illegal actions become warranted/acceptable.

You must certainly mean *violent* illegal actions are never warranted, especially on MLK day. Anyway, I didn't bring up the history of grievance to posit some sufficient limit, but to set the record straight on the several suggestions here that there had not been any legitimate grievance airing at all.

 

[mheslep]

If I see that overt threat of violence being used against noncombatants (the press, any civilian, etc...)

Your definition would make a simple non terror criminal of, for instance, the Ft Hood mass killer, Hasan.

 

[p1l0t]

Terrorism is a catch all phrase that allows the government to do whatever it wants with impunity anyway. So it won't be long before anyone who speaks out against is a "terrorist."

 

[jim hardy]

errorism is a catch all phrase that allows the government to do whatever it wants with impunity anyway. So it won't be long before anyone who speaks out against is a "terrorist."

people will have to learn about 42US1983 and 18USC242 .

 

[nsaspook]

Your definition would make a simple non terror criminal of, for instance, the Ft Hood mass killer, Hasan.

He was tried under the UCMJ. The Department of Defense classifies the case as one of workplace violence.

 

[StatGuy2000]

There have been town meetings held over the years on land issues involving the Hammonds, heavily attended, and the outcome ignored by the BLM per the congressional rep. There have been complaints made to their congressional representative going back to the 90s.

My reply to you is "so what?" I will simply quote russ on this: "there is no criteria for where there's been "enough" airing of the grievance through normal/legal channels and thereby illegal actions become warranted/acceptable."

 

[mheslep]

My reply to you is "so what?" ...

So stop suggesting there has not already been years of town meetings and traditional grievance airing:

think it would be sensible to have an extensive process of consultation (e.g. town hall meetings) to address the proposal

 

[StatGuy2000]

So stop suggesting there has not already been years of town meetings and traditional grievance airing:

mheslep, I did not suggest that there wasn't any consultation, only that as a general principle, if the federal government intends to make changes to laws that affect a large number of people, then consultation is generally advisable (although not required).

My point still stands: just because there have been town meetings and traditional grievance airing does not justify people taking up weapons and illegally taking control of property. As I've said before, people who do this are thugs and criminals (and quite possibly terrorists).

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sounds to me like you are sympathetic to these people and their actions.

 

[p1l0t]

If peaceful protest was effective it would probably be illegal. I'm not saying I agree with what they are doing or why, but it's a fair point.

 

[russ_watters]

I wish the reality of "combatant" today was that simple.

By non-combatant here I was thinking mainly about law enforcement like the sheriff while in his role as mediator.

For your specific query, it is simple: police are noncombatants, period.

Charge the group with treason/insurgency/revolt if they do something really stupid in the future but so far it's a bit of stretch to even call it that.

When this started I was happy with the initial hands off response, but now in my opinion it is too hands off. If this were an "Occupy" protest, they'd be dragged out by their collars. At the very least, they should not be allowed to come and go and resupply.

 

[russ_watters]

So stop suggesting there has not already been years of town meetings and traditional grievance airing:

Astronuc took your bait, but that does not validate the line of discussion. Astronaut did not say and I seriously doubt he believes they never took any of the normal/legal grievance paths. You pinned that on him and he bit.

 

[russ_watters]

He was tried under the UCMJ. The Department of Defense classifies the case as one of workplace violence.

The UCMJ is not equipped to deal with a terrorism charge, but Hassan was, in fact, on the FBI radar as a potential terrorist prior to the attack. There have been mixed messages on its classification since, but that's largely political. My understanding also is that civilian courts could attempt their own charges if they feel like it.

The attack was essentially the same as last year's San Bernardino shooting, which is being treated as terrorism. The only relevance the "workplace" holds in both cases is that the perpetrators chose targets and a battlefield they were familiar with.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The UCMJ is not equipped to deal with a terrorism charge, but Hassan was, in fact, on the FBI radar as a potential terrorist prior to the attack. There have been mixed messages on its classification since, but that's largely political. My understanding also is that civilian courts could attempt their own charges if they feel like it.

The attack was essentially the same as last year's San Bernardino shooting, which is being treated as terrorism. The only relevance the "workplace" holds in both cases is that the perpetrators chose targets and a battlefield they were familiar with.

It's worth keeping in mind that a particular criminal can (and no doubt quite often have) multiple motives when committing a particular criminal act. Yes, Hasan's act (along with the San Bernardino shooters) were considered acts of terrorism, but that doesn't mean that workplace issues didn't influence their actions.

For example, there were reports that Syed Farook (one of the San Bernardino shooters) did not get along with his co-workers at the city's Department of Public Health, and this may have played into his and his wife's choice of where to attack. After all, terrorists in general commit the acts they do to make a public political statement, often in a grand style in locations of either (a) of strong symbolic importance, (b) of military importance, or (c) in areas where a tremendous # of casualties can be achieved and be known widely. An outdoor picnic in San Bernardino doesn't seem to meet any of those criteria, which leads me to speculate that the shooters may have intended to carry out their act in a different location (e.g. somewhere in LA, including Hollywood) but decided to go after the co-workers instead because he was ticked off at them.

Perhaps a similar dynamic may have taken place with Hasan in choosing to attack the military base where he was employed (granted, this is all speculation on my part).