oregon "standoff"...

[HotCarl]

Unfortunately this topic has come up repeatedly for the past few days. Personally I prefer not to make any judgement calls until most of the facts have been revealed.

 

So 12-15 self-proclaimed militia men have taken over what amounts to a camping ground in the middle of no where and had they not contacted the press to tell them about it no one would have even known about it. They did all of this to protest the arrest of two ranchers for trying to burn their land (a common practice used by farmers but no mention if the ranchers were farmers or not) during a 'burn ban', a ban enacted due to the increase of wildfire activity in the last few months. And finally I have yet to hear any demands, goals, or even an end-game in which the militia has announced their objective to be. So.... what do they want? just to be on camera?

 

Now I'm not taking sides in this debate, if we can even call it that now, but this all seems a bit .... stupid. I understand they took over the structure because its considered a federal building. And I understand they're protesting the arrest and subsequent arson conviction of the two ranchers. And I also understand they are protesting what they consider an over-reach of federal authority, but whats the objective?

 

Can anyone fill in the blanks here?

[HotCarl]

Also, the whole narrative that these militia men are "terrorists".... really? Terrorists don't occupy buildings, they blow them up. In order for a terrorist to exist someone must be terrorized.... Geese and coyotes in the middle of Oregon don't count.

[Furloaf]

Haven't delved that deep into so only have a limited understanding. It seems a lot more complicated and is frankly more than I really care to read about, but anyway:

 

The family and the occupiers/militia/"terrorists" aren't really connected or working together. The family through their lawyer stated no affiliation.

 

History of the family, specifically a father and son, is that they did do a controlled burn years ago that the government charged was unauthorized, criminal and possibly covering up illegal poaching. Some or all of the land was federally owned. The father and son were convicted in court and each served approximately 2 years in jail and released. Fast-forward to current: a judge and/or BLM - Federal government - re-ruled that the burning actually constituted an act of terrorism which has a minimum 5-year imprisonment sentence and that they each need to go back to jail - the father and son seem willing to comply with this order. Anyway, the re-sentencing got the activists involved in protesting on behalf of the family and other land-rights issues and over-reaching or tyranny on behalf of the Federal government. Two of the leaders are sons of Cilven Bundy, a rancher who a few years ago was involved in another standoff with BLM over grazing rights.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Furloaf

[Geeto67]

Ryan, you must be too young to remember when "terrorists" used to hijack things like airplanes and busses, or lock themselves in their compounds under threat of force. Remember Ruby Ridge? David Koresh and the branch davidians? All considered terrorists at the time. The common factor is the threat of force meant to intimidate. However, where are you seeing this narrative that the Oregon militia are terrorists? Every credible news source I have read so far (nbc, cbs, cnn, wsj, nyt) has referred to them as protestors.

 

Jeremy, I think you are mischaracterizing something here. The way you have it stated it sounds like there may be an issue of double jeopardy which there isn't. When the two men were sentenced to two years by the trial court judge - it was an improper sentence because the charge they were convicted under carried a mandatory minimum of five years. The prosecution appealed and eventually won overturning the improper shortening of the sentence. It's not that the government changed its mind and now these guys have to serve more time, but they were supposed serve this time all along and the only reason they didn't is because of improper conduct on the part of the judge who sentenced them.

[Furloaf]

Jeremy, I think you are mischaracterizing something here.

 

True. I did take some time to read more about the actual case after posting.

 

Mis-characterizing as double-jeopardy might be a good part of the motivations of the protesters.

[LJ]

I think they are idiots and the .gov is saying "7 years worth of supplies huh? Prove it"

[turbospec29]

Government created distraction for all the hillbillies while Obama tries to take their guns.

[Aaron]

They're retarded, and should be removed from society.

[Lauren]

When the federal government fines them ~$1.4m and "settles" for $400k, but then states that any land sold to pay this fine that is adjacent to federal land must give the BLM the first opportunity to purchase, that's most definitely a fucking land grab.

[Dr. Apex]

Also, the whole narrative that these militia men are "terrorists".... really? Terrorists don't occupy buildings, they blow them up. In order for a terrorist to exist someone must be terrorized.... Geese and coyotes in the middle of Oregon don't count.

 

The media is using this label, not the government. The government defines people like this as "Insurrectionists".

[10phone2]

well on a positive side, atleast we have a strong president that won't cry when faced with challenges...

[Rustlestiltskin]

well on a positive side, atleast we have a strong president that won't cry when faced with challenges...

 

Not supporting Obama in any way but

 

I'd tear up too if I was making a speech to America talking about children getting gunned down when I myself have 3 children myself. It's sad and breaks my heart thinking that people are losing their lil guys/girls to senseless violence like that.

[dsm_sleeper]

I'd tear up too if I was making a speech to America talking about children getting gunned down when I myself have 3 children myself. It's sad and breaks my heart thinking that people are losing their lil guys/girls to senseless violence like that...

 

...and knowing that the measures proposed are either ineffective or unrealistic or both.

[Hwilli1647545487]

Ryan, you must be too young to remember when "terrorists" used to hijack things like airplanes and busses, or lock themselves in their compounds under threat of force. Remember Ruby Ridge? David Koresh and the branch davidians? All considered terrorists at the time. The common factor is the threat of force meant to intimidate. However, where are you seeing this narrative that the Oregon militia are terrorists? Every credible news source I have read so far (nbc, cbs, cnn, wsj, nyt) has referred to them as protestors.

 

 

I don't think either Ruby Ridge or Waco could be correctly categorized as terrorist events. I also don't recall ever seeing either labeled as such. Sadly that label is thrown around willy nilly these days, very similar to "communist" in the 60s.

 

I've been somewhat following these events, and am starting to get a better understanding of the situation. If I get time today I'll post some more.

[Rustlestiltskin]

...and knowing that the measures proposed are either ineffective or unrealistic or both.

 

I was only responding to him crying and nothing more Joe. Don't get it twisted

[Geeto67]

I don't think either Ruby Ridge or Waco could be correctly categorized as terrorist events. I also don't recall ever seeing either labeled as such. Sadly that label is thrown around willy nilly these days, very similar to "communist" in the 60s.

 

Depends on how far back you go in the timeline. David Koresh's assault on the Church to take it over initially was considered one, esp when Geroge Roden was shot evicted during that event. Eventually they were cleared of that incident at trial due to mistrial. I don't think the ATF/FBI Siege on the Waco compound by itself can be considered a "terrorist act". Remember the reason the government wanted in was allegations of forced servitude, statutory rape, polygamy, etc...and they just weren't co-operating, there was no outward imminent threat of force until the government showed up.

 

However, when you discuss domestic terrorism in this country Waco always comes up as an inspirational act and as a criticism of handling of a standoff situation by the government. Tim McVeigh cited Waco as a primary motivator for the OKC bombing and everything from columbine to the Boston marathon bombings have been linked, even if the link is coincidental or tenuous.

 

These definitions are fluid, there is no list of check boxes one can just go down marking off things and at the end the score makes you a terrorist or not. Motivation is important and is it the group's motivation to scare the populace through the threat of violence? Hard to say in the oregon case and I don't really see it either yet - but it may come to that if they try to "defend" themselves. Something to consider in the oregon situation you can't really commit an illegal act and then claim use of force as self defense when they try to arrest you, that is an open and direct threat to the government that they will use force. I mean, imagine if bank robbers took over your local branch and said "we don't want to harm anyone but we will defend ourselves if you don't let us get away with it" - would you think that is still a self defense claim?

 

I am just not a believer that a terrorist's actions only involve blowing something up as previously stated. I agree there needs to be a use or at least imminent threat of force to bring us closer to that classification and we may not have that here...yet.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Geeto67

[El Karacho1647545492]

An armed occupation of a federal building by anyone other than white men would be dealt with quite differently.

[LJ]

An armed occupation of a federal building by anyone other than white men would be dealt with quite differently.

 

http://www.bigdork.org/images/03/images/megarolleyes-original.gif

[El Karacho1647545492]

http://www.bigdork.org/images/03/images/megarolleyes-original.gif

 

You think if they were all wearing turbans this would be playing out the same?

[LJ]

You think if they were all wearing turbans this would be playing out the same?

 

If it was the exact same scenario and the color of their skin was different? Yes. I understand what the government is doing. They are basically starving them out and not letting it escalate, at all. You bet your ass there are a ton of agents just waiting for any of them to run to get supplies or something.

[iwashmycar]

I dont care if they are burning flags and turbin'ing it up out there. These guys are out in BFE having a circle jerk. The government isnt going to go out there and escalate it.

 

Right now all theyve got is the media to try and keep poking us in the back of the head...hey...hey...hey...we're still here. Soon enough I think these whiny babies are going to have to walk on home...tired and hungry.

[HotCarl]

Great responses so far but no one has attempted to answer this... what's the end game? What exactly are they trying to accomplish?

 

The "militia" (for lack of a better term) has said repeatedly they are there to stay and are prepared to stay long term. great. who really cares?

 

I dont care if they are burning flags and turbin'ing it up out there. These guys are out in BFE having a circle jerk. The government isnt going to go out there and escalate it.

 

I really hope you're right. But the government doesn't like to be told what to do or coerced in any way.

[HotCarl]

Ryan, you must be too young to remember when "terrorists" used to hijack things like airplanes and busses, or lock themselves in their compounds under threat of force. Remember Ruby Ridge? David Koresh and the branch davidians? All considered terrorists at the time. The common factor is the threat of force meant to intimidate. However, where are you seeing this narrative that the Oregon militia are terrorists? Every credible news source I have read so far (nbc, cbs, cnn, wsj, nyt) has referred to them as protestors.

 

Jeremy, I think you are mischaracterizing something here. The way you have it stated it sounds like there may be an issue of double jeopardy which there isn't. When the two men were sentenced to two years by the trial court judge - it was an improper sentence because the charge they were convicted under carried a mandatory minimum of five years. The prosecution appealed and eventually won overturning the improper shortening of the sentence. It's not that the government changed its mind and now these guys have to serve more time, but they were supposed serve this time all along and the only reason they didn't is because of improper conduct on the part of the judge who sentenced them.

 

Ha I should be flattered someone actually assume's I'm "too young" to remember something. I see your point that an occupation can be just as detrimental as an act of violence.

 

As for where I'm seeing the terrorist narrative it's mostly from far left leaning folks who read half an article on huff post and runs with it. I get the feeling that most people, even hard right leaning folks, don't approve of this at all.

[greg1647545532]

Great responses so far but no one has attempted to answer this... what's the end game? What exactly are they trying to accomplish?

 

The "militia" (for lack of a better term) has said repeatedly they are there to stay and are prepared to stay long term. great. who really cares?

 

Their end goal is that they want all federally owned land turned over to private citizens.

 

Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners.

 

No mention of how any of that would work, or how much land they want turned over. Their general schtick is that they don't believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to own land.

[greg1647545532]

Also, the whole narrative that these militia men are "terrorists".... really? Terrorists don't occupy buildings, they blow them up. In order for a terrorist to exist someone must be terrorized.... Geese and coyotes in the middle of Oregon don't count.

 

The media is not calling them terrorists. They've been generally calling them protesters, but are settling in on the word "militants." Lest you think that this is something they pulled out of their asses, the Oregonian discusses what goes into choosing a label like this (they don't choose it lightly).

 

The dictionary defines "militia" as this: "a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers." There is no indication that members of the group at the Malheur refuge are trained like soldiers. A fuller definition is: "a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency; b: a body of citizens organized for military service."

 

Those definitions, from Merriam-Webster, do not seem to fit. However, editors recognize that language is a living thing and dictionary definitions do not always fully capture the cultural and contextual meaning words take on.

 

But at the end of the day, to us, "militant" seems more accurate than "militiaman." Militant is defined as "having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something."

 

That said, there are a lot of people, mostly liberals, who want the media to call them terrorists, but that's not because they actually think they're terrorists. It's just that if they were Muslim and the media was calling them protesters, guess who'd be falling all over themselves to call them terrorists? I think liberals think they're pointing out hypocrisy, but it just makes them look dumb. I'm not usually a big fan of "But both sides do it!" arguments, but in this case, the shoe fits. Both sides get absolutely moronic when it comes to these little things that don't really matter.

 

When the federal government fines them ~$1.4m and "settles" for $400k' date=' but then states that any land sold to pay this fine that is adjacent to federal land must give the BLM the first opportunity to purchase, that's most definitely a fucking land grab.[/quote']

 

Do you have a cite for this? Ammon Bundy has said that the harsh 5-year prison sentence for the Hammonds was retaliation for them refusing to sell their land for the government, but other than that (clearly unreliable) source, I can't find any information from independent news sources that this is true.

 

The Hammonds seem a little wackadoo, and the case against them seems pretty strong (the son of the younger Hammond testified against them), but using a terrorism arson law to convict regular arsonists rubs me the wrong way. That said, they've already turned themselves in and don't seem interested in attaching themselves to this "protest."

 

Government created distraction for all the hillbillies while Obama tries to take their guns.

 

Shame the giant eye roll smiley has already been wasted in this thread.