Showdown in Oregon

What happened to resolve the Cliven Bundy standoff? People just got sick of hearing about it and it stopped? I honestly don't know.

This is a little different because they're kind of more like squatters, not random animals grazing on government property.

I don't think this is big enough to set the tone for Obama's final year in office, but I guess we'll see if other "don't infringe on my rights" people join up.
 
"Nothing like having a suave, well-educated black president to provoke and reveal America's deep-rooted bigotry. Welcome to 1950."
Ellen Sweet (who forwarded this along on Face Book, to the glee of thousands)



What's Happening in Oregon Is Nothing Less Than Armed Sedition
Its roots in our politics are deep and tangled.
www.esquire.com|By Charles P. Pierce

Well, that didn't take long. Is everything from here out going to be a racial issue?
Just wondering, as I don't think we had a suave, well-educated black president in office during the 60s, when student protesters took over campus buildings.
This is the type of stuff that makes middle American's angry. Quit making every single thing about race.
 
I haven't been following this, is it about gun control or the old Federal lands issue, or what exactly? Does anyone have a succinct rationale for the protester side of this other than general anti-Federal action?
 
Ranchers face prison time for burning off federal grazing lands. Was a management practice they used on adjoining ranch and say the burning of federal range lands was accidental. Protestors think ranchers don't deserve prison for using/managing federal lands for their personal economic benefit. Son of Cliven Bundy, Arizona Rancher who has refused to pay millions in grazing fees, among the leaders.
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that the ranchers who have been convicted of arson want nothing to do with Bundy Jr. and his armed militia. According to the acting US Attorney, this father and son burned 130 acres of public land to cover up poaching.

I find it ironic that Bundy and cohorts claim they are trying to reclaim public land from the federal government on behalf of all citizens. I assume "citizens" includes you and me but most importantly the citizens of Oregon. Personally, I'm comforted that someone is watching out for the public lands and prosecuting the selfish who chose to use it for their own purposes. The Federal and State government has that role not some crazy group of yahoos.

Incidentally, I have no problem with their marching or peaceful protests. Heck, I could accept even the occupation (ala Occupy Wall Street). The fact that they are carrying guns in this protest makes them domestic terrorists, IMHO. At this point they've gone beyond protecting themselves into threatening law enforcement. That's a significant line to cross and one that should be considered terrorism.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame many americans, of all races, beliefs, etc., recently seem so adverse to their right of peaceful protest that has worked so successfully in this country for the past 200 or so years. These yahoos in oregon, the rioters over police violence, recent terrorist attacks from islamist extremists, anti-abortion extremists and both white and black racial extremists... What has gone wrong that such a diversity of different groups of americans feel the best way to respond to government failures (real or perceived) is violence instead of peaceful protest?
 
I'm not that familiar with Texas history but if it's anything like the Bundy clan then I'm not sure if I'd look on it favorably. The 2 ranchers that were convicted have now turned themselves in.

Update: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/04/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-what-bundy-wants/index.html

BTW- This is a battle over a federal wildlife refuge.

A little more detail regarding the evidence that led to the conviction of these 2 ranchers:

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a statement Monday: "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," it said.

"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 Bureau of Land Management 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.' "

Federal law mandates that the offense carry no less than a five-year sentence. The first federal judge to oversee the case thought the sentence was too harsh and gave them two years which they served. In October 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that they had to serve the mandatory minimum.
Click to expand...
 
yahoos like this were successful in Texas in 1835-6.
Click to expand...

Texas did have its fair share of Philip Nolans. However, Texas also had its Sam Houstons, Stephen F. Austins, Albert Sydney Johnstons, Lorenzo de Zavalas, etc. I do not see those statesmen in this Oregon group.

On a lighter note, have we considered that some oregon ducks have just taken their alamo bowl loss a little too hard?
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
At this point they've gone beyond protecting themselves into threatening law enforcement. That's a significant line to cross and one that should be considered terrorism.
Click to expand...

According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is defined as follows:

Domestic terrorism means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The fact that they are carrying firearms does not in any way meet this definition. Only the third bullet point (no pun intended) is met.
 
So SN, if they are not using the weapons for intimidate or coerce, why didn't they leave their guns at home. Just carried 'em along so they could clean them when they got bored?
 
re texas history; in the initial stages the cooler heads were cooler but there were the Travis and Wharton types
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is defined as follows:

Domestic terrorism means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The fact that they are carrying firearms does not in any way meet this definition. Only the third bullet point (no pun intended) is met.
Click to expand...

OK. Let's break this down.

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Click to expand...

They are certainly violating federal and state law whether trespassing or breaking and entering. Are they involved in dangerous acts to human life? I suspect they would if a law enforcement agent walked in and asked them to leave.

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
Click to expand...

They aren't trying to "influence a policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"? They have guns and have said they'll use them to "defend" themselves from anyone stopping them from their illegal act. They have demands that the government give up federally owned land. That's a giant green check for #2.

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Click to expand...

Check.

What the Oregon group is doing is the very definition of domestic terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Not even close.

What the "protesters" in Missouri did was domestic terrorism. They destroyed property, intimidated, threatened and harmed both civilian and government workers, and they attempted to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction.

These guys have not threatened anybody, they have not destroyed or damaged anything, and they most certainly have not harmed anybody. Not terrorists.

These guys are occupying an empty building and are using the occupation to publicize their grievances against the government. They are far closer to the Occupy Wall Street scumbags than they are to terrorists.
Seattle Husker said:
They are certainly violating federal and state law whether trespassing or breaking and entering. Are they involved in dangerous acts to human life? I suspect they would if a law enforcement agent walked in and asked them to leave.
Click to expand...
What you "suspect they would" do doesn't matter one tiny bit. People are not guilty of committing a crime because of a behavior you "suspect" may happen under a particular circumstance in the future, and they should not be labeled as terrorists because of your suspicions. Just as the San Bernardino terrorists were not labelled terrorists until the act of terrorism occurred, neither should these people be so labelled.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Not even close.

...

These guys have not threatened anybody, they have not destroyed or damaged anything, and they most certainly have not harmed anybody. Not terrorists.
Click to expand...

If I go live in your garage with an exposed gun and say "it's for my own protection" are you saying that's intimidation? What would qualify as intimidation then? Black skin based on the Missouri comment?

These guys are occupying an empty building and are using the occupation to publicize their grievances against the government. They are far closer to the Occupy Wall Street scumbags than they are to terrorists.
Click to expand...

It's a federal building in a wildlife reserve that they stand perched at the door with guns. They aren't camped out in the middle of a public square. The corollary you are drawing is beyond laughable. Put down the guns, pitch your tents, THEN you have an analogous situation.

What you "suspect they would" do doesn't matter one tiny bit. People are not guilty of committing a crime because of a behavior you "suspect" may happen under a particular circumstance in the future, and they should not be labeled as terrorists because of your suspicions. Just as the San Bernardino terrorists were not labelled terrorists until the act of terrorism occurred, neither should these people be so labelled.
Click to expand...

I'm using the rules you posted for the definition of domestic terrorism. Based on those it certainly qualified. Why do you think law enforcement hasn't already gone up to the building and asked them to leave? Could it be that they are intimidated enough to not want to take the chance to provoke a fire fight?
 
Musburger1 said:
Another perspective; paints a different picture.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/03/the-war-against-the-cowboys/
Click to expand...

That story doesn't remotely match the evidence of the case in which the Hammonds were convicted in which a family member and a family friend testified against the father/son. According to the 2 eye witnesses the Hammonds had illegally poached several deer on the federal lands and directed party to "light it up" and passed out matches to cover their misdeeds. This is according to the acting Federal Prosecutor.

None of the case information of which the Hammonds were convicted is in that article.

Does the Federal Government control a lot of land in the West? Absolutely. The vast majority of this control was garnered through the peace treaties negotiated with the Native Americans centuries ago. Only in recent decades has the BLM taken a more active role in enforcing the Feds rights on the land through grazing/mineral rights and yes, restricting usage due to environmental concerns. Until this point, ranchers profited off the land like it was their own. Keep in mind, this would be like farming your neighbors farming land then complaining when he asks for compensation or simply disregarding a request for you to stop.

This land belongs to everyone. Effective management of this land benefits the taxpayer (more tax revenue), environmentalists (nature lovers) and preserves space and resources for our grandchildren.

It should also be noted that by all appearance this merry band of armed protesters has little support in Oregon. They've taken occupancy in a nature reserve in a state that may be more environmentalist friendly than any other state in the union.
 
I don't think the issue is whether anyone thinks that these guys are justified or that their methods make sense or that they're even speaking for anyone other than themselves. The issue is trying to call them "terrorists" and conflating them with people who are actively trying to kill civilians and damage property.

Their claim is that they're defending themselves but not trying to hurt or threaten anyone. I suspect they don't actually want to get into a gunfight, but they know perfectly well that the government is not going to storm in with weapons and attack them if they're armed. Bad, bad optics involved there. If they were unarmed, they'd be dispatched quickly and that would be the end of it.

Arming themselves allowed this to become a story (sort of). Again... I'm not agreeing with their stance or saying it's a great idea to take a bunch of armed people and take over a building. I'm just saying that their motives don't match with what we would consider terrorists or what is outlined above.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I don't think the issue is whether anyone thinks that these guys are justified or that their methods make sense or that they're even speaking for anyone other than themselves. The issue is trying to call them "terrorists" and conflating them with people who are actively trying to kill civilians and damage property.

Their claim is that they're defending themselves but not trying to hurt or threaten anyone. I suspect they don't actually want to get into a gunfight, but they know perfectly well that the government is not going to storm in with weapons and attack them if they're armed. Bad, bad optics involved there. If they were unarmed, they'd be dispatched quickly and that would be the end of it.

Arming themselves allowed this to become a story (sort of). Again... I'm not agreeing with their stance or saying it's a great idea to take a bunch of armed people and take over a building. I'm just saying that their motives don't match with what we would consider terrorists or what is outlined above.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that their motives don't match with Islamic terrorists but does that mean that what they are doing isn't terrorism? Based on the definition that SN posted above I'd say they are practicing in terrorism. I wouldn't say that if they weren't armed. That fact and their public statements clearly say they are willing to die for their cause all point to an intimidation tactic being used to change government policies.

I would differ that the Oregon group doesn't want an armed confrontation. I think that's exactly what they want and why law enforcement is working so hard to ensure they don't achieve that goal. Everything this group has done speaks to an attempt to escalate the situation, not deescalate. I would agree that they ultimately desire media attention to their cause too.

There are a lot of similarities in strategy between this group and ISIS. Take hold/land via armed force, leverage media to publicize the issue, try to provoke a confrontation with the "enemy" to enlist more people to their cause. Yes, they are missing the religious doctrine and beheadings but on a minor scale they've enlisted the strategy of what I suspect would be a group they universally loathe.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I would differ that the Oregon group doesn't want an armed confrontation.
Click to expand...

To clarify, there's a difference between a gunfight and armed confrontation. I think they'd definitely love to see the ATF show up with SWAT units and assault weapons. I'm just saying, I don't think they're interested in actually exchanging gunfire.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
To clarify, there's a difference between a gunfight and armed confrontation. I think they'd definitely love to see the ATF show up with SWAT units and assault weapons. I'm just saying, I don't think they're interested in actually exchanging gunfire.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Doesn't that still meet the definition of "Domestic Terrorism" as posted by Sangre above?

Reposting it here:
According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is defined as follows:

Domestic terrorism means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
At the risk of repeating something that may have been said earlier (I didn't read all the responses on this thread, but I know some have talked about how this is interpreted):
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; - So what does that mean? You could argue that a person who accidentally forgets to leave their handgun at home when they go to the airport fits that if you wanted to. I would argue that it's not inherently dangerous to human life to be armed in a public location. It gets to intent - at what point does holding a gun become dangerous? Applying this statement to gun possession forces you to assume intent, which is one reason that I don't think this action should be considered terroristic - this statute wasn't written in language that fits what's going on here. Call it illegal if you like, but not terroristic.
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (clearly not the case here) (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; Again, who determines intent and the definition of intimidation? If they're hoping to get the feds to show up with a bunch of guns so they can prove a point and generate support, is that really intimidation? I'd say that's more manipulation, which right or wrong, isn't terroristic. If there is no threat or attempt to harm anyone, that seems to me to fly in the face of what's listed here, unless you again assume motive and decide that they are hoping to get into a firefight with the feds. I'm not saying what they're doing is a good idea, is right, or even legal. I'm just saying it doesn't fit this definition. or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; - None of these have been threatened by any definition.
 
If the intent wasn't to intimidate then why did they bring the guns? This notion that the presence of a gun isn't inherently intimidating flies in the face of all logic. When coupled with public statements and videos claiming a willingness to die for the causes and surely you can understand the absurdity that any statement that the Oregon crew wasn't attempting to intimidate is on shaky logic.
 
There's a dead black kid in Cleveland with a bb gun that was so intimidating officers gave him less than a second to disarm before blasting him to kingdom come.
 
Crockett said:
There's a dead black kid in Cleveland with a bb gun that was so intimidating officers gave him less than a second to disarm before blasting him to kingdom come.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point, although it has nothing to do with this discussion. Your point seems to be that the kid had something that the cops considered threatening, which was in fact no threat at all. Do you think that portion of the definition of terrorism applied to him? By your logic it should, because it was a perceived threat.

Regardless, the rule above isn't an "either-or". It has to meet all three. It does not.

Look, I'm just making the argument that MAYBE, just MAYBE, these people shouldn't be thrown into the same pot as groups who are actively plotting to kill civilians. You know... the ones that the Obama administration is on record as approving lethal and pre-emptive drone strikes against. Do you think we should go send a black ops squad to take these guys out? Why not do it for all the "militia" people, since they likely fit the same broad-stroke definition that you're trying to apply to these guys.
 
The point as I took it ProdigalHorn is that regardless of the whether the bb gun is a threat or not it is perceived as a threat thus it doesn't matter what the person carrying does with it. It's the potential for harming others that is the root of the threat or intimidation. It's the same potential that is created when a protester picks up a rock or holds a moltoff cocktail in their hand.

Again, I don't think anyone is drawing a clear correlation with Islamic terrorists but the intent to coerce or intimidate government into action is there. I do think you're missing the 3 triggers though.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Click to expand...


It's those 3 bulletpoints. The second bulletpoint is triggered by "ii". Notice the or between "ii" and "iii". Any of the 3 clauses in the 2nd bullet need to be satisfied to check that characteristic.
 
These people are breaking the law, no question. But that doesn't make them terrorists. The Colonists back in the 1770s broke laws too. They felt they were oppressed, and therefore they broke laws which they believed to be oppressive and unfair. And they were armed as much as possible. Did that make them terrorists? Perhaps in the eyes of the King it did.

The difference is that a substantial amount of the public backed the rebellious Colonists whereas a very small percentage of the population supports the actions of these ranchers. Even if they have a just cause, the timing is poor and whatever their cause, it doesn't resonate with the public, therefore there isn't sufficient momentum for success.

If the stock market were to decline dramatically, millions of people lost there jobs and homes, and especially if another public bailout, tax increases, etc. were implemented to save the system at the expense of the public, such actions might very well be viewed differently. A whole lot of people that now wholly agree with Seattle's characterization of these people as domestic terrorists that must be punished would be quite different. Perhaps they would be even seen as patriotic rebels. Timing is everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top