OR - Militia members occupy federal building in Oregon after protest #1

[bluesneakers]

me too and go back and forth get out

or just leave em alone they will go away

or are we feeding into what they want like the controversy over do we cover mass killers too much

and in this day andd age 24/7 CNN needs to fill lots of air- the attn any story gets in, a pretty big way determines what is or is not the big story of the news cycle

in the old days meaninful stories and events got covered without being influenced by what may happen in the enxt 6 minutes

Non-stories become stories because something's gotta feed that machine.

 

[CARIIS]

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
noun: anarchy

• a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
  "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
  
  
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]antonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]government, order[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  
  • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
    
    
  
  
  
  

Origin

 

[CARIIS]

You don't believe a then 13 year old boy's account of the story? The boy was practically burned up in the blaze he was told to light. Then told to keep his mouth shut, which he did for years. We often read stories here on W.S. were people don't believe the injustices done to children. I can't think of one thing this kid, now man had to gain by talking. As for me, I believe him.

This is JMO using the information from the trial.

I believe the "match"story as well It is so obserd its one of those so dumb it got to have happened.

Talk about role modeling- go commit a felony son- its fine. There are some family boundaries here !!

 

[CARIIS]

I think it's pretty clear. Whatever dispute they had with the BLM doesn't give them a free pass to break the law.

and as this proceeds we are forgetting the intial stance they took. Their statement was we have guns and will
use them if WE think we ought to.

If someone said that to any of us in any context , i think we have transcended a "protest)

some signs and a catchy poster here or there is one thing, tellin authopties you will shoot them if one feels LE is being to "whatever" boom

not ok or acceptable imo

 

[CARIIS]

I'm calling them militia men (which I think is what they call themselves) because while I think they're using terrorism or terroristic tactics I'm unsure where a person crosses the line to BEING a terrorist. Maybe when they actually use violence.
JM2C

Miltia:
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

 

[SophieRose]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399-Statement-USattorney.html

Five years ago, a federal grand jury charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with committing arson on public lands, and endangering firefighters. The charges came after the
Hammonds rejected an offer to settle the case by pleading guilty to lesser charges and sentences.

 

[tlcya]

"We had a nice peaceful rally, which is exactly what I promised the community of Burns," rally organizer BJ Soper tells As It Happens guest host Helen Mann. "I was upset. I'd worked a really long time out in the community trying to build their trust."

[...]

"As the rally came to a conclusion, back at the starting point, Ammon [Bundy] jumped up on a snow bank and announced what the plan was and that's when all the chaos kind of broke loose," Soper explains.

"It was really devastating to me because I felt that it was the wrong action to take at that time."

http://www.gconew.com/us/24582/oregon-activist-says-militia-group-hijacked-his-peaceful-protest.html

 

[ILOKAL]

Miltia:
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Does it say anything about militia and guns?

 

[CARIIS]

So now being afraid of someone not because of what they have done but because what you IMAGINE they might do makes them a terrorist?

What makes them terrorists are the laws which outline what is domestic terrorisim :


The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life (check) that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States (check) or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate (check) or coerce (check)a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government (check)by intimidation (check)or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government (check)by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction(check) of the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States..

 

[CARIIS]

Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware. Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign or domestic

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence.

https://www.aclu.org/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

 

[CARIIS]

On there webpage

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is aware that 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 safety, and 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

 

[CARIIS]

goggle imeages

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't really know how I feel about this protest. It is true not only in today's climate but for decades the federal government is not for the people but has become a powerhouse which will steamroll right over the little man/woman. We have learned over the decades what they are capable of doing. Today most seem more distrustful of the federal government than ever before in my lifetime anyway.

I don't begrudge them taking a stand and doing a peaceful protest though. At least there hasn't been any violence like we have seen non-stop it seems in other protests in the last 2-3 years. None of them are burning down the building, throwing rocks/bricks/urine at anyone or threatening to kill anyone. Since the many protests which turned violent were allowed to happen, and even encouraged by some city officials, imo, these people also have a right to protest, and they are doing it without any violence.

Even though the protestors showed up with their firearms I never believed anyone of them planned to use them against anyone other than to defend themselves should the need arise if they were first fired upon and with the federal government that certainly is a good possibility. Many people still remember Ruby Ridge and Waco and how the FBI botched both and how that turned out.

I saw a map this morning showing the land owned by the federal government in this area and it was mind boggling how much land they own. Have they always owned this much land in Oregon or have they slowly taken over more and more land from ranchers?

So if the Hammonds had only burned off their own land they wouldn't have been charged? Every farmer in our area each year burns the brush and weeds on their open land. It actually makes the soil even richer and it destroys a lot of the insects (pest) that can reek havoc on farm land or cattle farms. Sometimes the fire will pick up because of the winds and burn over onto another's property but these farmers aren't ever charged with arson because LE knew they didn't burn the other land purposefully. Burning land doesn't destroy the land anyway. It seems arson would be used by someone trying to destroy something that would be damage by the fire. Fire burn offs like these men did does not destroy the earth. In fact it is recommended that brush fires be set each year in different areas/pastures or whatever. It will make the grass much more plentiful/greener for pasture grazing in the spring when they are let out to eat.

As far as the sentence the two men were given I can see why a lot of Judges hate the mandatory minimum rule. It leaves them no options in sentencing based on each individual cases. While the Judge was overruled and they were given more prison time I have never heard of that happening anywhere before. And labeling these ranchers terrorists is ridiculous, imo.

The federal government needs to spend more time on hunting down real terrorists because during this administration they have done a piss poor job of doing so. In every hearing I see before congress no matter what federal agency it is their standard answer to most questions asked is "I don't know' when it comes to protecting us from real terrorists both homegrown and those who have been able to come here illegally and stay.

So as long as they remain peaceful I don't have any problem with them voicing their displeasure about what they think the feds are doing to ranchers. They seem very low key to me and said they would leave if the citizens didn't want them there. That certainly hasn't been said by other protestors in other protests held in the past two years or so.

In fact due to the toxic climate we are enduring now in our country it wouldn't surprise me if we see more protests against the federal government. I still don't understand why they own so much land in so many states. I can understand national parks, etc. but to gobble up over half the state in some states seems totally unreasonable to me.

 

[Elley Mae]

I don't really know how I feel about this protest. It is true not only in today's climate but for decades the federal government is not for the people but has become a powerhouse which will steamroll right over the little man/woman. We have learned over the decades what they are capable of doing. Today most seem more distrustful of the federal government than ever before in my lifetime anyway.

I don't begrudge them taking a stand and doing a peaceful protest though. At least there hasn't been any violence like we have seen non-stop it seems in other protests in the last 2-3 years. None of them are burning down the building, throwing rocks/bricks/urine at anyone or threatening to kill anyone. Since the many protests which turned violent were allowed to happen, and even encouraged by some city officials, imo, these people also have a right to protest, and they are doing it without any violence.

Even though the protestors showed up with their firearms I never believed anyone of them planned to use them against anyone other than to defend themselves should the need arise if they were first fired upon and with the federal government that certainly is a good possibility. Many people still remember Ruby Ridge and Waco and how the FBI botched both and how that turned out.

I saw a map this morning showing the land owned by the federal government in this area and it was mind boggling how much land they own. Have they always owned this much land in Oregon or have they slowly taken over more and more land from ranchers?

So if the Hammonds had only burned off their own land they wouldn't have been charged? Every farmer in our area each year burns the brush and weeds on their open land. It actually makes the soil even richer and it destroys a lot of the insects (pest) that can reek havoc on farm land or cattle farms. Sometimes the fire will pick up because of the winds and burn over onto another's property but these farmers aren't ever charged with arson because LE knew they didn't burn the other land purposefully. Burning land doesn't destroy the land anyway. It seems arson would be used by someone trying to destroy something that would be damage by the fire. Fire burn offs like these men did does not destroy the earth. In fact it is recommended that brush fires be set each year in different areas/pastures or whatever. It will make the grass much more plentiful/greener for pasture grazing in the spring when they are let out to eat.

As far as the sentence the two men were given I can see why a lot of Judges hate the mandatory minimum rule. It leaves them no options in sentencing based on each individual cases. While the Judge was overruled and they were given more prison time I have never heard of that happening anywhere before. And labeling these ranchers terrorists is ridiculous, imo.

The federal government needs to spend more time on hunting down real terrorists because during this administration they have done a piss poor job of doing so. In every hearing I see before congress no matter what federal agency it is their standard answer to most questions asked is "I don't know' when it comes to protecting us from real terrorists both homegrown and those who have been able to come here illegally and stay.

So as long as they remain peaceful I don't have any problem with them voicing their displeasure about what they think the feds are doing to ranchers. They seem very low key to me and said they would leave if the citizens didn't want them there. That certainly hasn't been said by other protestors in other protests held in the past two years or so.

In fact due to the toxic climate we are enduring now in our country it wouldn't surprise me if we see more protests against the federal government. I still don't understand why they own so much land in so many states. I can understand national parks, etc. but to gobble up over half the state in some states seems totally unreasonable to me.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

 

[CARIIS]

So as long as they remain peaceful I don't have any problem with them voicing their displeasure. Me either outside of the buildings, and without the procllaimation at the beginning that we will shoot anyone who tries to remove us from the building we broke into illigally.

If a group againist "retail in AMerica" broke into a shopping mall and took over and clearly declared they would shoot any entity who tried to remove them the property they broke in to - would we have any discussion about the "right" of LE to respond.

If someone did the same thing in your living space would the country possibly get into an uproar (or would be upset?) if LE got your residence back?

Leave the building and protest all you want - its the AMerican way!

What is ISIS doing? Occupying areas that are not there with use of force and guns....

Do I think the intial fire jazz is terrorism, no, water under the bridge however.

These folks however, expecting they system not to respond to a judge making an illigal sentence, in some ways makes sense (not really in terms of the serious stuff going on right now) but in terms of the "system".

Why is the judge not be addressed for breaking sentencing guidelines??

I don't really know how I feel about this protest. It is true not only in today's climate but for decades the federal government is not for the people but has become a powerhouse which will steamroll right over the little man/woman. We have learned over the decades what they are capable of doing. Today most seem more distrustful of the federal government than ever before in my lifetime anyway.

I don't begrudge them taking a stand and doing a peaceful protest though. At least there hasn't been any violence like we have seen non-stop it seems in other protests in the last 2-3 years. None of them are burning down the building, throwing rocks/bricks/urine at anyone or threatening to kill anyone. Since the many protests which turned violent were allowed to happen, and even encouraged by some city officials, imo, these people also have a right to protest, and they are doing it without any violence.

Even though the protestors showed up with their firearms I never believed anyone of them planned to use them against anyone other than to defend themselves should the need arise if they were first fired upon and with the federal government that certainly is a good possibility. Many people still remember Ruby Ridge and Waco and how the FBI botched both and how that turned out.

I saw a map this morning showing the land owned by the federal government in this area and it was mind boggling how much land they own. Have they always owned this much land in Oregon or have they slowly taken over more and more land from ranchers?

So if the Hammonds had only burned off their own land they wouldn't have been charged? Every farmer in our area each year burns the brush and weeds on their open land. It actually makes the soil even richer and it destroys a lot of the insects (pest) that can reek havoc on farm land or cattle farms. Sometimes the fire will pick up because of the winds and burn over onto another's property but these farmers aren't ever charged with arson because LE knew they didn't burn the other land purposefully. Burning land doesn't destroy the land anyway. It seems arson would be used by someone trying to destroy something that would be damage by the fire. Fire burn offs like these men did does not destroy the earth. In fact it is recommended that brush fires be set each year in different areas/pastures or whatever. It will make the grass much more plentiful/greener for pasture grazing in the spring when they are let out to eat.

As far as the sentence the two men were given I can see why a lot of Judges hate the mandatory minimum rule. It leaves them no options in sentencing based on each individual cases. While the Judge was overruled and they were given more prison time I have never heard of that happening anywhere before. And labeling these ranchers terrorists is ridiculous, imo.

The federal government needs to spend more time on hunting down real terrorists because during this administration they have done a piss poor job of doing so. In every hearing I see before congress no matter what federal agency it is their standard answer to most questions asked is "I don't know' when it comes to protecting us from real terrorists both homegrown and those who have been able to come here illegally and stay.

So as long as they remain peaceful I don't have any problem with them voicing their displeasure about what they think the feds are doing to ranchers. They seem very low key to me and said they would leave if the citizens didn't want them there. That certainly hasn't been said by other protestors in other protests held in the past two years or so.

In fact due to the toxic climate we are enduring now in our country it wouldn't surprise me if we see more protests against the federal government. I still don't understand why they own so much land in so many states. I can understand national parks, etc. but to gobble up over half the state in some states seems totally unreasonable to me.

 

[KaaBoom]

and I have varying opinions depending on the specific circumstances. Our family vacation time is basically spent enjoying the federally owned lands in the west. I am a huge supporter of national parks and the forest service.

I also enjoy federally owned lands, national parks, and forests. I’d like to see the US government acquire more federally owned lands, and I’d like to see them throw these welfare ranchers off it, so the public can use it.

Without public lands, developers would own and use every square inch of land, and people would be prisoners in their own little cubicles. Thats not they type of place I want to live in.

 

[Tillicum]

Oregon Standoff: Armed Protesters, Political Reaction and #YallQaeda

Armed anti-government protesters are dug in for a long stay on the federal land they seized in Oregon on Saturday. The group pledges to remain encamped in a federal building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for as long as it takes for the government to give the land "back to the people."

But this tense, unpredictable stand-off is about much more than a patch of sagebrush and bird habitat. It's about federal control over some 300 million resource-rich acres across 13 Western states, and President Obama's executive efforts to protect a record swath of this land from development.

It's also a matter of momentum, following the surprise success of a 2014 stand-off in Nevada. In that confrontation, federal agents stood down rather than act on a court order to seize the cattle of rancher Cliven Bundy, who hasn't paid his federal grazing fees since 1993.

Much more at link.

 

[tlcya]

Scholars are already comparing it to the Sage Brush Rebellions of 1970s and 1990s. In those range wars, conservatives wanted the land transferred back to private or state ownership, or at least opened up to oil, timber, and mineral grabs.

They lost: Courts nullified the legal arguments. Voters punished the politicians. National public opinion polls showed that a majority of Americans support federal land management. But the argument is back, spurred by President Obama's efforts to protect more than a million acres of federal land—more than any other president, according to the Wilderness Society.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...otesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031

 

[ILOKAL]

I also enjoy federally owned lands, national parks, and forests. I’d like to see the US government acquire more federally owned lands, and I’d like to see them throw these welfare ranchers off it, so the public can use it.

Without public lands, developers would own and use every square inch of land, and people would be prisoners in their own little cubicles. Thats not they type of place I want to live in.

Who or what owns the Grand Canyon?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

More about the minor that testified and the fine upstanding citizens who are the Hammonds:

D.H. appears to have had good reason to fear his family. In 2004, D.H. told a sheriff’s deputy about several times that he says he was abused. In one incident, Steven allegedly punched D.H. hard enough to knock him to the ground and “took [D.H.’s] face and rubbed it into the gravel” during an argument over how D.H. was performing his chores. In another incident, after D.H. was cited for being a minor in possession of alcohol, Steven allegedly punished D.H. by driving him ten miles from the family ranch and then making him walk home. In a third incident, after D.H. was cited as a minor in possession of tobacco, Steven allegedly “made him eat two (2) cans of Skoal Smokeless Tobacco and then again walk from Diamond, Oregon to the Hammond Ranch.”

A fourth incident is particularly striking, however. D.H., who reportedly has been diagnosed with depression, used a paper clip to carve the letter “J” into one side of his chest and the letter “S” onto the other side. In response, Steven allegedly “told him that he was not going to let [D.H.] deface the family by carving on himself.” D.H. said that Steven then used sandpaper to remove the carved letters from D.H.’s chest — sanding each side for at least five minutes. Steven also allegedly told D.H. that “he would filet the initials off” his chest if the sandpaper did not work.

When law enforcement officers confronted the Hammond family with these allegations, Dwight admitted that he “had [D.H.] eat a full can of chewing tobacco” in what he says was an effort to “show [D.H.] that chewing tobacco was harmful to his body.” The Hammonds also admitted that the sanding incident occurred, although they would not disclose “who actually did the sanding.”

And regarding one of those fires:

Steven lit the second fire in 2006 — he says that he did so as a preemptive burn in order to prevent an unrelated wild fire from spreading to the Hammond Ranch. At the time, however, the federal Bureau of Land Management had imposed a “burn ban” to protect firefighters who were busying trying to stop the wild fire. A second fire, such as the one set by Steven, could have potentially spread and endangered the firefighters.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...at-the-center-of-the-oregon-militia-standoff/