Do you think the government should use force to end the standoff in Oregon?

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:39:12 -0500

I don't think they should. I find myself surprised that they haven't, simply because historically speaking (Waco, Idaho et al) these situations have gone badly for everyone, but that never seems to stop heavy-handed LEO's.

In this case, they're out in the middle of nowhere, there's little risk of 'civilian' (ie, not an actor) casualties, and to assault them would wind up in fatalities for sure, but just as importantly, create headlines that the government likely doesn't want. Maybe even a ground-swelling of support. They SAY they'll stay there for 'years', but that's not likely.

Do you think LEO's should go in and root them out? Kindly don't turn this thread into a 'if they were of xxxx group, then...' discussion. There's already posted threads about that.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jan 6 at 2016 1:43 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:43:33 -0500

No. I think they should surround the place, cut off the utilities, and wait them out. It will get awfully cold, and they already don't have much food. They won't last long.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 6 at 2016 1:49 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:49:55 -0500

No. They haven't done anything to justify violence. Given how horribly they prepared, I'm sure they'll be out of gummy bears and Red Bull and have to give up soon anyway...

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Jan 6 at 2016 1:50 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:50:00 -0500

SN Greg Wright , I agree with LTC Kevin B. that they should cut them off and let them come out on their own. I would also hope that people would do what they could to avoid any appearance of provocation or abuse of resources. The Branch Davidians set their own compound on fire but there was those who still cry that the government did it or forced them to do it.

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Jan 6 at 2016 1:54 PM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:54:27 -0500

So lets set the record straight with a few facts:

1. The people that this group is allegedly occupying a federal building in support of have disavowed any association with the 'militia' and asked them to stop.
2. Most local residents oppose the occupation.
3. All most all of the 'militia' are non-local and many are folks who pulled the same stunts before.

That being established, and since they have occupied federal buildings AND declare that they are a 'militia' and given their statements that they are trying to 'take back the government for the people' - they therefore openly acknowledged that they are in rebellion against the duly elected government. You can spin it any way you chose, but it's a rebellion.

Therefore - the government (which by the way you took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic) should treat this rebellion the same way as other precedents - the Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown's uprising - 18 U.S. Code § 1385 does not apply, it becomes a constitutional issue (approval of Congress not required)

A infantry company could clean this up in a half day - or less. It's time these 'militia' groups be given a strong dose of reality, they are not above the law - do a little research - many of the folks in this occupation are the same folks who believe in 'free man of the land' and 'the county sheriff is the highest legal authority' and the idea that they are a separate person and aren't required to pay taxes, etc etc.... no better than the Moorish Temple yahoos and other 'separatists.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 6 at 2016 2:02 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:02:12 -0500

I think they should simply wait. They are occupying an empty building in a remote area. What harm can they do? However, the government can do much harm if they attempt to dislodge them forcibly.

Patience. Isn't that what they used in Baltimore and Ferguson where rioters were running rampant in heavily populated areas?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 6 at 2016 2:37 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:37:54 -0500

SN Greg Wright I concur with LTC Kevin B. and SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury the best response would be to cut them off from physical comfort and supplies.
As winter is building up hopefully the cold weather will drive these protesters/wannabe insurrectionists to surrender peacefully.
I remember the riots in the mid 1960's and understand how the residents of southern L.A,. CA developed deep distrust for authorities in part because of the federal/state response to the summer riots there.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 6 at 2016 3:03 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:03:53 -0500

No. Wait them out; they are harming nobody where they are. Eventually they will get hungry enough to leave.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 3:29 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:29:18 -0500

I think that what the feds should do - it is their building after all - is turn off the power, gas, and water supply (although there is probably a well and a generator, we'll see how long that lasts without fuel).
Set up a roadblock - I don't imagine that this is a readily accessible site - and arrest anybody who approaches the roadblock from the inside on trespass charges.
Don't let any more "militia" dudes in. More will only be nothing but trouble, and the whole point is to prevent resupply.
Then wait.
They'll fade from the news, and start getting hungry.
The posers who moonlight as militia men that love their modern conveniences will fall out first.
The die-hards that really can live off the land will get their chance to live the dream until it gets old and their ranches and farms go fallow.

They'll come out, maybe even declaring "Victory" for getting their message out.
I doubt it will take more than a few weeks, at most.
They pay their fines and serve a little time, and the world goes on spinning.
This is a tempest in a teapot.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jan 6 at 2016 4:02 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:02:45 -0500

I'll take this one on directly. The lamestream media has said this was a "peaceful" demonstration and gave these criminals passes as to why it was ok to do what was done. Now in contrast, there were hardly ANY weapons in B-more and Ferguson from those who actually lived there. Folks in the news say it's their right to demonstrate, and that is correct, but in both of the cities I listed, they didn't get the same treatment. They were called everything under the sun and degraded on top of it. But again no weapons...especially in B-more. Were those in B-more and Ferg wrong? Maybe, but was the response to them on par or even equal to what is being done here? LEO are monitoring. I fully understand why, but in B-more most of those arrested when the calm was called by local leaders, weren't black, and even more weren't even FROM B-more. There was a video making the rounds on FB that showed the contrast in how a "riot" is classified. They showed B-more, and Ferguson and called them all the usual names and said this was a shame to see the level of destruction and lives changed due to the destruction. Next it moved to other cities where non blacks or minorities were "celebrating". Now the common theme between them was that there was looting, burning and destruction of cars to include police cars, but what separated them was one was protesting in the ghetto for accountability and transparency for the police, and the other was "celebrating" the local team winning a championship. Now who really is the "thug", "criminal", or whatever? The B-more Mayor took hell for "giving" an area for them to openly protest....look at where these team "celebrations" are taking place, and it's the exact same. A certain area where the cops let them get it out of their system and focus on those who have an intent that can jeopardize life or limb. So would I like the cops to go in there and stomp the common sense into these "Patriots", and "Hero's", hells yeah I would. Would I like to see the Oath Keepers show up in force and "protect" someone and maybe this time name who that someone is? Hells yeah. Should these clowns get prison time yes, but will they...no. It just shows how far we've come and how far we have to go. Force is not applied in equal terms based off everything we use as protections against discrimination. Bruce Jenner kills someone and his mug wasn't plastered all over the news here, but a local kid was killed drag racing in PG county over the summer and for a week his face was on the stations. Equal use of the law, for equal citizens, or is it unequal use of the law depending on skin color, socialeconomical status, and those who lived in the ghettos and trailer parks?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 6 at 2016 4:15 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:15:39 -0500

I think they are going to wait them out and that sounds like the best option. Bunch of Out of Shape, Old Men Playing Soldier. It is hard enough on a Young Man being a Real Soldier. They are armed. That Gun won't keep you warm, That Gun won't feed you, That Gun won't protect you from the Elements. They will get Cold, Sick and Tired and just walk away. The Gov't can slap Papers on them much later charging them with Trespass, Armed Trespass, Destruction of State and Federal Property.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 4:16 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:16:11 -0500

Absolutely not...for all the previously mentioned reasons.

The one up? Pardon the rancher and his son...time served, whatever...and let them go over and officially, and publicly ask them to leave before they do more harm than good.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Jan 6 at 2016 4:34 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:34:07 -0500

Let the men who have already served their sentence for the 'crime' they committed - which itself was a created 'crime' - and this solves itself. Stop buying massive acres of land to prevent people from being able to make a living on the land. Such an overreach on the part of once again a federal judge that is causing these good men to stand for stopping this assuming of power. May everyone from this matter live long a happy lives.....and may liberty still be up held by the people forever in this nation.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 4:56 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:56:33 -0500

No, back off don't allow any more press and pick them up later when they least expect it.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jan 6 at 2016 5:21 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:21:37 -0500

Government should just walk away. They will leave on their own if the lame-stream media isn't pushing microphones in their face. Maybe if we could get the Duggar Family to move in with them we could have a new reality series for TV. "Thirty Something is Enough" or something like that. They are seeking publicity and if they don't get it they will leave. It's that simple. And if they don't, who cares? But go in and take the kitchen matches away from young Steven Hammond, no more ground fires. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jan 6 at 2016 6:07 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:07:07 -0500

No.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 6:07 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:07:23 -0500

They are criminals. Some of the charges that come to mind are trespassing on Government property, breaking and entering, and disturbing the peace. They need to be dealt with accordingly. Cut off all electric gas, water, etc. Give them until a certain time to surrender. If they fail to surrender, launch the tear gas. I fully understand why they are there and support the fact that the ranchers have a right to protect their property. And if people served a sentence, nobody should come along and say well I think you should have done more time and throw them back in jail. But there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way. This way is the wrong way.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 7:52 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:52:13 -0500

The government should leave them a note: "be sure to turn off the lights when you are done" and walk away and everyone needs to ignore these fools. If they got no attention, this whole thing would die in a week

Response by SGT Michael McGiboney made Jan 6 at 2016 9:22 PM

SGT Michael McGiboney — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:22:26 -0500

I live in Oregon and I will tell you right now, 90% of people supporting them don't know all the facts of the whole story, going back to the 1870's, and 100% of the people against them don't know much of anything other than a charge (but no conviction) of poaching and that the protesters asked for food.

Apologies for the wall of text in advance, but I'd really like my fellow service members to be, at the least, informed, from there your opinion is your own.

I've compiled this info from various sources and I will post 2 articles from the respected National Review. Supporting the ranchers against the BLM does not make you a fringe militia member, but the media wants to intimidate everyone into walking away from this situation by focusing on irrelevant actions or members of the militia group.

Current and former service members should not be falling for media psyops.

While these militia members are a mixture of about 60% good men and 40% miscreants, they aren't like the Occupy movement, 80% miscreants and Ferguson and Baltimore, 100%.

I will post this info in the form or a questionnaire:

Did you know that pioneers into the Harney Basin began using advanced irrigation techniques to flood the meadows and expand the seasonal wetlands into over 51,000 acres of permanent wetlands between 1876 and 1880?

Did you know that the Great Basin and the Northern Paiute-Harney Basin have archaeological evidence of human use and alteration since the Holocene era?

Did you know hat in response to this very significant alteration to the local environment by the settlers, that in 1908 President Theodore Roosevelt, in a political scheme, created an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?

Did you know that a FWS study in 1975 determined that migratory birds are '13 times more likely to land and bed on privately owned wetlands that are grazed by cattle, than they are to land on public no use land'?

That the study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge?

Did you know, in a similar example in another recent BLM/FWS land claim situation in Nevada (the famous Bundy ranch), that the University of Arizona showed in a study on the endangered that Desert Tortoise populations grow when sharing land with cattle and decline when they do not?

That when Harry Reid's (Nevada Senator) chief of staff wanted to build a golf course in the same county where the Bundy ranch is, that environmental groups used this very study in court to try to stop them from doing so? Because cattle and tortoises coexist beneficial, but not with golf courses?

Did you know that by the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley, Oregon were aggressively purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and that the expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch? That the Hammonds were approached many times by the FWS, and refused to sell?

Did you know that in the 80's refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled?

Did you know that thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded; homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed?

And that the ranchers, whose grandparents created the much of the permanent wetlands in the first place and who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, were now broke and destroyed, and the FWS was able acquire their useless ranches?

Did you know that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admonished and voted against the BLM in a intimidation case in Wyoming?

That the BLM, after obtaining an easement to use a private road across the ranch owned by Robbins’s predecessor, federal officials failed to record it. Thus, when Robbins bought the ranch, he did not know about the easement, and, under Wyoming law, he took title free of it. Thereupon, BLM officials, wrote Ginsburg, “demanded from Robbins an easement — for which they did not propose to pay — to replace the one they carelessly lost.”

When Robbins offered to negotiate an agreement, they told him “the Federal Government does not negotiate” and “this is what you are going to do.” When he refused, he became, according to Ginsburg, the target of “a seven-year campaign of relentless harassment and intimidation to force him to give in.”

Did you know that?

That there are thousands and thousands of such cases going back over 100 years?

Do you side with the BLM or the Dann sisters?

Don't know who they are?

Western Shoshone cattle ranching sisters who had their cattle rounded up and sold off by the BLM.

Did you know that in 1989 the waters began to recede (from the intentional flooding) in the Harney Basin, the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains became a part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS?

Did you know that by the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge?

And that Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge?

Did you know that she found that hidden study done by the FWS in 1975?

The study that showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property?

The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge?

The same study is the one that also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge?

Did you know that when Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions?

Did you know that a Chief Federal District Court Judge, Robert. C Jones (who ruled justly on the side of a family in Nevada), said this “"Over the past two decades government officials, and perhaps others, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the family members not only of their grazing permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience.”

Did you know that according to the affidavit “In 2001, Dwight and Steven started a routine-prescribed burn on their private property to improve the productivity of the range for the following year. Before starting the fire, Steven called the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Fire Dispatch, seeking permission for the burn. Per the recording played in court, Steven was given the burn permission; the BLM was performing prescribed burns a short distance away.

After burning the desired grass on the private property of Hammond, the fire moved over to their grazing land and burnt an additional 127 acres of public property. At that time they thought nothing about it because these burns benefit the health and productivity of the land as testified to by the BLM in the 2012 trial.

Did you know that “In 2006, a large fire was started by lighting that claimed thousands of acres within a short period of time; and, for several days burned through the area; working its way towards the upper parts of the Hammond ranch.”

What the Hammonds knew at the time, and what most residents of the rural West know, is that the feds are the worst managers of fires there is. I know this blows urban liberals away, this concept that the hollywood buffeted feds are the most competent and efficient beings on the planet, but in real life, the federal government is most often the employer of people who would not succeed in the professional world.

The Long Draw Fire (558,198 acres) and Miller Homestead Fire (160,801 acres) both here in Oregon resulted from lightning strikes from a storm on the afternoon of July 8, 2012 and the BLM themselves admitted that the “We have not had fires of this magnitude in this part of the state for over 100 years.” and that it was largely due to ample dry fuel loads due to the increasing restriction of private prescribed burns, which reduce the tinderbox effect when a lightening fire begins.

The Barry Point Fire that same year burned over 92,977 acres, due to the same conditions.

In Montana, the governor protested to the USFS when state firefighting helicopters were refused permission for an initial attack on the North Fork Fire. Those Montana experts were forced to remain on the ground watching the devastation until federal helicopters arrived—four hours later. The state helicopters could have been there in 30 minutes.

What logical reason would the feds have for refusing the help of state firefighting assets? They don't..

In Owyhee County, Idaho where first responders and ranchers fought a blaze for 36 hours, containing it to 640 acres. The BLM arrived to mop up, sent the volunteers home, pronounced the fire was out, only to have it blow up into the largest in the nation at the time, devastating more than 285,000 acres.

A lightning strike in Canyon Creek near John Day, Ore., was fought by local ranchers and contained at 200 acres. When the federal government took over, the fire eventually threatened the towns of John Day and Prairie City, destroying ranches, 26 homes, cattle, and wildlife over 105,000 acres.

Federal workers were called to assess the situation northeast of New Meadows, Idaho, when lightning struck a large yellow pine tree. They didn’t extinguish the blaze and simply left. During the night, the tree burned in half, rolled down the mountain, and spread the fire. The result was the TeePee Fire, 94,000 acres, which threatened the towns of Riggs and New Meadows, jumped the Big Salmon River, and trapped rafters upriver, and obliterating valuable resources and wildlife.

“Firefighting on federal land has become a big business with little incentive to put fires out early but, as with everything else, if it doesn't make common sense, then follow the money,” writes Judy Boyle, one of the report’s three authors. Boyle is an Idaho state legislator and former natural resources director for Congressman Helen Chenoweth-Hage. The two other contributors include Andrea Scott, a southern Idaho writer who looks at the aftermath of wildfires, and range-management expert Steven H. Rich, who reports on the lessons not learned from the nation’s first mega-fire in Arizona that killed six firefighters, burned 24,000 acres and destroyed 63 homes in June 1990.

After the rash of federally mismanaged fires across Oregon in the 1990s and 2000's, there has been a united front between ranchers, rural residents, loggers, mill operators, environmental groups have forged agreements designed both to allow some commercially profitable logging and provide money to restore overgrown forests and to reduce the tinder box effect that is a hallmark of federally owned forest. Their opponents are the bloated, poorly trained, lethargic and arrogant federal agencies.

How can one take the side of the worst steward of the land, the feds, in this case?

Misinformation and lack of information, that's how.

Then there are those who don't care if they are right or wrong. These are the people you see making fun of the militia on social media.

Have you ever noticed that environmentalists and their lobbyists just can’t be pulled away from their favorite coffee shops in downtown Portland, Austin and San Francisco to go fight fires? Why is that?

“There are intelligent, honest environmentalists who truly want to do what is best for the natural landscape,” Boyle writes. “Then there are those whose real motives are the removal of man. The founder of Western Watersheds Project often publicly stated that his motive was to end ranching in the West.

Back to the Hammonds:
“In an effort to save their winter grazing grass; and, even possibly their home, Steven started a backfire on their private property to create a fire break; and, possibly extinguish the fire. The backfire was successful; saved their grazing land; and, their home.

It burned 127 acres of public land, the same land that the BLM was burning at the same time. $1100 worth of damage claimed by the BLM.

How many millions does the BLM owe ranchers over the years for mismanaging forest that create super fires and then mismanage or intentionally neglect to allow the fire to do the job they try to do in court, kick Americans off their property and then claim it for themselves,.

As for the trumped up charge of poaching (in an attempt to have a fall back and garner public sympathy) the Oregon State Fish & Game Department could not find animal carcasses in or around the grass-burn area.

All these self-made experts don't know the whole story. The above is what the families, the congressional representatives, the local and state newspapers, a large percentage of Oregon residents and hundreds of thousands of people across the country who keep up with government overreach and abuse of American citizens know.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429266/oregon-rancher-protest-federal-agencies-out-control

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90

Oregon Standoff Reveals There Is No Adult Supervision of Federal Agencies in the West

The prosecution Oregon’s Hammond family and the subsequent rancher protests show that federal land-management agencies in the West are out of control.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 6 at 2016 9:29 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:29:01 -0500

Another Perspective.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 6 at 2016 9:39 PM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:39:13 -0500

The group that did this are considered freaks by the vast majority of military veterans. They are attention whores and most of them are phonies as well. Blaine Cooper has a long Criminal Record and tried to pass himself off as a Marine Veteran. He was discharged from the Delayed Entry Program. Jeffery "Mouse" Prosen Claims to be a retired Sniper/ GySgt who had his best friend die in his arms in Combat. Prosen was medically discharged after 18 months in 1982.. spending about a yeasr in the Hospital. Never in Combat.
These freaks thrive on attention. Cut off all power and water and contact. They don't have the gear or the smarts to last long. Then give them a way out let them make a statement as they are arrested. They will fall for it. Then charge them with trespassing and every other law they broke.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 7:21 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 07:21:38 -0500

NO. They are not geared to long standoff. The building is emptied and not used anyway. So let them sit there and do nothing until they run out of food and water. :P

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 7 at 2016 8:33 PM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:33:18 -0500

I've done the research, as well as read the posted articles elsewhere in this thread. These people definitely have a legitimate gripe against the Feds and BLM.

Anybody who compares this to Ferguson and whatnot are comparing apples and oranges. Oregon is about extortion from the Bureau of Land Management and Ferguson was about the fatal shooting of a young man who attacked a police officer.