Posted on Jan 3, 2016
If a militia group breaks into and occupies a Federally owned building and won't leave, is that a crime, treason, terrorism, or Patriotism?
27.7K
450
317
8
8
0
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
The story:
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.
He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.
"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.
Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.
-- Les Zaitz
What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
The story:
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.
He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.
"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.
Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.
-- Les Zaitz
What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 42
So far, we know only that they have violated several laws knowingly (thus, yes to "crime" in a legalistic sense).
There appear to have been no attacks or threats of attacks on civilians/non-combatants/others aimed at changing a government's or society's actions (thus no to "terrorism", at least at this point). NOTE: They are clearly looking at changing government and/or society's stance on "public lands". That intent doesn't make it terrorism. Coupling it with a METHOD does. So far, that has not happened.
We don't have evidence that they are levying war against the U.S. (Not to say that they WON'T, but we don't do thought crime, just the actual kind), adhering to the enemies of the U.S., or giving the enemies of the U.S. aid and comfort. (thus no to "treason")
Patriotism..... Well, that really goes to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? I can think of a bunch of people who were actively hostile (and treasonous, but the constitutional definition) the the established government on this land, rose up in armed rebellion, and are now used as the images of patriotism and called "founding fathers" of the usurper nation. I can also think of another group who tried to do the same about a 100 years later, and it went .... poorly for them. I can also think of a lot of wack-job groups and malcontents throughout the years.
IF the cause of the action is the specific cases of these two ranchers and the dude from Navada, that leads me to thing one opinion (self interest is not patriotism). IF the cause of the action is the principles as claimed in their most recent statements, that leads me to another opinion (a very legitimate grievance, which I have some sympathy for - if not for their methods). It could lead someone with different foundational beliefs to a different opinion, ranging from "treasonous bastards who must be hung" to "new founding fathers" and all points in between. If the cause of the action is other than portrayed, that will obviously lead to different opinions.
History is indisputably written by the victors. That said, the justice of a group's cause is determined by its philosophical foundations. (Justice of the cause is different from Justice of the actions).
I give full credit to local law enforcement for their mature handling of this situation and I hope they continue in the same vein.
There appear to have been no attacks or threats of attacks on civilians/non-combatants/others aimed at changing a government's or society's actions (thus no to "terrorism", at least at this point). NOTE: They are clearly looking at changing government and/or society's stance on "public lands". That intent doesn't make it terrorism. Coupling it with a METHOD does. So far, that has not happened.
We don't have evidence that they are levying war against the U.S. (Not to say that they WON'T, but we don't do thought crime, just the actual kind), adhering to the enemies of the U.S., or giving the enemies of the U.S. aid and comfort. (thus no to "treason")
Patriotism..... Well, that really goes to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? I can think of a bunch of people who were actively hostile (and treasonous, but the constitutional definition) the the established government on this land, rose up in armed rebellion, and are now used as the images of patriotism and called "founding fathers" of the usurper nation. I can also think of another group who tried to do the same about a 100 years later, and it went .... poorly for them. I can also think of a lot of wack-job groups and malcontents throughout the years.
IF the cause of the action is the specific cases of these two ranchers and the dude from Navada, that leads me to thing one opinion (self interest is not patriotism). IF the cause of the action is the principles as claimed in their most recent statements, that leads me to another opinion (a very legitimate grievance, which I have some sympathy for - if not for their methods). It could lead someone with different foundational beliefs to a different opinion, ranging from "treasonous bastards who must be hung" to "new founding fathers" and all points in between. If the cause of the action is other than portrayed, that will obviously lead to different opinions.
History is indisputably written by the victors. That said, the justice of a group's cause is determined by its philosophical foundations. (Justice of the cause is different from Justice of the actions).
I give full credit to local law enforcement for their mature handling of this situation and I hope they continue in the same vein.
(11)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CW3 Kevin Storm - It's worth noting the approach local law enforcement is taking. There is a cordon around these dudes. But it's a cordon of media vans. LE are doing a great job of low key/non-escalation.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Vincent Stoneking, agreed. It is easier to wait them out than to force them out; they are not in a position to harm anyone where they are.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
The only problem with this approach is it encourages further acts - A good hard smack up side the head is needed here. But then again...that is my solution to problems when dealing with obstinate idiots.
(0)
(0)
MAJ David Blackwell
If the government would just ignore them, the problem would just fade away. They are not destroying property and are not harming anyone. It is ridiculous that our government frees terrorist and sends them back home. That’s it in a small nutshell.
(1)
(0)
For the record, your survey doesn't have enough choices.
I have no problem with them occupying the building on a straight First Amendment argument. This kind of display has been done since our county's founding and its been non-violent...so far. If it becomes violent, then the gloves rightfully should come off.
Where I do have a problem with this is they are trying to prevent convicted arsonists from going to Federal Prison. I cannot support them as I fully support the trial system of this country and have no time for these morons, just like I would have no time for the "Occupy" movement protesting the convictions of the dummies convicted of trying to blow up a bridge or those who supported the "Christmas Tree" bomber from a few years back.
I have no problem with them occupying the building on a straight First Amendment argument. This kind of display has been done since our county's founding and its been non-violent...so far. If it becomes violent, then the gloves rightfully should come off.
Where I do have a problem with this is they are trying to prevent convicted arsonists from going to Federal Prison. I cannot support them as I fully support the trial system of this country and have no time for these morons, just like I would have no time for the "Occupy" movement protesting the convictions of the dummies convicted of trying to blow up a bridge or those who supported the "Christmas Tree" bomber from a few years back.
(10)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
GySgt Carl Rumbolo perhaps you may remember what AIM did back in the 1970s to the Bureau of Indian Affairs building during their protest.$700k in 1972 dollars. The Feds did not go after them.
Have these morons damaged the building that wasn't even locked when they entered it? No, they haven't. Have they threatened anyone? No, they haven't.
Have these morons damaged the building that wasn't even locked when they entered it? No, they haven't. Have they threatened anyone? No, they haven't.
(3)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
LTC Trent Klug - They have occupied a federal building, they are armed - end of story. They are not wanted there by the locals, they are not wanted by the folks who actually went to jail. Several of them are members of hate groups, and several have proclaimed allegiance to known separatist groups with ties to domestic terrorism - or do you support the free man of the land and sovereign citizen movements.
A number of the leaders in this 'militia' are known to have called for the overthrow of the government. Do you think a group of black or american indian activists would be treated with the same forbearance?
A number of the leaders in this 'militia' are known to have called for the overthrow of the government. Do you think a group of black or american indian activists would be treated with the same forbearance?
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Trent Klug - I would propose that if students were to bring weapons onto a campus and foribly enter and occupy a building, they should also be tear-gassed out immediately. Actually, I think that's exactly what would happen.
You can't compare this to the American Indian Movement at all. Any discussion we're having about the Constitution and land rights is operating under the assumption that it was legitimate for Europeans to appropriate the Western hemisphere from Native Americans, who really have every moral right to occupy whatever they want, whenever they want, except we killed most of them so they're mostly content enjoying life in the shitty reservations where we've left them to rot. So operating under the assumption that all that was ok...
I think it's absurd that anyone would give any pause to consider the legitimacy of the complaints of these terrorist insurgents. In both the Hammonds and Bundy cases, whatever you may think about the legitimacy of the federal government administering public land, the land DEFINITELY does not belong to neither the Bundys nor the Hammonds. In fact, the only reason that they have a claim to the land they DO own is probably because the federal government gave it to their ancestors using one of the Homestead incentives in the 19th-20th centuries. So however you look at it, private citizens do not have arbitrary claim to use property that they don't own towards their own interests. Since doing so effectively excludes other citizens with an equal claim to public land from using it for THEIR interests, I don't see how it isn't legitimate for the federal government (ostensibly representing the citizenry) would get to be the arbiter over whether/how someone like Bundy or Hammonds gets to use public land.
Again, I repeat, the land that was burned down/grazed on was NOT the property of either Bundy or Hammonds, so they have no right to do anything with it. Given that it's public land, and the State of Nevada (explicitly) and the State of Oregon (at least implicitly) allow the federal government to manage it because it makes sense for economies of scale. The government, as a representative of all the other citizens of the country with an equal claim to derive value from public land, makes determinations on its use.
You can't compare this to the American Indian Movement at all. Any discussion we're having about the Constitution and land rights is operating under the assumption that it was legitimate for Europeans to appropriate the Western hemisphere from Native Americans, who really have every moral right to occupy whatever they want, whenever they want, except we killed most of them so they're mostly content enjoying life in the shitty reservations where we've left them to rot. So operating under the assumption that all that was ok...
I think it's absurd that anyone would give any pause to consider the legitimacy of the complaints of these terrorist insurgents. In both the Hammonds and Bundy cases, whatever you may think about the legitimacy of the federal government administering public land, the land DEFINITELY does not belong to neither the Bundys nor the Hammonds. In fact, the only reason that they have a claim to the land they DO own is probably because the federal government gave it to their ancestors using one of the Homestead incentives in the 19th-20th centuries. So however you look at it, private citizens do not have arbitrary claim to use property that they don't own towards their own interests. Since doing so effectively excludes other citizens with an equal claim to public land from using it for THEIR interests, I don't see how it isn't legitimate for the federal government (ostensibly representing the citizenry) would get to be the arbiter over whether/how someone like Bundy or Hammonds gets to use public land.
Again, I repeat, the land that was burned down/grazed on was NOT the property of either Bundy or Hammonds, so they have no right to do anything with it. Given that it's public land, and the State of Nevada (explicitly) and the State of Oregon (at least implicitly) allow the federal government to manage it because it makes sense for economies of scale. The government, as a representative of all the other citizens of the country with an equal claim to derive value from public land, makes determinations on its use.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
CPT (Join to see) - Well said 1st LT - a point I have been trying to make to many of the folks here who think these chuckle heads are something like 'patriots'
(0)
(0)
It's criminal, it's sedition, and since they're using threats of violence to influence the lawful government, it's terrorism.
(8)
(0)
Read This Next