So, a group of armed terrorists has occupied a federal building

[*Jessica*]

What First Nations group has blockaded a public highway in recent memory?

The Seneca Nation in Cattaraugus County, NY has. I think the last time was in 2009. They blockaded and lit tires on fire on the interstate. Police in riot gear had to remove them, and while there were no deaths, there were definitely injuries.

[Ravin]

The Seneca Nation in Cattaraugus County, NY has. I think the last time was in 2009. They blockaded and lit tires on fire on the interstate. Police in riot gear had to remove them, and while there were no deaths, there were definitely injuries.

 

I found an article on that dispute. It identified those happenings as occurring in the 1990's. First I'd heard of it. The butting heads with New York in general I knew about, and the tobacco dispute--I think I read a case on that in law school. Federal Court cases tend not to include colorful but irrelevant side-happenings, however.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/nyregion/thruway-intensifies-dispute-between-seneca-nation-and-new-york-state.html?_r=0

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ravin

[*Jessica*]

I found an article on that dispute. It identified those happenings as occurring in the 1990's. First I'd heard of it. The butting heads with New York in general I knew about, and the tobacco dispute--I think I read a case on that in law school. Federal Court cases tend not to include colorful but irrelevant side-happenings, however.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/nyregion/thruway-intensifies-dispute-between-seneca-nation-and-new-york-state.html?_r=0

Ok, yes, the big clash with riot gear and injuries was in 1997. There have definitely been other clashes more recently near Irving, NY. We live locally, and my husband grew up in Salamanca, NY which is on the Allegany Indian Reservation.

[chiguirre]

Breitbart is also conservative news but notice how they don't use the word "terrorists?"

 

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/12/armed-black-panthers-march-in-waller-count-texas-oink-oink-bang-bang/

 

Coming back for additional details:

 

Even after a cop was killed, news sources did not characterize the neo black panthers as terrorists. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/texas-deputy-executed-2-weeks-after-new-black-panthers-promised-to-off-the-pigs-at-local-rally-video/

This happened in Houston. The shooter wasn't a Neo Black Panther, he was a guy with mental health issues.

[brehon]

That doesn't seem to be an unbiased news source. When I searched for this incident in the Austin American Statesman, I got nothing. The Statesman is not exactly a raving liberal news organization either.

Re: the embedded video - Hey! I recognize that pizza shack!

 

IIRC, the march occurred at SXSW and I couldn't find a lot of mention about it in either the Statesman or the Chronicle. SX was also dealing with the anniversary of the fatal auto-pedestrian accident which injured some two dozen and killed two.

[Laurie4b]

Where was the terrorism outcry when the neo black panthers, armed to the teeth, marched through the city streets calling for cops to be killed last spring?

 

 

 

Here's another account : http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/03/gun-group-loosely-affiliated-with-black-panther-party-marches-at-the-capitol.html/  It describes it as a march in favor of right to bear arms and does not mention anything about killing police. 

[swimmermom3]

I think the question is what is the proper role of government in administering public land.

 

I think a preserve of that kind is a good and important use, but I also think that traditional uses for things like grazing are important, and when you look at it in terms of the way government has treated families involved in teh agricultural sector generally, it is hard not to see a pattern of them subsidizing coporate agriculture and feed-lots over family based agriculture and grazing.

 

Unfortunately, it does work both ways.  There are families that have lost heavily where ranching and the federal government are concerned and then there are families like the Kochs and the Drummonds that have made millions off of federal government contracts.

 

[swimmermom3]

I think its a question of whether it should be taken seriously.  I am inclined to think that it is hyperbole, and not that different from hyperbole that I've heard in other civil disobedience contexts.  When we had the G8 meet here, there were some pretty ridiculous and idiotic and over the top statements.

 

That being said, the fact that they have their guns and have made such statements could easily lead to serious problems, either because someone takes it further than they should, or the police need to treat it in a way that ends up escalating things.

 

One of the problems is that Clive Bundy and Co. pointed guns at Federal law enforcement and won. They continue with their illegal activities and it sets a precedent. At some point it will have to be stopped and no one is really going to come out the winner.

 

[swimmermom3]

What the group has done is abhorrent not to mention both illegal and stupid in terms of strategy. 

 

However, I am not sure that any of us can say what would happen if xyz group was doing this because we have to be careful about comparing apples to apples vs. to oranges. xyz groups differ in their MO. The MO should determine LEO response. 

 

Apples to oranges: comparing LEO response to unknown individuals to LEO response to known groups: there is a difference between response to a group action that gives LEO time to contemplate their responses and individual interactions with police in which typically the person is 1) unknown to LEO and the 2) LEO must make split-second decisions.

 

 I believe without a shadow of a doubt that implicit racism of individual officers (ie deeply embedded stereotypes that they might even be upset to find they have) and systematic racism claim more black lives than white lives in individual encounters with LEO in those circumstances (perp unknown to police or known with a violent history) and real or perceived need for split-second decision. Additionally there are often systematic factors in play such as NYPDs broken windows policy.

 

Both the quality of "unknown" and the very shortened time for decision making allow implicit racism to play a role that it would not given a known person and no time pressure.  So if you have an unknown white guy at a gas station asked for his license by an LEO and an unknown black man in the same circumstances asked the same question, then you can predict statistically that it is safer for the white guy to reach into his pocket than the black guy.  This dynamic changes if the LEO know that old Mr. Parks blows a lot of verbal smoke but doesn't truly present a danger to them. If they know old Mr. Parks, his skin color has less of an impact. He's "Old Mr. Parks" not an archetypal black man or white man. 

 

Apples to oranges: Comparing groups with very different MOs to each other: 

WIth respect to these groups with potential for violence, there is generally some knowledge about the group  For one thing, each group has its own MO.  I can't imagine an ISIS connected terrorist  taking possession of a remote federal building. It wouldn't fit the agenda. So we are comparing apples to oranges if we imagine what we'd do if ISIS did that. They don't. I support the mainstream protesters in Black Lives Matter, but that group  doesn't do armed protests. And if they did, it would not be holed up somewhere in the wilderness. The different MO matters because it affects the level of threat. So far, in this specific action, no people have been injured and no property harmed. That is significant in terms of response both for media and for LEO.  

 

In addition to the specific action taken, each group has a different history, track record, etc.and differing abilities to draw in other people.  There is not a huge track record of this group or others in their coalitions drawing large numbers of people to their "revolutions."  For instance the shooter of the people in the church in Atlanta (no names for mass shooters from me) thought he would start an uprising. Rather, they get caught in "bubble thinking" where they think many people would agree with them and their buddies if those other people just had that spark to start a revolution They believe their own narrative.  But the network they think will be there is just not there. In this case, the couple whose jail time they are protesting doesn't support them, the local people don't support them, etc. This also affects the assessment of threat. 

 

We know what happened in Waco, TX. Those people were all white and suspected of having illegal firearms. I hope we have learned from that. The loss of life was  appalling. 

 

I support  responses by LEO aimed at de-escalating a situation because de-escalation saves lives on both sides (LEO and alleged criminal). De-escalation requires 1) assessment of the danger actually posed to the person himself, to the LEOs, and to the community. This would include assessment of how likely it is that a network of likeminded people could be amassed. Desire for personal death, whether through martyrdom or suicide by cop increases risk to LEO.  2) Choice of intervention is made so that the least amount of force that can reasonably prevent harm to others is used. De-escalation often involves time (it can't be done on a timetable) and it often involves low-key techniques such as "Use your words."  De-escalation would have spared the lives of Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and many others. 

 

With regard to media responses, I am in favor of judicious coverage that takes into account whether the media is escalating risk to the community by the quantity and type of coverage it gives. Media reporting can easily glorify violence and increase risk of future violence to the community. So I support the movement that wants the media to stop providing photos of and giving lots of narrative information about mass shooters because that 15 minutes of fame matters. Too much focus on the perpetrator gives fuel to other similar people's fantasies and increases risk for the community. 

 

I agree with PP that the best thing to do is to give it the lowest possible coverage because the whole purpose is to gain coverage.

 

They have contained themselves in a remote area and there are no hostages. There is no immediate threat to the community. This allows LEO to use time and lots of words instead of bullets. The group is unlikely to arouse much support or get significant additional help from reinforcements. So set up surveillance so LEO knows who is in there. Set up a perimeter to prevent others from going in. And sit there. Put a lien on their properties to pay for it. Give one news conference per week. Negotiate. Arrest them when they come out without arms.

 

If they come out shooting, then the risk to LEO warrants shooting back and their blood is on their own hands.

 

 

ETA: added headings for ease of skimming & cut and paste extraneous word

 

I like this plan, especially the part about putting a lien on any of their properties and making them pay for the LEOs to be there. You can't really say "Down with government," but then expect the government (taxpayers) to cover the costs of your little "boys with toys" expedition, can you?

 

 

[MSNative]

I like this plan, especially the part about putting a lien on any of their properties and making them pay for the LEOs to be there. You can't really say "Down with government," but then expect the government (taxpayers) to cover the costs of your little "boys with toys" expedition, can you?

 

 

Did they do that with the other protestors in Baltimore, Ferguson, OWS? Quite frankly I think they should for every protest or demonstration.

[swimmermom3]

lol, I don't need to google it

 

 

 

I didn't write Native Americans in my post without knowing that distinction, because I think it is an important one.  The Native Americans who occupied Alcatraz were willing to die. This group says it is willing to kill

 

I also think it is ironic that these guys are claiming the land should be returned to it's 'rightful owners'. I keep imagining the local Native Americans showing up to claim it and saying, 'thanks, guys!"

 

The part in bold is what I don't understand.  When the Malheur Refuge was created in 1908, it was made from "unclaimed" government lands. No ranches were initially made part of the Refuge. Who is the rightful owner? 

 

[MSNative]

Yes, that's what happens in a riot. However property destruction, while very lamentable, is not the same as killing either LEOs or bystanders.

 

I'm not saying that everything is fine as long as you don't have a gun. I'm saying that if you are armed, the police will be much more likely to have to open fire to protect their own lives. That's not an irrational response on their part, they don't have to stand there and wait for you to shoot at them. If they know you have a gun and you posted a farewell message to your family on social media, I think it's completely reasonable for LE to assume that you will try to kill them and take the appropriate measures to defend themselves.

I agree with you for the most part. Except the unarmed protestors in other areas caused more than just property damage. They incited violence against police- which has resulted in the death of police officers. Just because they weren't described as being armed (I have no idea if they were or not. I don't remember it being mentioned) didn't mean they weren't violent and threatening.

Having a gun doesn't make one a terrorist just like not having one doesn't make you non-violent. Behavior and words matter.

 

http://www.startribune.com/police-union-official-critical-of-digusting-chant-at-black-lives-matter-march/323465911/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/28/baltimore-riots-freddie-gray-maryland/26498835/

Edited January 4, 2016 by MSNative

[swimmermom3]

Did they do that with the other protestors in Baltimore, Ferguson, OWS? Quite frankly I think they should for every protest or demonstration.

 

I'd be good with that plan. I did read that about one third of the former campers in Occupy Portland did help with the clean-up efforts, but there were just over $100,000 in damages.  It's always more difficult for accountability when the protesters or militants aren't actually from the areas they damaged or destroyed. I have no idea how you could enforce clean-up and repayment unless you've actually jailed people.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Did they do that with the other protestors in Baltimore, Ferguson, OWS? Quite frankly I think they should for every protest or demonstration.

Criminalize all protests basically?

Oh that will end well.

[Ravin]

This article covers the issue pretty well:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/03/3735647/malheur-lake-oregon-militia-explainer/

 

Among other things, it puts the opinions and civil disobedience (in the form of unpaid grazing fees) of the Bundys and their ilk in perspective compared to most ranchers with public land grazing permits in the Western U.S.

 

And for some perspective on the Bundy family and how much they've gotten away with, there's this:

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/john-l-smith/shoshone-sisters-also-couldn-t-beat-blm

 

I can't help but think white privilege is a factor in Bundy continuing to get away with what he's doing.

[TracyP]

I agree with you for the most part. Except the unarmed protestors in other areas caused more than just property damage. They incited violence against police- which has resulted in the death of police officers. Just because they weren't described as being armed (I have no idea if they were or not. I don't remember it being mentioned) didn't mean they weren't violent and threatening.

Having a gun doesn't make one a terrorist just like not having one doesn't make you non-violent. Behavior and words matter.

 

http://www.startribune.com/police-union-official-critical-of-digusting-chant-at-black-lives-matter-march/323465911/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/28/baltimore-riots-freddie-gray-maryland/26498835/

 

Regarding the first link....I'm not understanding the connection you are making here. Hundreds of people protested peacefully in support of BLM. As they were being escorted out "at least a several" (what does that mean 5? 10?) people started an offensive chant that lasted for 30 seconds. Nobody was hurt. There was no property damage. Are you calling what happened there violent?

[Guest]

Did they do that with the other protestors in Baltimore, Ferguson, OWS? Quite frankly I think they should for every protest or demonstration.

 

WHAT!!!

 

You think no one should EVER be able to protest or demonstrate without paying penalties??? In the USA??? What.

 

I am agog. Have you considered the implications of this stance at all?

[Ravin]

WHAT!!!

 

You think no one should EVER be able to protest or demonstrate without paying penalties??? In the USA??? What.

 

I am agog. Have you considered the implications of this stance at all?

 

Yeah, that would fly. First amendment is a thing. Free speech, right to peaceably assemble. Quite a  bit of case law exists on just what a municipality can and cannot do with respect to protesters, most of it out of the civil rights movement and efforts to suppress protest during that period.  

[umsami]

Have to say that I am chuckling big time over #YallQaeda and #VanillaISIS.  :D :D :D 

[Lady Florida.]

Have to say that I am chuckling big time over #YallQaeda and #VanillaISIS.   :D :D :D

 

Also Yeehawd. :D

[Xuzi]

Also Yeehawd. :D

And #YokelHarem

[poppy]

 

I think there is some hyperbole surrounding the use of "armed" and "unarmed."  "Unarmed" nowadays seems to imply "harmless," yet we have seen that NOT to be so, especially in some recent highly publicized incidents.  Unarmed people can still kill and cause a lot of destruction. People also seem to forget or not want to acknowledge that yes, gun ownership is legal, and just because someone has a firearm doesn't mean that they want to use it.

 

Committing a crime with a weapon is penalized more heavily than committing a crime without a weapon. 
You hold up  a store by saying 'give me money or else!' you get off easier than saying "give me money or I'll kill you".

You get punished for both, legally ,but ramping up the threat of violence has consequences.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

 

[EmseB]

I find the play on words funny, but ISIS is pretty damn evil.  Like cutting people's heads off, rape as justice, apostasy deserves death, etc...evil.

 

Somehow I don't think the Bundys are quite there.

 

And, to echo Bluegoat's point, the methods and goals of ISIS or other terror groups vs. what's going on in Oregon are/is entirely different.

 

It is interesting to me, though, every time something like this comes up that people insist that groups they agree with ideologically are noble and peacefully sitting in for a cause (despite evidence to the contrary) and those other people are violent extremists who must be stopped (or given the death penalty, as someone expressed earlier in the thread).  It's an interesting aspect of human nature that we're willing to overlook a lot of bad behavior as long as the ideology is ok with us.

Edited January 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[EmseB]

Committing a crime with a weapon is penalized more heavily than committing a crime without a weapon. 

You hold up  a store by saying 'give me money or else!' you get off easier than saying "give me money or I'll kill you".

You get punished for both, legally ,but ramping up the threat of violence has consequences.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

I know the legal answer to this but I'm curious:  Do you think having a sit-in is something that should be punished by the force of law?  i.e., if someone is having a sit-in in a government building, should armed police/military forcibly remove them and take them to jail?

[chiguirre]

These dudes really are good for some comedy gold. Apparently they forgot the snacks. You can send them via the USPS c/o Blaine Cooper or Jon Ritzheimer. I wonder if one of them is the uniquely nom de guerre'd Fluffy Unicorn? (Any relation, Sparkly?)

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/oregon-terrorists-dont-plan-siege-very-well-put-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx

 

But seriously, the FBI should be preparing their own special care package of drugged Cheetos and Chips Ahoy ASAP.

[Bluegoat]

What First Nations group has blockaded a public highway in recent memory?

 

For a First Nations/Native American equivalent beef with the government, take a look at Oak Flat or the Western Shoshone land claims (in particular, the Dann Sisters). I guarantee you if the Apaches and their supporters carried out an ARMED occupation of Oak Flat, there would be considerably less kind things said about them than calling them "patriots" or "militia".

 

I think "Militants" is a good word in this situation. Upgrade them to terrorists when/if they actually start shooting people and destroying things.

 

The land ownership/use arguments these guys make are a great stinking heap of horse pooey. They lost the legal battles back in the 1970's. If they had their way, they'd be left free to create another Dust Bowl. They resist regulation, they resist paying taxes and grazing fees, and they resist any part of the system put in place to protect public lands in the West from succumbing to the hazards of the Tragedy of the Commons like they did in the early 20th century with over-grazing. They're reactionary fools.

 

In Canada several road blockades have taken place including a variety of bands, and there was even a fairly well-known, and horrible, armed conflict over land claims since I've been an adult.  That was probably the worst kind of scenario of that type I can think of, but I wouldn't characterize it as terrorism (by either side.)

 

I think militants is probably reasonable, especially if that is how they see themselves.

 

Whether they are fools isn't really the question, I think.

[MSNative]

WHAT!!!

 

You think no one should EVER be able to protest or demonstrate without paying penalties??? In the USA??? What.

 

I am agog. Have you considered the implications of this stance at all?

I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that protestors should pay penalties. I meant that organizers of protests could help defraythe cost of police and other costs that taxpayers bear. I thought they did that in big organized protests and demonstrations in DC and others cities. In my mind I was thinking about large, organized, planned events not local protests.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I'm not getting this either.  Why are the guns there if they are not going to resist the police officers with force?  And how can you allow that without undermining the authority of the police?

People in the US seem to carry guns all over the place.  If you can have a gun in Walmart or a church, and you are allowed to carry concealed weapons, taking them to a protest doesn't seem that much different, or even that much less stupid. 

 

If I was in Liverpool or Toronto and saw protestors with guns in a government building, I would think there was something going on.  In the US, it seems like another example of people taking guns into weird places.

[MSNative]

Criminalize all protests basically?

Oh that will end well.

No. That's not what I said at all. How is having demonstration organizers help defray costs criminalizing protests? Edited January 5, 2016 by MSNative

[Guest]

Demonstrators are tax-payers though. The police are not pay-as-you go.

[albeto.]

These dudes really are good for some comedy gold. Apparently they forgot the snacks. You can send them via the USPS c/o Blaine Cooper or Jon Ritzheimer. I wonder if one of them is the uniquely nom de guerre'd Fluffy Unicorn? (Any relation, Sparkly?)

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/oregon-terrorists-dont-plan-siege-very-well-put-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx

 

But seriously, the FBI should be preparing their own special care package of drugged Cheetos and Chips Ahoy ASAP.

 

Maybe the FBI will build a wall around 'em. Amazon can then test out their drone-n-drop delivery plan. Other angry white people can donate snacks, beer, traps for squirrels, clean underpants, etc. for the cause, when they figure out what it is. 

[Guest]

People in the US seem to carry guns all over the place.  If you can have a gun in Walmart or a church, and you are allowed to carry concealed weapons, taking them to a protest doesn't seem that much different, or even that much less stupid. 

 

If I was in Liverpool or Toronto and saw protestors with guns in a government building, I would think there was something going on.  In the US, it seems like another example of people taking guns into weird places.

 

The average person in the USA is not so inoculated against guns on display in public as the internet might have one believe.

 

Not even among gun owners. eta--and concealed-carriers.

 

And  anecdotally, the four local walmarts I've lived near recently in different states disallow firearms. Even the one in an open-carry-legal state.

Edited January 5, 2016 by OKBud

[MSNative]

Demonstrators are tax-payers though. The police are not pay-as-you go.

Yes but other organizations made up of taxpayers have to pay fees and such to offset costs to the community when they hold public events.

And often protestors aren't local taxpayers. Many people will come from other cities and states to join a cause they feel strongly about. For example, how many of the OWS protestors were NYC taxpayers? How many of the Oregon protestors are local taxpayers? Some percentage of course but a lot of people came from elsewhere to join the movement. That is great but it leaves local tax payers picking up the tab.

Edited January 5, 2016 by MSNative

[umsami]

I find the play on words funny, but ISIS is pretty damn evil.  Like cutting people's heads off, rape as justice, apostasy deserves death, etc...evil.

 

Somehow I don't think the Bundys are quite there.

 

And, to echo Bluegoat's point, the methods and goals of ISIS or other terror groups vs. what's going on in Oregon are/is entirely different.

 

It is interesting to me, though, every time something like this comes up that people insist that groups they agree with ideologically are noble and peacefully sitting in for a cause (despite evidence to the contrary) and those other people are violent extremists who must be stopped (or given the death penalty, as someone expressed earlier in the thread).  It's an interesting aspect of human nature that we're willing to overlook a lot of bad behavior as long as the ideology is ok with us.

 

ISIS is evil...but these guys are not peaceful innocuous guys either.   It does not make what they are doing neither wrong nor domestic terrorism.   They have illegally occupied a federal building...are armed...and have stated that they are willing to die for their cause.   If they were Muslim-Americans, there would be no question that what they are doing is terrorism.  Legal definition of terrorism:

 

" The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R.)"

 

 

Textbook.  They are trying to intimidate the government.

 

If they were outside of the building....without guns...without saying they are willing to die for their cause....then I'd view them as protestors.  The guns and willingness to die puts them on par with other terrorists.  This is a good article on the subject of domestic terrorism

 

""If you just look at the numbers," he said, "then non-Islamic, non-foreign-motivated terrorist actions have killed at least as many Americans on American soil as those who were promoted by jihadists.""  

 

 

I mean...read this....gigantic double standard....could you imagine if two armed Muslim-Americans had set up a roadblock and were occupying a tower designed to fight fires? As well as occupying a federal building and saying they wanted to be taken seriously?  Would it really be viewed as a local sheriff's matter?  Like heck it would.

 

Domestic terrorism is real and to be taken seriously, it needs to be named.  It can't just be terrorism when Muslims are involved.  When a white guy does these things, it is still terrorism.  When a guy plans to blow up a mosque or numerous mosques , and has an arsenal, it is still terrorism (he was never charged with terrorism).    When a Christian pastor plans to attack Muslims in upstate NY with a machete and other weapons..., he should be charged with terrorism.   When a guy attacks Planned Parenthood, it's terrorism...they are definitely trying to intimidate the civilian population.  

[Mommy22alyns]

This article covers the issue pretty well:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/03/3735647/malheur-lake-oregon-militia-explainer/

 

Among other things, it puts the opinions and civil disobedience (in the form of unpaid grazing fees) of the Bundys and their ilk in perspective compared to most ranchers with public land grazing permits in the Western U.S.

 

And for some perspective on the Bundy family and how much they've gotten away with, there's this:

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/john-l-smith/shoshone-sisters-also-couldn-t-beat-blm

 

I can't help but think white privilege is a factor in Bundy continuing to get away with what he's doing.

 

 

ThinkProgress?  Really?  Not exactly an unbiased source there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No. That's not what I said at all. How is having demonstration organizers help defray costs criminalizing protests?

Sounded like you were wanting to assess penalties.

 

I am not going to discuss this further as it is apparent you haven't thought about the implications and the wry in which this could be used to stifle dissent at all.

[EmseB]

ISIS is evil...but these guys are not peaceful innocuous guys either.   It does not make what they are doing neither wrong nor domestic terrorism.   They have illegally occupied a federal building...are armed...and have stated that they are willing to die for their cause.   If they were Muslim-Americans, there would be no question that what they are doing is terrorism.  Legal definition of terrorism:

 

 

Textbook.  They are trying to intimidate the government.

 

If they were outside of the building....without guns...without saying they are willing to die for their cause....then I'd view them as protestors.  The guns and willingness to die puts them on par with other terrorists.  This is a good article on the subject of domestic terrorism

 

""If you just look at the numbers," he said, "then non-Islamic, non-foreign-motivated terrorist actions have killed at least as many Americans on American soil as those who were promoted by jihadists.""  

 

 

I mean...read this....gigantic double standard....could you imagine if two armed Muslim-Americans had set up a roadblock and were occupying a tower designed to fight fires? As well as occupying a federal building and saying they wanted to be taken seriously?  Would it really be viewed as a local sheriff's matter?  Like heck it would.

 

Domestic terrorism is real and to be taken seriously, it needs to be named.  It can't just be terrorism when Muslims are involved.  When a white guy does these things, it is still terrorism.  When a guy plans to blow up a mosque or numerous mosques , and has an arsenal, it is still terrorism (he was never charged with terrorism).    When a Christian pastor plans to attack Muslims in upstate NY with a machete and other weapons..., he should be charged with terrorism.   When a guy attacks Planned Parenthood, it's terrorism...they are definitely trying to intimidate the civilian population.  

 

Would you say dissent against the government is always wrong?  Violent dissent against the government is always wrong?  Revolutions, uprisings, civil wars, that sort of thing are always wrong?  Would you always label someone who started something like that against their own government as a terrorist or a "bad guy"?

 

I agree that terrorism should be taken seriously.  I do define terrorism more narrowly I guess, in that I think actual violence has to be committed against people.  Deaths, injuries, and hostages, that sort of thing.  Many people who protest do so willing to die for their cause and carry or make weapons.  Tienanmen Square comes to mind immediately, but perhaps I'm dating myself.

 

Also, I don't equate the mere presence of guns during a protest with terrorism.

 

Note:  I'm not arguing these guys' position as I haven't read enough about it.  They seem to be taking an unnecessary and dangerous stand for people who don't want them there.  But something about saying that being willing to die for a cause is terrorism strikes me the wrong way.  Also, of course the government has laws saying you can't intimidate it or attempt to overthrow it.  Obviously.  But intimidating a population with actual violence (terrorism) is much different than having a sit-in at a government building protesting the government.

 

Re-reading your statements -- all the things you've highlighted here seem to be apples/oranges to what is actually going on in Oregon.

[umsami]

Would you say dissent against the government is always wrong?  Violent dissent against the government is always wrong?  Revolutions, uprisings, civil wars, that sort of thing are always wrong?  Would you always label someone who started something like that against their own government as a terrorist or a "bad guy"?

 

I agree that terrorism should be taken seriously.  I do define terrorism more narrowly I guess, in that I think actual violence has to be committed against people.  Deaths, injuries, and hostages, that sort of thing.  Many people who protest do so willing to die for their cause and carry or make weapons.  Tienanmen Square comes to mind immediately, but perhaps I'm dating myself.

 

Also, I don't equate the mere presence of guns during a protest with terrorism.

 

Note:  I'm not arguing these guys' position as I haven't read enough about it.  They seem to be taking an unnecessary and dangerous stand for people who don't want them there.  But something about saying that being willing to die for a cause is terrorism strikes me the wrong way.  Also, of course the government has laws saying you can't intimidate it or attempt to overthrow it.  Obviously.  But intimidating a population with actual violence (terrorism) is much different than having a sit-in at a government building protesting the government.

 

Re-reading your statements -- all the things you've highlighted here seem to be apples/oranges to what is actually going on in Oregon.

 

No...dissent is not always wrong.  You mentioned ISIS, are you aware of how the whole civil war in Syria started?  Many many of the anti-government groups were protesting the evil government of Assad.  It is a civil war.  Not all of the groups are ISIS sympathizers... but then again, the way Assad operates (torturing children, gassing his own people) is far far away from what we have in the US.

 

Tiananmen was nonviolent protest.  The protestors were not armed...that's why there was so much outrage.  Kind of like Rachel Corrie being run over by an Israeli bulldozer when she was peacefully protesting their destruction of Palestinian homes. 

 

If you are so vehemently defending them, perhaps you should read more about the people you are defending?  Their positions?  Their previous actions? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The mental gymnastics some of you perform to excuse seizing a government building and threatening to kill anyone who tries to take it back simply boggles the mind.

Edited January 5, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Truscifi]

People in the US seem to carry guns all over the place.  If you can have a gun in Walmart or a church, and you are allowed to carry concealed weapons, taking them to a protest doesn't seem that much different, or even that much less stupid. 

 

If I was in Liverpool or Toronto and saw protestors with guns in a government building, I would think there was something going on.  In the US, it seems like another example of people taking guns into weird places.

 

Even in states that allow open carry you can't take guns into federal buildings.

 

Also the reason the extreme open carry people get their pictures on the news so often is because it is actually very unusual in most places for people to walk around with guns.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

Sedition

 

Domestic terrorism.

 

It's pretty straight forward as far as I can see.

 

 

I'll admit to being entertained they forgot snacks.

[swimmermom3]

These dudes really are good for some comedy gold. Apparently they forgot the snacks. You can send them via the USPS c/o Blaine Cooper or Jon Ritzheimer. I wonder if one of them is the uniquely nom de guerre'd Fluffy Unicorn? (Any relation, Sparkly?)

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/oregon-terrorists-dont-plan-siege-very-well-put-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx

 

But seriously, the FBI should be preparing their own special care package of drugged Cheetos and Chips Ahoy ASAP.

 

Don't forget Captain Moroni.  

 

I am sorry, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the thought process here:

 

“If the standoff with the Bundys was wrong, would the Lord have been with us?†he asked, noting no one was killed as tensions escalated. “Could those people that stood (with me) without fear and went through that spiritual experience … have done that without the Lord being there? No, they couldn’t.â€

 

“If our (U.S.) Constitution is an inspired document by our Lord Jesus Christ, then isn’t it scripture?†Bundy asked.

 

“Yes,†a chorus of voices replied.

 

“Isn’t it the same as the Book of Mormon and the Bible?†Bundy asked.

 

“Absolutely,†the audience answered.

 

Both quotes attributed to Cliven Bundy.

 

 

I was feeling oh so sorry for the Hammonds until I found out that one of the fires they set was actually to cover their poaching activities. Not really sure they are exactly law-abiding patriotic Americans either. 

 

Both families do good ranching families a serious disservice.

[redsquirrel]

I just want to add that if protesters are arrested they usually face heavy fines. Those are in part to recoup costs of the protests.  If a group has a planned protest/march and gets permits etc they are responsible for paying law enforcement, security, garbage pickup etc. 

 

 

I have been following the local media  on the ground in Oregon and wanted to pass some stuff along.  Here is the statement from the Harney Cty Sherriff

 

https://twitter.com/HarneyCoSheriff/status/684153394223689728

 

And this on the 'wait it out' strategy of law enforcement

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/expect_wait-them-out_law_enfor.html#incart_big-photo

[swimmermom3]

Sounded like you were wanting to assess penalties.

 

I am not going to discuss this further as it is apparent you haven't thought about the implications and the wry in which this could be used to stifle dissent at all.

 

The older I get, the more trouble I have with the thought process that goes something like this:

 

"Oh yeah, I am going rip fixtures off the public bathroom walls and smash toilets because...well, just because I am ...protesting, yeah, that's the ticket and nobody can hold me responsible for my actions, because I am like, protesting, yeah."

 

BS - You are a vandal and you should pay the price.  There are some actions that have nothing to do with civil disobedience.

[redsquirrel]

The older I get, the more trouble I have with the thought process that goes something like this:

 

"Oh yeah, I am going rip fixtures off the public bathroom walls and smash toilets because...well, just because I am ...protesting, yeah, that's the ticket and nobody can hold me responsible for my actions, because I am like, protesting, yeah."

 

BS - You are a vandal and you should pay the price.  There are some actions that have nothing to do with civil disobedience.

 

If they are caught and arrested that person would absolutely pay for the damages they caused. That is fairly standard procedure in the courts.  Now, do they have the money to pay is another matter, but they do get assessed heavy fines, and if they destroyed property it would be assessed and a fine levied. Depending on how much damage they caused it could also be part of the actual charges. Something small is misdemeanor vandalism, but something bigger is felony destruction of property, for example.

 

And, as far as I know there is also something called the Crime Victim's Board in all 50 states (it used to be anyway) that is a fund that victims of crime can go to, to be reimbursed for cost associated with the crime, so time off from work to testify, or missed work b/c you had to clean up a mess, or therapy visits due to trauma, mileage for travel etc.  That is funded in each state by pooling fees from criminals into a big fund. It is reimbursement, not money up front,and you have to show receipts etc but it does help.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The older I get, the more trouble I have with the thought process that goes something like this:

 

"Oh yeah, I am going rip fixtures off the public bathroom walls and smash toilets because...well, just because I am ...protesting, yeah, that's the ticket and nobody can hold me responsible for my actions, because I am like, protesting, yeah."

 

BS - You are a vandal and you should pay the price. There are some actions that have nothing to do with civil disobedience.

That isn't protesting - it is vandalism.

[swimmermom3]

If they are caught and arrested that person would absolutely pay for the damages they caused. That is fairly standard procedure in the courts.  Now, do they have the money to pay is another matter, but they do get assessed heavy fines, and if they destroyed property it would be assessed and a fine levied. Depending on how much damage they caused it could also be part of the actual charges. Something small is misdemeanor vandalism, but something bigger is felony destruction of property, for example.

 

And, as far as I know there is also something called the Crime Victim's Board in all 50 states (it used to be anyway) that is a fund that victims of crime can go to, to be reimbursed for cost associated with the crime, so time off from work to testify, or missed work b/c you had to clean up a mess, or therapy visits due to trauma, mileage for travel etc.  That is funded in each state by pooling fees from criminals into a big fund. It is reimbursement, not money up front,and you have to show receipts etc but it does help.

 

Thank you for the information!  There were aspects of Occupy Portland that really pissed me.

[Sdel]

 

It definitely makes me think everyone who complains about Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street but calls these guys "patriots" is .... well, is a hypocrite at best.

 

 

 

You know, it really isn't one or the other.  The reality is they are neither patriot nor terrorist. 

 

They say they intend to occupy a very large, very isolated area for a very long time.  The guns are probably necessary for the plan to work because they plan to HUNT their food from the reserve.  Its kind of hard to send someone out to the grocery store in a situation like this.  Their talk of killing is in reference of defense and is in fact an attempt to avoid consequences.   

 

The definition of terrorism implies an offensive use of violence.

 

British Dictionary defines terrorism as the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal. 

[Guest]

I find the play on words funny, but ISIS is pretty damn evil. Like cutting people's heads off, rape as justice, apostasy deserves death, etc...evil.

 

Somehow I don't think the Bundys are quite there.

 

And, to echo Bluegoat's point, the methods and goals of ISIS or other terror groups vs. what's going on in Oregon are/is entirely different.

 

It is interesting to me, though, every time something like this comes up that people insist that groups they agree with ideologically are noble and peacefully sitting in for a cause (despite evidence to the contrary) and those other people are violent extremists who must be stopped (or given the death penalty, as someone expressed earlier in the thread). It's an interesting aspect of human nature that we're willing to overlook a lot of bad behavior as long as the ideology is ok with us.

Nailed it.

 

This bears consideration and repeating by all circumspect, sober minded people.

[MSNative]

Sounded like you were wanting to assess penalties.

 

I am not going to discuss this further as it is apparent you haven't thought about the implications and the wry in which this could be used to stifle dissent at all.

You were in error in your judgement about me in your first response and yet again you rush to judgement and are dismissive in your second. Yes, clearly you do not want to actually discuss. So I'll just share a few facts.

This is not a new idea. A brief Google search resulted in a good document from the ACLU about fees and protests. Many municipalities already have the fees I was talking about and that there have been successful challenges to excessive fees and waivers for groups that cannot afford it. Sounds like those who want to defray some costs are not ignorant of the possibility of using them to stifle dissent and have put some safeguards in place. Any regulation taken to extremes can cause problems. It does not follow that no regulations should be allowed.

 

"Cities may charge for the actual costs of a demonstration, including the costs of processing permits, traffic control, certain narrow insurance requirements and some clean-up costs, but you may challenge excessive fees. Groups have successfully challenged burdensome fees by arguing that:

 

The fee or costs have been imposed or increased because the content of the event is controversial and may provoke counter-demonstrations or require more police;

The city's interests can be adequately protected without the fees;

The regulation doesn't include a waiver for groups that can’t afford the charges and have no other way to publicize their views;"

 

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/free-speech-protests-demonstrations