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

[Amira]

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.

I'm not happy with armed people who knowingly and intentionally start a conflict and then say they had to defend themselves when things got violent (like George Zimmerman). The people who are occupying the building aren't even from the area and don't have a personal investment in that land. Also, I don't feel any better about the guns being used for hunting since this is a wildlife preserve where hunting is banned. They'd just be adding to their list of crimes and misdemeanors even if that's all they did with the guns and made no threatening statements.

 

The guns do make a significant difference in how I view this and the presece of guns plus the words of the occupiers are why I think this can be defined as terrorism. These guys might think that they're defending their rights and hunting for food (if the USPS doesn't deliver their snacks) with their guns, but an armed occuptation of a building is pretty clearly an offensive move and they are breaking quite a few laws.

 

I am from the western US and no matter where I live in the world, I will always be from there. I do understand the frustration of these men and many others in the West who feel underrepresented in US government. The West really doesn't matter that much in Washington. But actions like these seriously damage their cause and do absolutely nothing to help. Also, I'm a Mormon and so are a lot of these people and some are using LDS scripture to justify this. I do feel connected to this and that's part of why I think it needs to be strongly condemned. I don't appreciate their hijacking my scripture or my legal and lawmaking process.

[Word Nerd]

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

 

That's not a fair assessment of JodiSue's posts. No one is "vehemently defending them."

[MSNative]

It looks to me that they meet the FBI's definition of domestic terrorists.

 

The first on the list could be questioned (and likely will be by some) but although they haven't used violence yet, they are engaging in acts that are dangerous to human life (government officials are human btw), and they violate state/federal laws.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

 

 

 

 

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorismâ€:

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

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

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

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

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801©.

Would the Baltimore rioters be considered domestic terrorists then? Their actions seem to fit the definition above. If so, why werent they labeled terrorists?

 

I think the previous poster was absolutely right that when we agree with a cause, we are more apt to excuse it's tactics. And when we disagree with a cause or dislike the group involved in the cause (a few posters mentioned that this was just a bunch of white Christian boys throwing tantrums. And the racism goes both ways as I'm sure there were people against BLM because of prejudice.) we are quick to find fault with their tactics.

Personally, I lose respect for groups when they commit or threaten violent actions- the Oregon group included. I think a lot of people do but the media loves it. It sells and gets people talking. So, what better way to get your issue out there then by doing something drastic. While I disagree with Osterweil on many points, he definitely has a point about the media attention.

 

"In the piece, Osterweil says it is looters who turned Michael Brown's killing into a national issue. He wrote: 'If protesters hadn’t looted and burnt down that QuikTrip on the second day of protests, would Ferguson be a point of worldwide attention?'

He concludes by praising looters for 'getting to the heart of' protests against heavy-handed policing. He wrote: 'When, in the midst of an anti-police protest movement, people loot, they aren’t acting non-politically, they aren’t distracting from the issue of police violence and domination, nor are they fanning the flames of an always-already racist media discourse.

'Instead, they are getting straight to the heart of the problem of the police, property, and white supremacy.'"

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3266220/Black-Lives-Matter-activist-giving-Yale-lecture-defends-LOOTING-compares-protests-Boston-Tea-Party.html#ixzz3wNlOXQVk

[MSNative]

I'm not happy with armed people who knowingly and intentionally start a conflict and then say they had to defend themselves when things got violent (like George Zimmerman). The people who are occupying the building aren't even from the area and don't have a personal investment in that land. Also, I don't feel any better about the guns being used for hunting since this is a wildlife preserve where hunting is banned. They'd just be adding to their list of crimes and misdemeanors even if that's all they did with the guns and made no threatening statements.

 

The guns do make a significant difference in how I view this and the presece of guns plus the words of the occupiers are why I think this can be defined as terrorism. These guys might think that they're defending their rights and hunting for food (if the USPS doesn't deliver their snacks) with their guns, but an armed occuptation of a building is pretty clearly an offensive move and they are breaking quite a few laws.

 

I am from the western US and no matter where I live in the world, I will always be from there. I do understand the frustration of these men and many others in the West who feel underrepresented in US government. The West really doesn't matter that much in Washington. But actions like these seriously damage their cause and do absolutely nothing to help. Also, I'm a Mormon and so are a lot of these people and some are using LDS scripture to justify this. I do feel connected to this and that's part of why I think it needs to be strongly condemned. I don't appreciate their hijacking my scripture or my legal and lawmaking process.

Liking this wasn't enough. If I could get my emojis working I would put that cute I agree emoji here.

[Guest]

This is a weird thread.

 

From where I am sitting, it seems like there's a whole bunch of common ground between BLM, etc concerns, and ppl genuinely concerned about imminent domain over-reach. They are both (systemic racism and police brutality as well as the wholesale, systematic destruction of rural livelihoods) predicated on the relatively powerless by the extremely powerful, for their own ends.

 

 

[EmseB]

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? 

 

I think I said in my post that I'm not defending them precisely because I haven't read about them.  I'm talking about the underlying assumptions and philosophies you (and others) have brought up in their posts.

 

I'm questioning the underlying philosophy that says "intimidation" of the government is never warranted or that somehow having a sit-in in a government building warrants them getting the death penalty (as someone called for early on in the thread).  Or that these guys are wrong because of those ideas.  If dissent is not always wrong, then motives and methods must be examined, and not just in light of what we find that we ideologically agree with.

 

I'm questioning that they are committing terrorism by engaging in a sit-in, even if they are armed.  If having a sit-in is a peaceful way to protest the government, and concealed or open carry is legal, then having a sit in with legally obtained and carried weapons does not equal terrorism.  Taking hostages, blowing up buildings, committing a shooting for political purposes, violence against the population -- those things are all terrorism.  Being armed at a protest is not.

 

As for Tienanmen being entirely non-violent, protesters did use things like Molotov cocktails and other things, and Chinese soldiers were injured or killed.  I didn't really think that was in question.  And I don't think it negates or invalidates the position that the protesters took standing against the government.

 

Either way, this sit-in is also non-violent.

[KathyBC]

Specifics of this case sound complex and difficult to pin down for those of us glancing in from the outside. The message that the federal government is bullying landowners and overstating to force their case (backfires are terrorism?) is what comes through. The bigger issue that feels neglected is that public lands should be usable to the *public*, especially when their activities can co-exist with other user groups. People are participants in the ecosystem, not merely observers.

 

[Lady Florida.]

Some satire to lighten things up a bit.

 

Enraged Birders to Retake Oregon Wildlife Refuge in Dawn Offensive

 

 

[poppy]

Specifics of this case sound complex and difficult to pin down for those of us glancing in from the outside. The message that the federal government is bullying landowners and overstating to force their case (backfires are terrorism?) is what comes through. The bigger issue that feels neglected is that public lands should be usable to the *public*, especially when their activities can co-exist with other user groups. People are participants in the ecosystem, not merely observers.

 

The protesters want public lands available for their business use.  They are engaging in anti-capitalistic protest (not respecting the land rights of the gov't) to show how much they deserve it. So yes, I guess it's a  conundrum in that sense. "Down with the landowners, they are holding back my profitability! "

[chiguirre]

Would the Baltimore rioters be considered domestic terrorists then? Their actions seem to fit the definition above. If so, why werent they labeled terrorists?

 

 

I think the key difference is that the Baltimore and Ferguson riots were not preplanned (or "calculated" in the language of the statute definition). There was no plot to start a riot before Freddy Gray's or Michael Brown's death. Things just escalated from people shouting in the street to full fledged riot because the crowd was enraged and the police didn't manage to diffuse the situation. That's a very different situation from the Boston Marathon bombing or the San Bernardino shooting that we all agree were terrorist attacks. Those involved a lot of planning and preparation to carry out.

[poppy]

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. 

 

Hunting for food on a wildlife reserve is systematic use of violence... no?  It is at the very least a big middle finger sent up in Uncle Sam's direction.

[Lady Florida.]

It's ironic that those who complain the loudest about big government are often the ones who profit most from it.

 

http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/

[poppy]

I think the key difference is that the Baltimore and Ferguson riots were not preplanned (or "calculated" in the language of the statute definition). There was no plot to start a riot before Freddy Gray's or Michael Brown's death. Things just escalated from people shouting in the street to full fledged riot because the crowd was enraged and the police didn't manage to diffuse the situation. That's a very different situation from the Boston Marathon bombing or the San Bernardino shooting that we all agree were terrorist attacks. Those involved a lot of planning and preparation to carry out.

 

 

Nailed it.

 

Ferguson had a whole lot of peaceful, legal protests.  Baltimore had a whole lot of peaceful, legal protests.  Many of those protesters were just as disgusted by rioters as anyone.  Others  thought "well, I get it".  Either way, you get caught rioting, you can and SHOULD face legal consequences-- and scorn.

 

 There are probably peaceful, legal protests about the rancher rights situation.  Good for them, exercising their rights as citizens. I bet some of those folks despise this standoff.  Others quietly (or not quietly) support it.  Either way, these guys are flaunting the law and should face legal consequences-- and scorn.

 

And yes, obviously, these guys are not beheading or raping or enslaving anyone.  No bonus points for that, I mean c'mon.

 

I really hope this standoff ends without bloodshed.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hunting for food on a wildlife reserve is systematic use of violence... no?  It is at the very least a big middle finger sent up in Uncle Sam's direction.

 

I don't think it would meet the sense of "systematic use of violence" that's intended.  Hunting illegally, even to make a political point, isn't terrorism.

[Bluegoat]

I'm not happy with armed people who knowingly and intentionally start a conflict and then say they had to defend themselves when things got violent (like George Zimmerman). The people who are occupying the building aren't even from the area and don't have a personal investment in that land. Also, I don't feel any better about the guns being used for hunting since this is a wildlife preserve where hunting is banned. They'd just be adding to their list of crimes and misdemeanors even if that's all they did with the guns and made no threatening statements.

 

The guns do make a significant difference in how I view this and the presece of guns plus the words of the occupiers are why I think this can be defined as terrorism. These guys might think that they're defending their rights and hunting for food (if the USPS doesn't deliver their snacks) with their guns, but an armed occuptation of a building is pretty clearly an offensive move and they are breaking quite a few laws.

 

I am from the western US and no matter where I live in the world, I will always be from there. I do understand the frustration of these men and many others in the West who feel underrepresented in US government. The West really doesn't matter that much in Washington. But actions like these seriously damage their cause and do absolutely nothing to help. Also, I'm a Mormon and so are a lot of these people and some are using LDS scripture to justify this. I do feel connected to this and that's part of why I think it needs to be strongly condemned. I don't appreciate their hijacking my scripture or my legal and lawmaking process.

 

I think the closest anyone has got to being sympathetic is saying that the way government manages land-use issues is not always above board.  I think pretty much everyone agrees they are generally speaking in the wrong, as well as idiots.

 

But - does that make them either terrorists or traitors?  Should they, as terrorists, lose their legal protections as citizens if they end up in court, for example?  Should the police be able to work to build a case under the rules for pursuing terrorists rather than other citizens who may be committing crimes?

[EmseB]

I found this quote from Bundy:

 

"We are armed and, of course, as any individual would, I guess, or most individuals would, we are willing to defend ourselves which is our right to do,†Bundy told TheDC Sunday night. “But we have no intention on being violent,†he said… “We have no intention on being the aggressor. That is not what we are about. That’s not what we are doing here. What we are doing here is making a stand."

 

So, as long as they are not violent and don't intend on being violent except in self-defense, I can't see this as much different than any other protest.  The fact that people disagree that the government is in the wrong here seems to be the issue.

 

Is there any recourse for a rancher when/if the government says, "Now your land is a wildlife preserve"?  And the government uses the full force of it's power (violence, physical force, or threat thereof included) in order to take the land?  Let's say the rancher or the farmer does not have the means to enter into a protracted legal battle with an entity that has limitless funds and resources?  What should a rancher or farmer do if they think the government is being unjust in taking their land and they have no representation or means?  (these are just questions of curiosity, not related to the current scenario, which I understand has more to do with a jail sentence for a 3rd party).

[albeto.]

I think I said in my post that I'm not defending them precisely because I haven't read about them.  I'm talking about the underlying assumptions and philosophies you (and others) have brought up in their posts.

 

I'm questioning the underlying philosophy that says "intimidation" of the government is never warranted or that somehow having a sit-in in a government building warrants them getting the death penalty (as someone called for early on in the thread).  Or that these guys are wrong because of those ideas.  If dissent is not always wrong, then motives and methods must be examined, and not just in light of what we find that we ideologically agree with.

 

Can you link to these posts in this thread? I don't recall reading that and couldn't find them, but admittedly I searched only for the word "death" on each page, so I would have missed any other phrasing. 

 

I'm questioning that they are committing terrorism by engaging in a sit-in, even if they are armed.  If having a sit-in is a peaceful way to protest the government, and concealed or open carry is legal, then having a sit in with legally obtained and carried weapons does not equal terrorism.  Taking hostages, blowing up buildings, committing a shooting for political purposes, violence against the population -- those things are all terrorism.  Being armed at a protest is not.

 

I was robbed at gun point once with my husband and another couple. We were trapped in the house with at least 5 other men. I say at least 5 because I made a point to not make eye contact or give them any reason to feel threatened by me being too aware (for identification purposes, I was also scared sh*tless, to be frank). I did notice the one gun pointed at me the most had bullets in the chamber. It was full, I remember being impressed by that fact. These guns weren't just props. They could easily have shot us had we failed to comply to whatever they demanded. I disagree that guns in an illegal take-over is not inherently threatening, and that threat is with bodily harm. That threat is violence. That's what's keeping these men in, after all, otherwise they would be rounded up and arrested. 

 

The only thing I could think of that would diminish the terrorism possibility here is that they hadn't made any demands. By definition (as provided in this thread, and thank you to those posters for doing that, btw), terrorism includes making demands of the government or people to change some policy. These guys had made no such demand. They're just, what? Pissed? They want others to make the demands while they get credited with rallying people together? It's all so ridiculous. 

 

But it seems they have made demands. They demand to maintain control of a federal building.

 

 "The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,'' Ammon Bundy told Natalie Morales on TODAY. 

 

Armed takeovers of federal buildings seems to me to be an act of war, terrorism or no.

 

I think they should be arrested and prosecuted for treason. 

 

I also think, thank all the gods the ones taking over federal buildings are a bunch of yahoos, because this could get scary bad in a short time. But these guys? It's like watching Hee Haw declare victory. How does one keep a straight face watching that? Srsly? 

[chiguirre]

But - does that make them either terrorists or traitors?  Should they, as terrorists, lose their legal protections as citizens if they end up in court, for example?  Should the police be able to work to build a case under the rules for pursuing terrorists rather than other citizens who may be committing crimes?

Domestic terrorists don't lose their legal protections in American courts. For example, the trial of Djokhar Tsarnaev followed the normal procedures for a capital case. He wasn't spirited off to a black ops site. The sticky legal situations are when non-US citizens are apprehended overseas. That's why Guantanamo still has inmates.

[EmseB]

Hunting for food on a wildlife reserve is systematic use of violence... no?  It is at the very least a big middle finger sent up in Uncle Sam's direction.

 

Do you think the government has carte blanche to designate any land as a wildlife preserve?  So, once they say it is a wildlife preserve...that's it?  And they can enforce that decision with violence (jail time, etc)?  And citizens who may or may not have previously owned the land or used it for their livelihood have no recourse against a decision like that?  The BLM declares it, and that's final?

 

No, I don't think hunting food is violence as terrorism.  That's actually pretty funny to me that someone would go to those rhetorical lengths to define terrorism.

[EmseB]

 It's like watching Hee Haw declare victory. How does one keep a straight face watching that? Srsly? 

 

Again with the bigotry and othering of people we disagree with.  I guess it really is okay, then?

[Slojo]

Sedition

 

Domestic terrorism.

 

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

 

 

I'll admit to being entertained they forgot snacks.

So many thoughtful responses - I'm too tired to engage, but, yes, mildly entertained by the plea for snacks. I was thinking "Flaming Hot Cheetos... they need Flaming Hot Cheetos."

[Pam in CT]

I found this quote from Bundy:

 

"We are armed and, of course, as any individual would, I guess, or most individuals would, we are willing to defend ourselves which is our right to do,†Bundy told TheDC Sunday night. “But we have no intention on being violent,†he said… “We have no intention on being the aggressor. That is not what we are about. That’s not what we are doing here. What we are doing here is making a stand."

 

So, as long as they are not violent and don't intend on being violent except in self-defense, I can't see this as much different than any other protest.  The fact that people disagree that the government is in the wrong here seems to be the issue.

 

Is there any recourse for a rancher when/if the government says, "Now your land is a wildlife preserve"?  And the government uses the full force of it's power (violence, physical force, or threat thereof included) in order to take the land?  Let's say the rancher or the farmer does not have the means to enter into a protracted legal battle with an entity that has limitless funds and resources?  What should a rancher or farmer do if they think the government is being unjust in taking their land and they have no representation or means?  (these are just questions of curiosity, not related to the current scenario, which I understand has more to do with a jail sentence for a 3rd party).

I think the disconnect is, people do not have a "right" to "self-defense" when they are being arrested.  (Yes, in some states there are limited Stand Your Ground exceptions within private homes.  Those exceptions do not apply to people illegally occupying federal property.)  

 

In other circumstances, with other populations, "fighting back" with force is called "resisting arrest."  Doing so with firearms is called "endangering LEO."  

 

 

 

 

 

And

[EmseB]

I think the disconnect is, people do not have a "right" to "self-defense" when they are being arrested.  (Yes, in some states there are limited Stand Your Ground exceptions within private homes.  Those exceptions do not apply to people illegally occupying federal property.)  

 

In other circumstances, with other populations, "fighting back" with force is called "resisting arrest."  Doing so with firearms is called "endangering LEO."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, should people be arrested for holding a sit-in in a government building?

[MSNative]

I think the key difference is that the Baltimore and Ferguson riots were not preplanned (or "calculated" in the language of the statute definition). There was no plot to start a riot before Freddy Gray's or Michael Brown's death. Things just escalated from people shouting in the street to full fledged riot because the crowd was enraged and the police didn't manage to diffuse the situation. That's a very different situation from the Boston Marathon bombing or the San Bernardino shooting that we all agree were terrorist attacks. Those involved a lot of planning and preparation to carry out.

According to the Baltimore Sun there was advanced planning and it wasn't just spontaneous.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-ci-school-emails-20150720-story.html

[Bluegoat]

Domestic terrorists don't lose their legal protections in American courts. For example, the trial of Djokhar Tsarnaev followed the normal procedures for a capital case. He wasn't spirited off to a black ops site. The sticky legal situations are when non-US citizens are apprehended overseas. That's why Guantanamo still has inmates.

Well, that is good.

 

However, I still don't see them having the same kind of mind-set as terrorists here. Their thinking is exactally the same as many other protests that happen for other issues.

 

Carrying the guns is stupid, and I think there is a high chance it could lead to a bad situation.  But they are carrying them, as far as I can see, because it is part of their political identity - the protest in their view is about proclaiming their citizen rights, one of which is the right to carry a firearm.

 

It's stupid, but that doesn't make it the same kind of mindset a terrorist would have.

[chiguirre]

I found this quote from Bundy:

 

"We are armed and, of course, as any individual would, I guess, or most individuals would, we are willing to defend ourselves which is our right to do,†Bundy told TheDC Sunday night. “But we have no intention on being violent,†he said… “We have no intention on being the aggressor. That is not what we are about. That’s not what we are doing here. What we are doing here is making a stand."

 

So, as long as they are not violent and don't intend on being violent except in self-defense, I can't see this as much different than any other protest.  The fact that people disagree that the government is in the wrong here seems to be the issue.

 

The problem is that they will be violent in self-defense when LEOs have to arrest them for trespass, illegal hunting in a wildlife preserve, etc.

 

Is there any recourse for a rancher when/if the government says, "Now your land is a wildlife preserve"?  And the government uses the full force of it's power (violence, physical force, or threat thereof included) in order to take the land?  Let's say the rancher or the farmer does not have the means to enter into a protracted legal battle with an entity that has limitless funds and resources?  What should a rancher or farmer do if they think the government is being unjust in taking their land and they have no representation or means?  (these are just questions of curiosity, not related to the current scenario, which I understand has more to do with a jail sentence for a 3rd party).

 

The government didn't take anybody's land (except, of course, the Native American's) to form this nature reserve. It was created in 1908 by Theodore Roosevelt. If the local, state or federal government wants to create a new park or expand a highway or build a new weapons training center, etc. it uses eminent domain to claim the land. However, it must pay the owner fair market value for the land. There are lots of legal disputes about what constitutes fair market value, but in general, the system does work.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the disconnect is, people do not have a "right" to "self-defense" when they are being arrested.  (Yes, in some states there are limited Stand Your Ground exceptions within private homes.  Those exceptions do not apply to people illegally occupying federal property.)  

 

In other circumstances, with other populations, "fighting back" with force is called "resisting arrest."  Doing so with firearms is called "endangering LEO."  

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

Yes, I agree people don't have the right to resist legitimate use of government authority, but have they conceptualized that?  I think that they probably have not - they are a little dumb, and they think they are worried about illegitimate use of government authority.

[albeto.]

I found this quote from Bundy:

 

"We are armed and, of course, as any individual would, I guess, or most individuals would, we are willing to defend ourselves which is our right to do,†Bundy told TheDC Sunday night.

 

No one has the "right" to defend themselves against prosecution when they break the law. Good grief!

 

:laugh:

 

(ETA: good grief them, not you, JodiSue)

 

So, as long as they are not violent and don't intend on being violent except in self-defense, I can't see this as much different than any other protest.  The fact that people disagree that the government is in the wrong here seems to be the issue.

 

Illegal protests are broken up. These yokels came from a legal protest - a march. They developed an illegal protest - taking control of a federal building.

 

Is there any recourse for a rancher when/if the government says, "Now your land is a wildlife preserve"?  "We're not renewing the contract on this land."

 

FTFY

 

And the government uses the full force of it's power (violence, physical force, or threat thereof included) in order to take the land? 

 

The full force of government power is imprisonment. That's the legal set up of a free nation. Yours is an awkward and inaccurate spin on it.

 

 Let's say the rancher or the farmer does not have the means to enter into a protracted legal battle with an entity that has limitless funds and resources?  What should a rancher or farmer do if they think the government is being unjust in taking their land and they have no representation or means?  (these are just questions of curiosity, not related to the current scenario, which I understand has more to do with a jail sentence for a 3rd party).

 

Legal protests are an historically successful means by which the people collectively make their voices heard when otherwise they are ignored. 

 

Put so too have illegal protests been. No doubt. 

 

The difference is, this protest is ridiculous. It's haphazardly and foolishly carried out by people who are unprepared for the reality of the situation.

 

 

 

 

ETA: Removed my imagination of the situation

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by albeto.

[Pam in CT]

So, should people be arrested for holding a sit-in in a government building?

The protestors should be willing to be arrested if they're going to hold such a protest.

 

The essence of non-violent civil disobedience is acceptance that you may, in fact, be arrested for it.   (And subsequently have an arrest record, and forever after have to answer "yes" to the question on job applications and so on.)  

 

Potential activists' willingness to go to jail for the cause is among the very first things that activist organizers emphasize.  It's the difference between, say, taking over a college administration building (which happens all the time, and for which students are very, very rarely arrested) and moving up to the major leagues. It's not for the faint-hearted, civil disobedience.

 

 

 

"Should" such protesters be arrested is a question from the other side, and can only be evaluated within the specifics of a particular case.

 

But the guys in Oregon are NOT engaging in civil disobedience precisely because of their stated intention to resist arrest.

 

 

(Does that make it "terrorism"?  Eh.  But it's NOT civil disobedience.)

[poppy]

Do you think the government has carte blanche to designate any land as a wildlife preserve?  So, once they say it is a wildlife preserve...that's it?  And they can enforce that decision with violence (jail time, etc)?  And citizens who may or may not have previously owned the land or used it for their livelihood have no recourse against a decision like that?  The BLM declares it, and that's final?

 

No, I don't think hunting food is violence as terrorism.  That's actually pretty funny to me that someone would go to those rhetorical lengths to define terrorism.

 

No, the government does not have carte blanche to take any land, but 100+ years ago, when the land was "up for grabs", land that was not homesteaded became a wildlife preserve. That is vastly oversimplifying, but, this is a very specific spot of land where ownership was legally established.  Not "any land, any time".

 

There is a big difference between "previously owned the land" and "used it for their livelihood".  "Use it for their livelihood" was basically how all land was in England, until the idea of private property evolved. But now, I am going to guess the ranchers don't just assume spot of land THEY own is up for grabs if it's not actively part of the business......... why on earth would they get to take the govt's land? 

 

These guys just want the land to make money off it, you know that right?

 

 

Hunting food on a wildlife preserve to live is not violence or terrorism. These guys are doing it to protest, as a political statement.  Since it's illegal, and they are really flaunting their actions, they should face legal consequences for it.   

[albeto.]

Again with the bigotry and othering of people we disagree with.  I guess it really is okay, then?

 

What's okay? To make jokes? 

 

Yes. Jokes are okay. Satire is even better, but that doesn't always go over well here.

 

I'm more interested in the answer to my question. Can you link to the posts in this thread that talk about protests are never warranted and sit-ins in a government building should ensue in the death penalty?

 

Care to address the idea of weapons at a protest and how they don't serve as a threat? Or Bundy's comment that there will be violence if government agencies try to remove them?

[Ravin]

I found this quote from Bundy:

 

"We are armed and, of course, as any individual would, I guess, or most individuals would, we are willing to defend ourselves which is our right to do,†Bundy told TheDC Sunday night. “But we have no intention on being violent,†he said… “We have no intention on being the aggressor. That is not what we are about. That’s not what we are doing here. What we are doing here is making a stand."

 

So, as long as they are not violent and don't intend on being violent except in self-defense, I can't see this as much different than any other protest.  The fact that people disagree that the government is in the wrong here seems to be the issue.

 

Is there any recourse for a rancher when/if the government says, "Now your land is a wildlife preserve"?  And the government uses the full force of it's power (violence, physical force, or threat thereof included) in order to take the land?  Let's say the rancher or the farmer does not have the means to enter into a protracted legal battle with an entity that has limitless funds and resources?  What should a rancher or farmer do if they think the government is being unjust in taking their land and they have no representation or means?  (these are just questions of curiosity, not related to the current scenario, which I understand has more to do with a jail sentence for a 3rd party).

 

It isn't lawful self defense when you are defending yourself against law enforcement who are trying to arrest you for committing a criminal act. Unless the birders really do try and storm the place, there is no lawful self-defense rationale at play for bringing guns to a "peaceful" protest in the middle of nowhere.

 

Any hunting they do will be illegal poaching on a wildlife preserve.

[EmseB]

What's okay? To make jokes? 

 

Yes. Jokes are okay. Satire is even better, but that doesn't always go over well here.

 

I'm more interested in the answer to my question. Can you link to the posts in this thread that talk about protests are never warranted and sit-ins in a government building should ensue in the death penalty?

 

Care to address the idea of weapons at a protest and how they don't serve as a threat? Or Bundy's comment that there will be violence if government agencies try to remove them?

 

For the first bolded, that seemed to be the underlying philosophy of umsami's post that I responded to in detail.  Quoting the government's law against going up against the government makes me think someone would say that dissent is always wrong.  I mean, if the government forbids it, and that is the argument against this protest, then how could any protest or sit-in against the government be warranted?

For the second bolded, post #39.

 

No, I don't care to actually participate any more because I can see where this is going.  If anyone was to make jokes in a similar vein about the Madison protesters, BLM, or Occupy...it would be called out and rightly so. 

 

But the fact that this bigotry is "fine" here makes me think this is not an honest attempt at discussion.  It is a good way to "other" those you don't agree with, but it's not a good rhetorical tactic if you're actually interested in discussion.

[albeto.]

For the first bolded, that seemed to be the underlying philosophy of umsami's post that I responded to in detail.  Quoting the government's law against going up against the government makes me think someone would say that dissent is always wrong.  I mean, if the government forbids it, and that is the argument against this protest, then how could any protest or sit-in against the government be warranted?

For the second bolded, post #39.

 

No, I don't care to actually participate any more because I can see where this is going.  If anyone was to make jokes in a similar vein about the Madison protesters, BLM, or Occupy...it would be called out and rightly so. 

 

But the fact that this bigotry is "fine" here makes me think this is not an honest attempt at discussion.  It is a good way to "other" those you don't agree with, but it's not a good rhetorical tactic if you're actually interested in discussion.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

ETA: Reading the link, that doesn't address protesters in general at all, and I totally disagree with your interpretation of Umsami's comments (assuming this is the post, or her follow up to your question, especially as she specifically denies the contention).

 

Criticizing isn't bigotry. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by albeto.

[Ravin]

The difference between regulating public lands (including grazing rights on those lands) for environmental preservation and eminent domain by government for corporate gain are two different issues. Grazing permits are not subject to eminent domain, because they are a limited right which can be regulated by the landowner (the government). Eminent domain allows taking land owned by a private person, with compensation, for whatever rational purpose the government sees fit. Eminent domain has been abused by all levels of government. One of DH's former employers had his restaurant taken through eminent domain and sold to a corporate chain because the city where it was located decided a trendy sushi joint fit the image they wanted for the area better than an owner operated high-end Chinese restaurant. That is an abuse of eminent domain, IMO, but it is allowed because the test of what reason a government has for exercising the right is not a very high bar at all.

 

When it comes to managing public land, there are always multiple players with multiple interests, and the government agency with responsibility for managing the land is charged with factoring those in. When the balance of uses on a particular land changes, people who profited from a use that is being cut back will come out as losers--but not all uses are indefinitely sustainable and there is a certain amount of politics involved.

 

Many areas in the West which have in the last century and a half been used for grazing canNOT sustainably be put to that use long term, or at least not with significant restrictions. Here in Arizona, state-managed land is frequently overgrazed, resulting in dust storms. BLM land, not so much. Ranchers still want more of the land, if not privately owned, then managed by the state rather than the feds.

 

In some cases, private landowners or smaller government entities (States, Counties, Indian Tribes) do a better job at land management than the Feds. In other cases, not so much.

 

Actions like those of the Bundy brothers and friends, with armed takeover of a government building, are acts of anarchy. They are also not, objectively, greatly different from actions which are justified in U.S. history by our founding through Revolution. The winners, to a certain extent, are the ones who write history, including the labels for actions and actors.

 

They are armed militants. So far, they aren't doing anything on par with ISIS, but they are nonetheless behaving in a manner which can be seen to fit the legal definition of domestic terrorism. Is it arguable? Absolutely. Does race play a role in how quick we are to judge both the weight and the labels applied to their actions? I think so. Does religion? I think so, too. Mormonism is not the pariah fringe faith in the mainstream view that it once was--we have Islam to play that scapegoat role these days. I think people readily recognize that the religious aspect of their motivation does not reflect on the religion from which they draw as a whole.

 

Which is one way in which they are distinct from Islamist militants, who if they pulled the same stunt, even for the same land-rights related reasons, would not be debated about in the same way. No, they have not gone out of their way to cause bloodshed--but they are inviting it. If they HAD gone in when there were people working in the building and taken hostages or shot the place up, we would be calling them all sorts of things, but I think there would STILL be resistance to the terrorism label because they are white and Christian.

 

 

[KathyBC]

Keeping a farm in a family is incredibly difficult already; public grazing can help keep ranching... maybe slightly profitable. This secures local, hopefully better quality food supply and ideally keeps prices down for consumers, too. Corporate farms are a concern.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I found this quote from Bundy:

 

"We are armed and, of course, as any individual would, I guess, or most individuals would, we are willing to defend ourselves which is our right to do,†Bundy told TheDC Sunday night. “But we have no intention on being violent,†he said… “We have no intention on being the aggressor. That is not what we are about. That’s not what we are doing here. What we are doing here is making a stand."

 

So, as long as they are not violent and don't intend on being violent except in self-defense, I can't see this as much different than any other protest.  The fact that people disagree that the government is in the wrong here seems to be the issue.

 

Is there any recourse for a rancher when/if the government says, "Now your land is a wildlife preserve"?  And the government uses the full force of it's power (violence, physical force, or threat thereof included) in order to take the land?  Let's say the rancher or the farmer does not have the means to enter into a protracted legal battle with an entity that has limitless funds and resources?  What should a rancher or farmer do if they think the government is being unjust in taking their land and they have no representation or means?  (these are just questions of curiosity, not related to the current scenario, which I understand has more to do with a jail sentence for a 3rd party).

 

Wait...you think people breaking the law have a legal right to self defense?

 

Can you show me where this protest has anything to do with deeded land being taken away from property owners?

[chiguirre]

According to the Baltimore Sun there was advanced planning and it wasn't just spontaneous.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-ci-school-emails-20150720-story.html

Posting stuff on social media is not equivalent to making a bomb or hoarding ammunition and assault weapons. Serious plotters don't post their plans on Facebook for the police and school officials to see.

[Word Nerd]

 

Criticizing isn't bigotry. 

 

And name-calling and mocking rural people (e.g., Hee Haw, yokels) isn't legitimate criticism. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Word Nerd

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

There's really not any question that the Hammonds did what they were convicted of- setting fire to public lands. The article you link doesn't make sense in some parts- why would the judge push for a terrorism conviction if he wasn't going to give them the mandatory minimum sentence?  There also aren't any sources at all to back up this version of the convictions.  Personally, I have a problem with a lot of mandatory minimum sentences and this case is no different.  It's Congress that needs to change these laws, or the terrorism conviction needs to be appealed so that minimum wouldn't apply. There are legal and non-violent options here.

 

The history regarding the conflicts between ranchers (and many other people living in the western US) and the federal government are often long and complicated.  People in those states feel underrepresented in the federal government with good reason and have a hard time making their voices heard.  There are legitimate concerns out there, no question, and there are many different factors that have to be balanced. I think that Congress needs to do a better job at listening to these concerns (when presented non-violently, of course).

 

That doesn't make what Bundy and crew are doing any less stupid or wrong- especially since the Hammonds apparently don't want him to do this.  It's terrorism if you use violence or the threat of violence to try to further your political goals.  I don't think the government should go blow Bundy and crew up, but let's call it what it is and deal with it in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, that makes it clear to Bundy that he can't do things like this, and that begins to deal with the problems of mandatory minimum sentences and issues surrounding federal lands in the western US. 

I have little sympathy for Westerners who feel they are not represented well in Congress when in fact there is the federal city of Washington, DC with over 600,000 people, more people than some of these same states, who have no representation in Congress at all! I truly do not think the founding fathers anticipated that many Americans would have have no representation.

 

As for the land owned by the government, I get the feeling that the protesters just want a free land grab and at the same time I suspect are totally against social safety nets for people like food stamps and welfare and universal health care. Talk about a double standard.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am also thinking these very same protesters were probably in favor of  the Keystone XL Pipeline which would involve taking over some rancher's land by eminent domain even though there already is a usable pipeline route in place that would not require the taking by force of ranchers' land.. This would also be a double standard.

 

I could be wrong here, but I am guessing this might be true.

Edited January 5, 2016 by NoPlaceLikeHome

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I wanted to add that I am not against these protesters just protesting or occupying government land during a protest. I am against them arming themselves and saying they will kill if needed since this makes the protest not a peaceful protest at all and changes it to something criminal IMHO.

[EmseB]

I am also thinking these very same protesters were probably in favor of  the Keystone XL Pipeline which would involve taking over some rancher's land by eminent domain even though there already is a usable pipeline route in place that would not require the taking by force of ranchers' land.. This would also be a double standard.

 

I could be wrong here, but I am guessing this might be true.

 

If we're going to speculate, I could speculate that they would be against the government forcibly taking land in any situation, Keystone included.  Like you, I could be wrong here, but I am guessing this might be true.

[EmseB]

I wanted to add that I am not against these protesters just protesting or occupying government land during a protest. I am against them arming themselves and saying they will kill if needed since this makes the protest not a peaceful protest at all and changes it to something criminal IMHO.

 

So people who carry guns and are willing to kill in self-defense are violent?  Wouldn't that make everyone who carries concealed in any situation criminal?

[Amira]

I have little sympathy for Westerners who feel they are not represented well in Congress when in fact there is the federal city of Washington, DC with over 600,000 people, more people than some of these same states, who have no representation in Congress at all! I truly do not think the founding fathers anticipated that many Americans would have have no representation.

 

As for the land owned by the government, I get the feeling that the protesters just want a free land grab and at the same time I suspect are totally against social safety nets for people like food stamps and welfare and universal health care. Talk about a double standard.

I completely agree with you about Washington, DC. My son and I have been doing a DC history class this year while we're in the area this year and it's been fascinating and frustrating to learn about how limited people living in the District are in some ways. I also don't think the founding fathers anticipated that and I think it should change, but Washingtonians don't have the political clout to do so.

 

I'm not sure why I can't be incensed by both situations, in DC and in the West. Both concern me, but this conversation has been about the western US. I'd love to have a conversation about DC in another thread.

 

As for federal lands in the West, it's less about federal lands going to private citizens and more about advocating for them to be administered by state governments- Bundy's group specifically advocates for federal lands to return to the states, not to go to private citizens. The trouble with that is that states don't necessarily want the lands back- it would be a huge undertaking to administer those lands. There's a lot more than one opinion in the West on what should happen with federal lands as Ravin's post makes clear. Bundy and friends don't represent everyone. And yes, they are definitely the type that are opposed to government safety nets even though many in the West take advantage of them in different ways.

[KathyBC]

Industry compensating landowners for easements is a different scenario than federal agencies changing their policy on who no longer qualifies to lease public land.

[albeto.]

And name-calling and mocking rural people (e.g., Hee Haw, yokels) isn't legitimate criticism. 

 

I do have a serious reply to this, and if my posts aren't deleted by the time I get back to my computer, I'll respond with respect. I think this is a really good point to get into - mockery of aggressors and [arguably] terrorists. Maybe it's too off topic. Perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate. I disagree this is bigotry, but I want to address this point with consideration. 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So people who carry guns and are willing to kill in self-defense are violent?  Wouldn't that make everyone who carries concealed in any situation criminal?

I am not saying that at all and I am not against concealed carry but I do favor more gun control laws such as banning assault weapons and background checks and mandatory gun safety classes, etc. etc. 

 

Folks do not have a right to defend themselves against law enforcement. That would be criminal. If they feel they were unfairly arrested, then we have the justice system.

[Pam in CT]

So people who carry guns and are willing to kill in self-defense are violent?  Wouldn't that make everyone who carries concealed in any situation criminal?

 

The issue is, there is no right to self-defense in the context of being arrested.  That would be... quite impractical, from both an LEO safety (and recruitment!) perspective and also from a general law and order perspective.  Fighting back during arrest is called "resisting arrest."  

 

And "resisting arrest" leaves some people, in other circumstances, dead.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Industry compensating landowners for easements is a different scenario than federal agencies changing their policy on who no longer qualifies to lease public land.

Even when it is against the landowner's will, is it OK for industry to seize private land especially in the setting where an already viable route exists for said pipeline that would not involve seizing land and endangering sensitize ecological areas?

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/13/where-is-fox-news-outrage-over-keystone-xl-land/202116

Edited January 6, 2016 by NoPlaceLikeHome