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

[barnwife]

If a group of armed Black Lives Matter organizers, or Muslim Americans, or Native Americans, etc, etc did exactly what this group is doing, if they posted videos stating they are ready and willing to kill and be killed, saying goodbye to loved ones, asking others to gather their weapons and join them... the media response, the law enforcement response, the response from our government would be very, very different.

 

And I am so glad that so far no one has been hurt or killed...but so many other people in this country haven't been given same forbearance.

 

 

AIM, google it.

[Bluegoat]

I think when someone is posting videos to their family, saying they will kill or be killed, it isn't civil disobedience. 

 

The whole point of civil disobedience is to be unarmed, to not pose a threat, to not resist arrest. 

 

These people have said they will use violence and they have the weapons to back it up.  How is that in line with civil disobedience?

 

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.

[Laurie4b]

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

 

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Laurie4b

[Amira]

Are people who threaten violence to further their political aims not terrorists?  Are you only a terrorist if you actually hurt people? Are you only a terrorist if you make a certain number of people scared of you?

 

I see really big differences in whom we're willing to label as terrorists and it's hard to not see race and ethnicity playing a major role in this.  Domestic white terrorists have to do something pretty huge to get the label.  Nearly everyone else just needs to espouse something radical or violent to get it, especially if they're not from the US.

 

I'd rather be more consistent in the labeling and allow a wider variety of responses to terrorism depending on the specific circumstances.  This can still be deescalated in a non-violent way even if we call their actions what they are. 

 

 

[poppy]

It's Christian white boys so let's not take it seriously ; they are just having a tantrum. Any minority arming themselves , provocatively breaking the law and threatening law enforcement would not be regarded that way , zero question in my mind .

 

It is armed resistance, not civil disobedience.

Edited January 4, 2016 by poppy

[madteaparty]

It is covered. I have seen it on the cnn and abcnews websites.

It is even covered internationally; I saw it on the main German news website.

I'm overseas at the moment. I had to look for news coverage of this when i read about it on facebook and thought it was satire/an Onion piece. I don't think it's being covered nearly as much as one would expect.

[Laurie4b]

Are people who threaten violence to further their political aims not terrorists?  Are you only a terrorist if you actually hurt people? Are you only a terrorist if you make a certain number of people scared of you?

 

I see really big differences in whom we're willing to label as terrorists and it's hard to not see race and ethnicity playing a major role in this.  Domestic white terrorists have to do something pretty huge to get the label.  Nearly everyone else just needs to espouse something radical or violent to get it, especially if they're not from the US.

 

I'd rather be more consistent in the labeling and allow a wider variety of responses to terrorism depending on the specific circumstances.  This can still be deescalated in a non-violent way even if we call their actions what they are. 

 

I didn't comment on the terrorist label.

[Lady Florida.]

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.

 

You don't take over federal buildings for sh!ts and giggles. If you do something as serious as show up heavily armed and park yourselves in a public federal building saying you will kill or be killed, you had better expect to be treated as either traitors or terrorists, or both.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Lady Florida

[Amira]

I didn't comment on the terrorist label.

 

I wasn't responding to you- you posted while I was typing my post. I'm sorry if that was confusing.

[Lawyer&Mom]

I think the Native American occupation of Alcatraz is an interesting comparison. A long term occupation of remote federal property in a dispute over land rights. No hostages. The federal government waited nineteen months before forcibly removing the last occupiers. Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy because this group is armed and the Alcatraz group wasn't. But I think it shows that their is precedent for a wait it out approach, even when the group isn't white.

[Bluegoat]

You don't take over federal buildings for sh!ts and giggles. If you do something as serious as show up heavily armed and park yourselves in a public federal building saying you will kill or be killed, you had better expect to be treated as either traitors or terrorists, or both.

 

Sit-ins in government buildings are pretty common in civil disobedience, and have been since the 60s. 

 

It was stupid to say they will kill or be killed, but I think they are probably correct to see it as loose talk rather than their real intent.

 

Do you see treating them as some sort of terrorist occupation as likely to produce a good outcome?  We have some experience in Canada with armed occupations by groups of citizens intending civil disobedience, and they suggest to me that course of action is likely to make things much worse.

[Lady Florida.]

From the Today show this morning:

 

"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. "We're putting nobody in harm's way. We are not threatening anybody. We're 30 miles out of the closest town."

 

 

They are threatening someone. "The government" is people. They are threatening violence towards people from the government who will - in Bundy's own words - want their building back. Their building. Not Bundy's or his band of thugs.

 

These guys are not patriots. They're terrorists. They're criminals. They border on treasonous.
 

[redsquirrel]

AIM, google it.

 

 

lol, I don't need to google it

 

I think the Native American occupation of Alcatraz is an interesting comparison. A long term occupation of remote federal property in a dispute over land rights. No hostages. The federal government waited nineteen months before forcibly removing the last occupiers. Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy because this group is armed and the Alcatraz group wasn't. But I think it shows that their is precedent for a wait it out approach, even when the group isn't white.

 

 

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!"

[Starr]

Wouldn't it be nice to have surveillance to keep them there until they were begging for a movie or to go bowling. :D Somehow I don't think they really want to live there for years. 

[Lady Florida.]

Sit-ins in government buildings are pretty common in civil disobedience, and have been since the 60s. 

 

It was stupid to say they will kill or be killed, but I think they are probably correct to see it as loose talk rather than their real intent.

 

Do you see treating them as some sort of terrorist occupation as likely to produce a good outcome?  We have some experience in Canada with armed occupations by groups of citizens intending civil disobedience, and they suggest to me that course of action is likely to make things much worse.

 

I remember the sit-ins of the 60's. I'm old enough to have taken part in some of the later ones. Those, and subsequent sit-ins did not include heavily armed protesters or protesters who threatened to kill or be killed. They were peaceful for the most part (riots are another thing, but it's sit-ins you mentioned).

 

As to your question, I think the feds are doing what they should by looking for a peaceful solution. I also think the media should speak the name - terrorist. The point many of us in this thread are trying to make is the difference between white guys (who are Christian even though religion isn't playing a part for them) and people with darker skin and/or of different religious beliefs. It's wrong. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Lady Florida

[Anne in CA]

I disagree. Occupy Wall Street was a sit in style protest. The protesters did not resist law enforcement efforts to arrest them, they peacefully submitted to the legal penalties for their actions.

 

The Bundys brought enough guns to pose a threat to everyone in their vicinity. I don't think any police officer would consider them as anything but a lethal threat if they have to go in and try to arrest them. They are terrorizing their town. They are terrorists.

 

I don't think it's an overreaction to call them a radical organization and use anti-terrorism measures to trace their contacts. Remember that a small group of similarly minded radicals bombed the OK City Federal Building. We can never forget that these anti-government extremists pose a real and present danger to all of us.

 

(If you need a heartrending reminder, scroll down on this page:

 

http://web.mit.edu/drb/Public/PhotoThesis/  )

In Portland Occupy Wall Street nearly destroyed several park blocks. I wish you could have seen the way they looked with the "Occupiers" pulled out. I doubt that the Bundy's are going to damage the wildlife preserve the way the "Occupiers" damaged some of the places they "occupied". They may damage it, I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.

 

I don't agree with the actions of the Bundys, and some of what I have read about them in the media is extremely unsavory. But many low income people in the country, black, white or otherwise have learned that they do not have good odds of justice inside the court system. Farmers are mostly low income. They have little recourse when environmental groups with deep pockets or government agencies treat them wrongly. Which happens. A lot.

 

The Bundys are going to get sympathy they may not deserve because there are a lot of people in this country who know they will never get a fair shake with the court system. The way that the people of Ferguson rallied around someone unsavory, because the whole system was corrupt and it wasn't right. They were tired of waiting for the perfect poster boy, they were just mad. They were not wrong to be angry, even if things went much farther than most of them probably meant for it to.

[Bluegoat]

I remember the sit-ins of the 60's. I'm old enough to have taken part in some of the later ones. Those, and subsequent sit-ins did not include heavily armed protesters or protesters who threatened to kill or be killed. They were peaceful for the most part (riots are another thing, but it's sit-ins you mentioned).

 

As to your question, I think the feds are doing what they should by looking for a peaceful solution. I also think the media should speak the name - terrorist. The point many of us in this thread are trying to make is the difference between white guys (who are Christian even though religion isn't playing a part for them) and people with darker skin and/or of different religious beliefs. It's wrong. 

 

I think the distinction is that these people are essentially having a sit-in, where they have stupidly brought guns.  That's really very different than the intent of a terrorist group in a similar kind of situation.  Their guns are a point of political identification for them, a symbol.

 

Government, especially that of the US, has been pushing hard for years to expand the use of the word terrorist for their own ends, and they have already done that in this case - in all likelihood to allow them to avoid more strenuous legal hoops or possibly as a type of propaganda.

 

As far as other groups - yes, it can be wrong to treat them differently, but it also depends on what the authorities assess the purpose of the group is.  Their response is meant to relate to the nature of the threat.  If it were a bunch of Muslims in a sit-in with guns, the worry would be that they were in fact fundamentalist terrorists - and that is possible - and that they would take action in accordance with that.  So the problem would be differentiating those possibilities and preparing for them.  With this group, that kind of action is significantly more unlikely.

[poppy]

I don't agree with the actions of the Bundys, and some of what I have read about them in the media is extremely unsavory. But many low income people in the country, black, white or otherwise have learned that they do not have good odds of justice inside the court system. Farmers are mostly low income. They have little recourse when environmental groups with deep pockets or government agencies treat them wrongly. Which happens. A lot.

 

The Bundys are going to get sympathy they may not deserve because there are a lot of people in this country who know they will never get a fair shake with the court system. The way that the people of Ferguson rallied around someone unsavory, because the whole system was corrupt and it wasn't right. They were tired of waiting for the perfect poster boy, they were just mad. They were not wrong to be angry, even if things went much farther than most of them probably meant for it to.

 

Ferguson residents rallied, unarmed, and got a SWAT team sent in.

These guys brought guns, said they would use them  if they didn't get their way, and they're not really terrorists?

 

Sit in, fine.  Bring your firearm and make it known you will use it, terrorist. 

 

Of course, the revolutionary was the British empire versus terrorists.  There is a precedent for armed resistance in the US.

 

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.

 

 

 

As far as other groups - yes, it can be wrong to treat them differently, but it also depends on what the authorities assess the purpose of the group is.  Their response is meant to relate to the nature of the threat.  If it were a bunch of Muslims in a sit-in with guns, the worry would be that they were in fact fundamentalist terrorists - and that is possible - and that they would take action in accordance with that.  So the problem would be differentiating those possibilities and preparing for them.  With this group, that kind of action is significantly more unlikely.

 

Fundamentalist terrorist are worse than these guys because they are willing to die for the cause.  These guys have indicated they are willing to die for their cause too.

Not seeing some huge difference here.

 

To be clear, I do not think the Feds should do in with guns blazing.  I just hate to see these bullies being lauded as heroes by anyone.

Edited January 4, 2016 by poppy

[Anne in CA]

To make it clear, I do believe the Bundys to be terrorists. Period. I am just saying that there are going to be people who are sympathetic and that those people are not jerks.

[DragonFaerie]

What really bothers me is that these thugs want the land back for mining, logging, and hunting.  They obviously have no concept of the word "preserve."  What happens when they destroy all this land with their logging and mining?  Is Yellowstone next?  Then what?  Eventually there won't be any resources left on our destroyed planet.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

The news here in Oregon keeps accurately labeling them as militants. Terrorists are a completely different kettle of fish. Terrorists would have killed unsuspecting birders and taken hostages. I agree that the militants are not helping themselves with their tactics and they have zero of my sympathy, but they haven't lived up to the terrorist hyperbole either. I'm good with them being tagged as militants or militia men, but I will not call these people terrorists.

Edited January 4, 2016 by TianXiaXueXiao

[Bluegoat]

 

 

 

Fundamentalist terrorist are worse than these guys because they are willing to die for the cause.  These guys have indicated they are willing to die for their cause too.

Not seeing some huge difference here.

 

To be clear, I do not think the Feds should do in with guns blazing.  I just hate to see these bullies being lauded as heroes by anyone.

 

It isn't just about what you say, it's also about what you do, or will do.

 

The fact is that so far as Islamic fundamentalists go, they would not be sitting in a government building demanding some kind of change in the law or any other kind of change for that matter.  They will just bomb the building or blow some random person up at a check-point.  They have been quite willing to kill and die, not even to directly create some kind of policy change but in order to pressure or destabilize populations and governments, its actually an established mode of operation.  It involves organized groups and sometimes lone individuals like the guy who attacked our Parliament.  He didn't sit in the foyer with a gun - he killed a soldier standing as a ceremonial guard and then went into the building shooting - the party caucuses had to bar themselves in their rooms and they stuck the PM in a closet.

 

What these guys are doing is quite different, the goals are different, the type of operation is different, their motives seem to be different. Their claims that they will kill or be willing to die appear to be more about swinging d&^$s than actually doing anything violent.  Being an idiot who wants to swing his parts around is different than sending people into a crowd wearing an explosive vest.

 

I think its a lot closer to things like First Nations groups blockading public highways.

[Laurie4b]

Is there an accepted definition differentiating terrorist vs. militant vs. lone wolf mass murderer? 

 

If this group is or is not labeled terrorist, what difference does it make in your mind? 

 

If they are labeled terrorist, should there be a different law enforcement response than there would be if they were labeled militant? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

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©.

[Bluegoat]

A militant might be a terrorist, or might not.  Terrorists can work alone or in groups.

 

Generally, while a terrorist has some kind of political cause, the goal of their actions is to create fear and panic - kidnap people on a plane, bomb someone on his way into an office, and so on.  Their targets are generally non-military in nature.

 

It becomes tricky when you are talking about groups within a nation - what is the difference, say, between a rebel faction or military organization, and a terrorist group?  Isis for example uses terrorist tactics but could be argued to be a real military body of sorts.  They often do not meet the requirements to be recognized as a combative unit according to laws of war, which includes carrying weapons openly and having some kind of identifiable badge or symbol or uniform, and they target non-military targets.  But that might not mean they are being terrorists - perhaps they are just flouting the rules of war and that is how they should be prosecuted? 

 

Also tricky is that historically less powerful or oppressed groups have used similar kinds of methods, because they were relatively powerless.  And almost always the government has tried to paint these groups as rabble or terrorists or traitors, precisely because these are the kinds of tactics that they have access to.

 

If a group is labeled as terrorist, they aren't subject to the same laws - the same international laws as combatants, and on a domestic level they may not have the same rights as a normal citizen.  This is important because its easy to see why it would be in the interest of government to have people challenging them stripped of some of their protections.

 

Whether they are terrorists or not isn't really the issue in the response, IMO - its the threat, which is dependent in all cases on the specific situation.

[Bluegoat]

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©.

 

You would have to draw a line though between these guys and the things that happen, or are said, in other kinds of civil disobedience.  It would be simpler if it were less normal to carry guns around, but given that these guys seem to have the legal right to carry them around, it muddies things a bit.  Maybe they don't have the right to have them there, but they aren't supposed to have a sit-in there either.

 

It comes down to the threats, which seem to be of the type that thinks they may actually try and drive them out with violence, so see their own potential violence as a response to government violence.

[Lady Florida.]

They still meet the FBI definition.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

The black panthers were not terrorists but it seems they should've been labeled as such according to the logic I'm seeing here.

[Bluegoat]

They still meet the FBI definition.

 

Can you make that happen clearly without including other groups who we don't consider terrorists?  The Black Panthers were mentioned, and some of the Occupy groups, for example? If a yahoo at a sit-in has a big mouth and speaks too broadly about what his plans are for the government, will that mean he is threatening violence?

Edited January 4, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Lady Florida.]

The black panthers were not terrorists but it seems they should've been labeled as such according to the logic I'm seeing here.

 

I don't disagree completely. However, the BPP has a long and complicated history with a good deal of infighting throughout its existence. 

[Word Nerd]

nm 

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Word Nerd

[swimmermom3]

I am in the western US and I know of at least three fourth-generation ranches that were taken by city and state governments using eminent domain laws. The laws are written so that the homeowner/landowner has to sell, or the gov't can just take it.

 

Our citizens got wind of an effort by our city to take a private lake so that Walmart could build nearby and drain the lake for parking and so that the semis could turn around and make deliveries. The land owners were losing until the general public got behind them, and a judge finally ruled that the deal was an abuse of power.

 

Now, the federal gov't under this admin. is taking land (or forcing a sale) of ranches and open spaces that has been used for many generations. The gov't calls it federal property, or a nature preserve in this case, and then arrests ranchers who dare to continue to use the land. Ranchers just don't have the money to fight the govt. in court.

 

There's just a lot of frustration with what is seen as heavy-handed abuse of gov't power.

 

I would put this protest in the same category as Occupy Wall St., Black Lives Matter, and the occupation of the Minn. state house by union supporters.

 

Could you please tell me how much land has been added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge since 2009, please? I am a bit confused as to the above claim.  Thanks.

[chiguirre]

The black panthers were not terrorists but it seems they should've been labeled as such according to the logic I'm seeing here.

The Black Panthers would be considered terrorists today. But, back when they were very active, terrorist wasn't as common a term nor did it embody all of our collective memories of OK City, 9/11, Paris, etc. We didn't have more mass shootings than days in the year either. This is one of those cases where the past really is a different country.

 

I don't think it's fair to lump Occupy, Black Lives Matter or the Wisconsin union protesters in with the Black Panthers. You may not agree with them, their methods might not be your cup of tea, but they weren't threatening to kill LEOs if their demands weren't met or they were forcibly removed. That is a huge, flaming difference.

 

The Malheur situation parallels Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian compound much more closely than anything else in recent history. Those episodes didn't end well and I don't think this one will either. The guns change the entire tenor of the situation and they make both sides more trigger happy. It only takes one fool to accidentally let off a shot and the whole thing could turn into a blood bath.

Edited January 4, 2016 by chiguirre

[Mommy22alyns]

It's like the cowboy conservative version of occupy wall street meets earth first. Not terrorism until they actually terrorize. I tire of the hyperbole.

 

 

I agree with this.  Has there been widespread property destruction?  Have businesses or services for everyday people been disrupted?  Have there been deaths or injuries? Is the nation on alert to watch out for them (i.e. are there widespread fears that the violence will spread)?  (Seriously, if this has happened in this instance, please inform me and share links.)

 

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. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Mommy22alyns

[goldberry]

I think when someone is posting videos to their family, saying they will kill or be killed, it isn't civil disobedience. 

 

The whole point of civil disobedience is to be unarmed, to not pose a threat, to not resist arrest. 

 

These people have said they will use violence and they have the weapons to back it up.  How is that in line with civil disobedience?

 

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?

[Spryte]

I agree with this.  Has there been widespread property destruction?  Have businesses or services for everyday people been disrupted?  Have there been deaths or injuries? Is the nation on alert to watch out for them (i.e. are there widespread fears that the violence will spread)?  (Seriously, if this has happened in this instance, please inform me and share links.)

 

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. 

 

Area schools have been closed for the week.  I would call that disrupting the lives of every day people.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/01/04/armed-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge-forces-area-schools-to-close-for-the-week/

[chiguirre]

 

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.

Could you provide a link? I've clearly missed some important news.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

The Black Panthers would be considered terrorists today. But, back when they were very active, terrorist wasn't as common a term nor did it embody all of our collective memories of OK City, 9/11, Paris, etc. We didn't have more mass shootings than days in the year either. This is one of those cases where the past really is a different country.

 

I don't think it's fair to lump Occupy, Black Lives Matter or the Wisconsin union protesters in with the Black Panthers. You may not agree with them, their methods might not be your cup of tea, but they weren't threatening to kill LEOs if their demands weren't met or they were forcibly removed. That is a huge, flaming difference.

 

The Malheur situation parallels Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian compound much more closely than anything else in recent history. Those episodes didn't end well and I don't think this one will either. The guns change the entire tenor of the situation and they make both sides more trigger happy. It only takes one fool to accidentally let off a shot and the whole thing could turn into a blood bath.

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?

 

https://youtu.be/feY0diCOp-Y

[Mommy22alyns]

Could you provide a link? I've clearly missed some important news.

 

 

IDK, you could go back and look at some pics from Ferguson and Baltimore.  The "protesters' were alleged to have been unarmed, yet they managed to cause a TON of destruction.

[goldberry]

Just adding though, it definitely seems the Hammonds are getting a raw deal and are being harassed.  Who gets re-sentenced after already serving the first sentence?  That's bogus.  

 

I think the Bundy guy is wrong and over the top though.

[Mommy22alyns]

Area schools have been closed for the week.  I would call that disrupting the lives of every day people.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/01/04/armed-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge-forces-area-schools-to-close-for-the-week/

 

 

Thank you.  I was not aware of this.  I haven't read a ton about this yet.

[Ravin]

It isn't just about what you say, it's also about what you do, or will do.

 

The fact is that so far as Islamic fundamentalists go, they would not be sitting in a government building demanding some kind of change in the law or any other kind of change for that matter.  They will just bomb the building or blow some random person up at a check-point.  They have been quite willing to kill and die, not even to directly create some kind of policy change but in order to pressure or destabilize populations and governments, its actually an established mode of operation.  It involves organized groups and sometimes lone individuals like the guy who attacked our Parliament.  He didn't sit in the foyer with a gun - he killed a soldier standing as a ceremonial guard and then went into the building shooting - the party caucuses had to bar themselves in their rooms and they stuck the PM in a closet.

 

What these guys are doing is quite different, the goals are different, the type of operation is different, their motives seem to be different. Their claims that they will kill or be willing to die appear to be more about swinging d&^$s than actually doing anything violent.  Being an idiot who wants to swing his parts around is different than sending people into a crowd wearing an explosive vest.

 

I think its a lot closer to things like First Nations groups blockading public highways.

 

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.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ravin

[Spryte]

Just adding though, it definitely seems the Hammonds are getting a raw deal and are being harassed.  Who gets re-sentenced after already serving the first sentence?  That's bogus.  

 

I think the Bundy guy is wrong and over the top though.

 

Yep, I'm in agreement with you on that.  The re-sentencing seems off, but I don't know enough about those laws.

 

Clearly the reaction of the Bundy group is way out of line though.  

[DragonFaerie]

Yep, I'm in agreement with you on that.  The re-sentencing seems off, but I don't know enough about those laws.

 

Clearly the reaction of the Bundy group is way out of line though.  

 

And the Hammonds have already said that the Bundy group does not speak for them.

[chiguirre]

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?

 

 

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.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

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.

Exactly. It wasn't even covered by mainstream media. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Spryte]

And the Hammonds have already said that the Bundy group does not speak for them.

 

Yes, I knew that.   :)  I think the Bundy people are just using the Hammonds as an excuse.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Spryte

[TianXiaXueXiao]

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/

Edited January 4, 2016 by TianXiaXueXiao

[DragonFaerie]

Yes, I knew that.   :)  I think the Bundy people are just using the Hammonds as an excuse.

 

I think you're exactly right.

[chiguirre]

IDK, you could go back and look at some pics from Ferguson and Baltimore.  The "protesters' were alleged to have been unarmed, yet they managed to cause a TON of destruction.

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.