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

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

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.

I can see your point and don't want you to think I was specifically criticizing your concerns. Your post was just a jumping off point so to speak:)

 

It is just that from my standpoint the Westerners have a ton of representation and where I come from we have none so I have little sympathy for them in that regards and I think the Constitution is fair in determining how many representatives an area has except in the case of DC:(

[Joker]

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?

Why do you keep saying self defense? It wouldn't be in self defense. They would be killing law enforcement officials for trying to enforce the law.

[Joker]

So, I read a bit ago they are planning to turn off power and phone service as well as block the roads. Guess they won't be getting any snacks.

[Pawz4me]

Why do you keep saying self defense? It wouldn't be in self defense. They would be killing law enforcement officials for trying to enforce the law.

 

Ummm . . .yes.

 

Not to even mention that they very intentionally put themselves in the position they're in.

 

Ain't no way that can amount to self defense IMO.  It's absurd.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Ummm . . .yes.

 

Not to even mention that they very intentionally put themselves in the position they're in.

 

Ain't no way that can amount to self defense IMO.  It's absurd.

 

As is some claiming bringing assault rifles to a takeover of a federal building is just a sit in.  You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Ravin]

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

 

A grazing permit isn't a lease. If it was, there would be a property right in it, which there isn't. Which is part of why they can revoke them based upon changing assessment of environmental conditions. This is no doubt part of the problem with why these ranchers are frustrated. I would be right with them if the reason the grazing permits were changed was to make way for a mine or an oil well owned by some big corporation. They obviously don't care much about the reasoning behind it (wildlife preserve), because 1. they consider themselves good stewards of the land without government help, and 2. the end result for their ranches is the same. There isn't enough land in a homestead ranch lot in that part of the country to support a profitable ranch. That's why the grazing scheme was developed in the first place. But grazing is historically sort of a "when there's nothing better to do with it" use for land. Not arable for farming, no valuable minerals? It's grazing land. That was the practice a hundred years ago. Since then, we've discovered not all land is suitable for grazing, either, and preserving wildlife habitat is a priority to balance against grazing. 

[Ravin]

Even when it is against the landowner's will, it is 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

 

No, but it is legal for the GOVERNMENT to seize the land, give the former owners fair value for it, and then turn around and sell or lease it to said corporation.

 

It's also legal for the government to change the use of a piece of land, including sell or lease it into private hands, even when local interests in longstanding communal use of the land for other purposes than the one the government has seen fit, or to refuse to extend a lease when it ends or under some circumstances cancel a lease (with compensation for the loss). With grazing permits, there is no compensation for the loss--and it left some individuals with permit-dependent ranches unable to make a living, which led to them selling their private land to the government.

 

Whenever you ask if something like this is fair, the answer is always "to whom?"

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No, but it is legal for the GOVERNMENT to seize the land, give the former owners fair value for it, and then turn around and sell or lease it to said corporation.

 

It's also legal for the government to change the use of a piece of land, including sell or lease it into private hands, even when local interests in longstanding communal use of the land for other purposes than the one the government has seen fit, or to refuse to extend a lease when it ends or under some circumstances cancel a lease (with compensation for the loss). With grazing permits, there is no compensation for the loss--and it left some individuals with permit-dependent ranches unable to make a living, which led to them selling their private land to the government.

 

Whenever you ask if something like this is fair, the answer is always "to whom?"

I understand that it is the government can only seize land but in this case they would be seizing land on behalf of industry. Sure sometimes it is needed but in this case I think there are compelling reasons that it is not including that there is already a viable route that would not necessitate seizing land and would be more ecologically sound from what I understand.

 

I don't think the government should seize private land unless there are very compelling reasons.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wait, these idiots really didn't bring enough food?

 

lol

[EmseB]

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.

Right, but if they are having a peaceful sit-in, who is getting arrested?

[EmseB]

Why do you keep saying self defense? It wouldn't be in self defense. They would be killing law enforcement officials for trying to enforce the law.

What do you mean by enforcing the law? Are you saying that the police are going to arrest people for peaceful sit-ins? Or storm the building to get them out? Is that how sit-ins should be handled?

[Joker]

What do you mean by enforcing the law? Are you saying that the police are going to arrest people for peaceful sit-ins? Or storm the building to get them out? Is that how sit-ins should be handled?

I don't know how to continue discussing this with you when you continue to refer to their actions as a peaceful sit in. It's not.

[EmseB]

I don't know how to continue discussing this with you when you continue to refer to their actions as a peaceful sit in. It's not.

What else are they doing?

 

Eta: They've said their intent is not violence, I posted a direct quote awhile back in the thread.

 

Etaa: didn't the last confrontation with the father(?) end peacefully?

Edited January 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[chiguirre]

Right, but if they are having a peaceful sit-in, who is getting arrested?

Sit-ins often result in arrests. That's the point of them. You have to be willing to be arrested without offering resistance as a form of civil disobedience. It shames the government and society in general to see peaceful people dragged away and shines a spotlight on their issue.

 

(Check out the history of the civil rights movement to see probably the best example of this tactic.)

Edited January 5, 2016 by chiguirre

[EmseB]

Sit-ins often result in arrests. That's the point of them. You have to be willing to be arrested without offering resistance as a form of civil disobedience. It shames the government and society in general to see peaceful people dragged away and shines a spotlight on their issue.

So, should otherwise peaceful people be dragged away from a sit in in a government building? I see PEOPLE(autocorrect!!) dragged off if they are blocking traffic or business, but not just for occupation (again, Madison got pretty loud, rowdy, and destructive even, but it was occupied for days with tons of people).

 

I don't think they are worried about defending themselves from being arrested, tbh. I think they are worried about a raid (tear gas, etc).

Edited January 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[Ravin]

I don't think the government should seize private land unless there are very compelling reasons.

 

I agree with you. Unfortunately, that isn't the legal test. 

 

Requirements imposed by the United States Constitution Due Process Clause:

 

The property must be taken for a "public use"

the state must pay "just compensation" in exchange for the property (fair market value at the time of taking)

No person can be deprived of property without due process of law (clearly established procedures, notice, appeals, etc.)

 

The situation with the ranches after losing the grazing permits is one where the value of the land was diminished by government action, which they don't have to compensate for.

 

 

The problem with taking land to hand over to corporations and such has become as outrageous as it has thanks to the supreme court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) where they said that furthering an economic development plan was a "public use" for which eminent domain can be exercised.

 

This is right up there with Citizens United in the recent Supreme Court hall of Lousy Decisions.

[KathyBC]

A grazing permit isn't a lease. If it was, there would be a property right in it, which there isn't. Which is part of why they can revoke them based upon changing assessment of environmental conditions. This is no doubt part of the problem with why these ranchers are frustrated. I would be right with them if the reason the grazing permits were changed was to make way for a mine or an oil well owned by some big corporation. They obviously don't care much about the reasoning behind it (wildlife preserve), because 1. they consider themselves good stewards of the land without government help, and 2. the end result for their ranches is the same. There isn't enough land in a homestead ranch lot in that part of the country to support a profitable ranch. That's why the grazing scheme was developed in the first place. But grazing is historically sort of a "when there's nothing better to do with it" use for land. Not arable for farming, no valuable minerals? It's grazing land. That was the practice a hundred years ago. Since then, we've discovered not all land is suitable for grazing, either, and preserving wildlife habitat is a priority to balance against grazing. 

So you're saying they aren't good stewards of the land? Or that this piece of land is not suitable for grazing? I'm not there to know.

 

Generally, I would consider grazing animals that will eventually feed us to be a little better use than "there's nothing better to do with it". I'm not convinced that preserving wildlife habitat and grazing have to be mutually exclusive.

[MSNative]

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.

I wasn't suggesting it was genius planning. Just saying that it wasn't spontaneous. Certain rabble rousers wanted to get a riot or "purge" going. There was intent by some to start a riot that would cause damage. And in looking back at the definition for domestic terrorism I didn't see advanced planning listed. I could certainly have missed it but this is all I saw.

 

"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."

[poppy]

I don't think its very accurate to describe this as terrorism, and it was probably an abuse to charge them with terrorism rather than other more appropriate kinds of charges.  At this point is seems pretty clearly like civil disobedience to me - sit-ins in government buildings are nothing new.

 

 It's not IMO a good thing that they brought their guns and it could lead to all kinds of problems, but it isn't far out given the way people carry guns around in public in the US, and given their political identification I would say that is really what it is about - making a point about their understanding of citizen rights.

 

Rights to firearms are not universal. People with felonies on their records are not  permitted to own or wield firearms.  That's been true for almost 50 years (longer than that for violent felons).

Now, these folks are not convicted quite yet and I don't know if what they've done amounts to a felony... but flagrantly breaking federal law while armed is not the same as a sit-in.  Not by a long shot.

Edited January 5, 2016 by poppy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, should otherwise peaceful people be dragged away from a sit in in a government building? I see peyote dragged off if they are blocking traffic or business, but not just for occupation (again, Madison got pretty loud, rowdy, and destructive even, but it was occupied for days with tons of people).

 

I don't think they are worried about defending themselves from being arrested, tbh. I think they are worried about a raid (tear gas, etc).

News flash: when you illegally occupy a federal building (while heavily armed no less), you do not get the option to decide how they will choose to remove you from the premises.

 

The fact you seem to think they have the right to defend themselves while committing a crime is simply stunning.

[Ravin]

So you're saying they aren't good stewards of the land? Or that this piece of land is not suitable for grazing? I'm not there to know.

 

Generally, I would consider grazing animals that will eventually feed us to be a little better use than "there's nothing better to do with it". I'm not convinced that preserving wildlife habitat and grazing have to be mutually exclusive.

 

I'm saying that the land was designated as a Wildlife Refuge, and that designation makes for particular priorities in the use of that land. The reference to what land gets designated "grazing land" is historical-->grazing land is effectively all the land left over after other specific designations were made. It was a catch-all. Over time, multiuse regulatory schemes have displaced the catch-all of calling a piece of land good for nothing else grazing land, which is why there is grazing in National Forests, on BLM land, and so forth, not just on land designated as "grazing land".

 

The mindset that land good for nothing else is good for grazing cattle drove a lot of settlement effort in the west. It wasn't necessarily true, however. Some land can't handle cattle. Cattle can be incredibly destructive, especially to riparian habitat.

 

The ultimate point, however, is that the ranchers had grazing permits on PUBLIC land. The GOVERNMENT is the steward of that land, not the ranchers, they don't own it however much they think grazing on it gave them the right to. In the case of these white dude ranchers, not only do they not own the land, they never did. 

[Lb20inblue]

This has been an interesting thread. A PP I think was suggesting that we should not make jokes? I think? However, for some people, like me , jokes make it easier to think about.

 

I heard a bit on a podcast or maybe read on tweet that was interesting. It was about how a group of armed black men are called thugs, a group of armed brown men are called terrorists and a group of armed white men are called patriots.

 

But then again right to bear arms is only for white men. Only in this country can a group be armed and say they are peacefully protesting...lol. Race does matter because if you change the race of the men, this would never be allowed to happen.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Lb20inblue

[MSNative]

Any other Romance language speakers find the name Malheur fitting?

[justasque]

What do you mean by enforcing the law? Are you saying that the police are going to arrest people for peaceful sit-ins? Or storm the building to get them out? Is that how sit-ins should be handled?

 

 

So, should otherwise peaceful people be dragged away from a sit in in a government building? I see peyote dragged off if they are blocking traffic or business, but not just for occupation (again, Madison got pretty loud, rowdy, and destructive even, but it was occupied for days with tons of people).

 

I don't think they are worried about defending themselves from being arrested, tbh. I think they are worried about a raid (tear gas, etc).

 

Are you suggesting that the government should just turn over functioning buildings to any group of squatters who decide to move in?  As I understand it, this is the welcome center of a nature preserve, not an abandoned building no one uses.  Do these guys get to just decide it's not a nature center any more, and the rest of us have to put up with it?

[KathyBC]

I'm saying that the land was designated as a Wildlife Refuge, and that designation makes for particular priorities in the use of that land. The reference to what land gets designated "grazing land" is historical-->grazing land is effectively all the land left over after other specific designations were made. It was a catch-all. Over time, multiuse regulatory schemes have displaced the catch-all of calling a piece of land good for nothing else grazing land, which is why there is grazing in National Forests, on BLM land, and so forth, not just on land designated as "grazing land".

 

The mindset that land good for nothing else is good for grazing cattle drove a lot of settlement effort in the west. It wasn't necessarily true, however. Some land can't handle cattle. Cattle can be incredibly destructive, especially to riparian habitat.

 

The ultimate point, however, is that the ranchers had grazing permits on PUBLIC land. The GOVERNMENT is the steward of that land, not the ranchers, they don't own it however much they think grazing on it gave them the right to. In the case of these white dude ranchers, not only do they not own the land, they never did. 

In my mind, the government is supposed to represent the people, therefore the PEOPLE are the steward of that land. Does the BLM consult user groups or are designation decisions unilateral?  

 

Is this area riparian habitat, unsuitable for cattle?

[chiguirre]

I wasn't suggesting it was genius planning. Just saying that it wasn't spontaneous. Certain rabble rousers wanted to get a riot or "purge" going. There was intent by some to start a riot that would cause damage. And in looking back at the definition for domestic terrorism I didn't see advanced planning listed. I could certainly have missed it but this is all I saw.

 

"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."

I think that people posting stuff on Facebook doesn't really meet the bar for intention, especially in an emotionally heated situation, especially when most of the people involved are high school students.

[MSNative]

I think that people posting stuff on Facebook doesn't really meet the bar for intention, especially in an emotionally heated situation, especially when most of the people involved are high school students.

Lots of terrorist groups use social media to recruit so I don't think that the "I just posted on fb" defense works. And the riots were not limited to high school students nor did I see any evidence that the instigators were high schoolers.

Ftr- I'm not trying to define the Baltimore rioters as terrorists. I think they are rioters. Just like I don't think the Oregon militia are terrorists at this point. They are protestors, possibly violent, definitely armed, but not terrorists.

[MSNative]

I came across this article while I was doing some internet research. I think it does a good job of calmly explaining the side of the ranchers. I am in no way saying that it is unbiased. Simply posting because it helped me understand the thinking behind this.

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

[albeto.]

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

 

Mockery is a long-standing response to aggression and tyranny. And let's face it, these guys are trying to assert authority where they have none, and they are doing it on their terms, threatening violence towards those who refuse to capitulate to their demands. The thing is, they're doing it ridiculously. Their sit-in is ill-conceived, they have no real goal, they are woefully unprepared for the reality of their actions (such as, you know, needing to eat). They're just pissed and they want people to know it. Apparently, they want other people to get pissed off as well, and ... I dunno, do something, I guess. They don't really say. They've just claimed authority over federal land and have some romantic notion that this will turn out well and they'll be heroes, I guess. It's anyone's guess, as they're not doing anything other than calling dibs on an empty building. This really is identical to a child's temper tantrum, take away the foot stomping and add deadly weaponry. 

 

And for me, the deadly weaponry is what makes it go from silly and absurd to terrorism, which isn't funny. But these guys are funny. So long as there is no killing, it's fantastically entertaining. So long as there's no killing. I hope to all the gods no one fancies himself a martyr, because that would be such a needless tragedy. Truly. I find these people foolish, but I know they mean a great deal to others, and I know we have one life to live, and to give it up like this, for this, that's just such a shame. And it would be so hard on those who love them. What an awful tragedy that could be. But for now, let's hope for the best. 

 

This has been an interesting thread. A PP I think was suggesting that we should not make jokes? I think? However, for some people, like me , jokes make it easier to think about.

 

I heard a bit on a podcast or maybe read on tweet that was interesting. It was about how a group of armed black men are called thugs, a group of armed brown men are called terrorists and a group of armed white men are called patriots.

 

But then again right to bear arms is only for white men. Only in this country can a group be armed and say they are peacefully protesting...lol. Race does matter because if you change the race of the men, this would never be allowed to happen.

 

I agree with you. Lots of people process with humor. My MIL always said, "Well, what are you gonna do? If you can't laugh, you're gonna cry." 

 

When that humor addresses certain problems, like racism, it makes a point quickly and memorably. I try not to be offensive with jokes, I think that's probably true of everyone, but sometimes we find certain things outside our comfort zone. I don't think we should expect no humor, but I'll stop making jokes in this thread because it's not my intent to upset people, just participate in the conversation.

Edited January 6, 2016 by albeto.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Claiming those involved in riots are terrorists is a stretch.

 

Using terrorists to describe a group of militants who take over federal property and threaten to kill government agents? Not as much.

[poppy]

Basically. If you expect to be arrested, arming yourself is an act of aggression.

 

Several posts here have said well they're just being stupid or it was a bad idea. I think that is very generous. Typically gun owners and gun rights supporters talk about how important safety and responsibility are to that cause - yet here we have a group whose purpose is to provoke a law enforcement reaction . And they're armed and state they are willing to use the weapons . So the defense that them bringing weapons is just unwise is puzzling, to me.

[Ravin]

In my mind, the government is supposed to represent the people, therefore the PEOPLE are the steward of that land. Does the BLM consult user groups or are designation decisions unilateral?  

 

Is this area riparian habitat, unsuitable for cattle?

 

Federal agencies which manage land do so based upon a complex set of regulations based themselves on a complex set of laws. Land use decisions require, among other things, opportunities for public comment on proposed changes, consultation and coordination with local governments, and environmental assessments. The entire system is predicated on carrying out laws passed by Congress regarding how land is to be managed, which was elected by the people and have designated said federal agencies as the stewards/managers of the land. The designation of land as a particular sort of land (National Forest, National Park, wilderness, wildlife refuge, etc.) determines which particular agency, laws, and regulations determine how land use is prioritized.

[Bluegoat]

As is some claiming bringing assault rifles to a takeover of a federal building is just a sit in.  You can't make this stuff up.

 

I'm not sure how you see that as equivalent to what you quoted.  They aren't even that similar.

[Bluegoat]

Rights to firearms are not universal. People with felonies on their records are not  permitted to own or wield firearms.  That's been true for almost 50 years (longer than that for violent felons).

Now, these folks are not convicted quite yet and I don't know if what they've done amounts to a felony... but flagrantly breaking federal law while armed is not the same as a sit-in.  Not by a long shot.

 

Rights to anything aren't universal.  Heck, you can legally execute people in the US, and the right to life is probably the most fundamental of all human rights.

 

The fact that it like all other rights is limited does not mean that they don't see it as an important citizen right, or even that it is an important citizen right.

 

If people who have a strong political identification with gun rights, and particularly if they think it is something that is meant to protect the citizenship from over-stepping government, which is a common viewpoint, it should not be a surprise if some bring their guns to a protest about what they believe is the government over-stepping its bounds.

 

I mean for goodness sake, I think the US laws on firearms are kind of inadequate, and that particular understanding of guns and citizenship and government is slightly crazy.  But I don't find it hard to see why, if someone believed that, guns at a protest could be a political statement rather than some kind of militant action.

[Ravin]

I came across this article while I was doing some internet research. I think it does a good job of calmly explaining the side of the ranchers. I am in no way saying that it is unbiased. Simply posting because it helped me understand the thinking behind this.

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

 

Absolutely nothing in this situation justifies the Bundy Brothers and Co. actions.

 

The Hammonds absolutely got the short end of the stick, but not because the BLM and Federal prosecutors conspired to send them up the river. Rather, it was the mandatory minimum sentence law that applied to their case.

 

The decision linked to in that national review article indicates that they were given at least one warning, rather than being charged with arson, for a fire set in 1999, and that there were quite a few charges dropped in the agreement they reached with prosecutors to waive appeal of the jury verdict in exchange for a favorable sentencing recommendation, including for other fires besides the two for which they were convicted.

 

It's Congress and the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme in federal criminal law that put the Hammonds in the position they're in (along with their apparent inability to consult with and get waivers/permits for their burns or conduct controlled burns that don't leave their property).

[poppy]

Rights to anything aren't universal. Heck, you can legally execute people in the US, and the right to life is probably the most fundamental of all human rights.

 

The fact that it like all other rights is limited does not mean that they don't see it as an important citizen right, or even that it is an important citizen right.

 

If people who have a strong political identification with gun rights, and particularly if they think it is something that is meant to protect the citizenship from over-stepping government, which is a common viewpoint, it should not be a surprise if some bring their guns to a protest about what they believe is the government over-stepping its bounds.

 

I mean for goodness sake, I think the US laws on firearms are kind of inadequate, and that particular understanding of guns and citizenship and government is slightly crazy. But I don't find it hard to see why, if someone believed that, guns at a protest could be a political statement rather than some kind of militant action.

What is it you think militant means?

 

Listen, I'm not saying their motivations are mystifying. Their motivations are clear. So are just about every other brand of militants' motivation.

 

I just googled the definition of militant:

 

"combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."

 

They are not the most objectionable , violent or even most unsympathetic militants who have ever existed . Still I can't see how this falls on the civil disobedience side of the line. Just because they are not actively firing at anyone doesn't make it a peaceful protest.

[Pam in CT]

re: issue mash-up, and lack of clarity on what the occupiers' goals are-

Absolutely nothing in this situation justifies the Bundy Brothers and Co. actions.

 

The Hammonds absolutely got the short end of the stick, but not because the BLM and Federal prosecutors conspired to send them up the river. Rather, it was the mandatory minimum sentence law that applied to their case.

 

The decision linked to in that national review article indicates that they were given at least one warning, rather than being charged with arson, for a fire set in 1999, and that there were quite a few charges dropped in the agreement they reached with prosecutors to waive appeal of the jury verdict in exchange for a favorable sentencing recommendation, including for other fires besides the two for which they were convicted.

 

It's Congress and the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme in federal criminal law that put the Hammonds in the position they're in (along with their apparent inability to consult with and get waivers/permits for their burns or conduct controlled burns that don't leave their property).

 

Right.  The Hammond issue is clearly about mandatory sentencing.

 

I've truly tried, but at this point I still do not understand what the Bundys et al are looking for... what, to their mind, a satisfactory next step would look like... but mandatory sentencing does not appear to be on the occupiers' radar.  Perhaps that's why the Hammonds have disassociated themselves from it?  

[December]

Absolutely nothing in this situation justifies the Bundy Brothers and Co. actions.

 

The Hammonds absolutely got the short end of the stick, but not because the BLM and Federal prosecutors conspired to send them up the river. Rather, it was the mandatory minimum sentence law that applied to their case.

 

The decision linked to in that national review article indicates that they were given at least one warning, rather than being charged with arson, for a fire set in 1999, and that there were quite a few charges dropped in the agreement they reached with prosecutors to waive appeal of the jury verdict in exchange for a favorable sentencing recommendation, including for other fires besides the two for which they were convicted.

 

It's Congress and the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme in federal criminal law that put the Hammonds in the position they're in (along with their apparent inability to consult with and get waivers/permits for their burns or conduct controlled burns that don't leave their property).

 

 

So they waived their right to appeal in exchange for a short sentence, but then a judge ruled they couldn't have a short sentence?  Does that mean they can now appeal?  I don't understand why prosecutors would make deals with people that can't legally be upheld.

[Guest]

Just as a bit of an aside -

 

I'm surprised how few commentators are noting that these guys are LDS - theology matters, especially in discussions of land sovereignty here. They have more motivation than your average joe to do something like this.

 

That thought occurred to me today. *shrug*

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about this. While I agree with their cause and think the Feds have ridiculously overstepped their authority here and in other cases of land rights in the west, this sort of armed civil disobedience is something I cannot endorse. It is a last resort against an unjust government that isn't fit to rule, and unless they have exhausted all peaceful channels, including getting representation in local and state government, arms are a bit much. But I admit I don't have my theology focusing on the North American land mass and the stakes would then look different for me in that particular cost benefit analysis.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

They are not doing this b/c they are LDS come on.

[Pam in CT]

re: civil disobedience, violence, and the considerable space between_

What is it you think militant means?

Listen, I'm not saying their motivations are mystifying. Their motivations are clear. So are just about every other brand of militants' motivation.

I just googled the definition of militant:

"combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."

They are not the most objectionable , violent or even most unsympathetic militants who have ever existed . Still I can't see how this falls on the civil disobedience side of the line. Just because they are not actively firing at anyone doesn't make it a peaceful protest.

(We posted at the same time -- I actually am mystified at what the goals are here, or what the occupiers believe Success would look like, but I think that is separable from the issue of civil disobedience v. violence)

 

 

As discussed upthread (and as I know you're well aware!), the essence of civil disobedience is willingness to be arrested.  That's the method.  That's the method that Gandhi pioneered, MLK refined, and other protesters here and elsewhere have utilized to effect change.  You define a specific goal (say, to effect the right to make salt domestically, or to be served at a lunch counter), you choose an action (sit-in, demonstration, refusal to move to the back of the bus) that you understand may well provoke your arrest, and if so you submit to arrest as a means of either utilizing the court system to effect change or of garnering publicity of and support for your cause.  

 

Violence as a means of effecting change is a good deal less orderly and its outcomes are a good deal less predictable, though it certainly has also been used over the course of history.

 

 

There's a big space between the two, in which a range of (often poorly-defined) protest activities occur.  Vandalism with political sloganeering is in between.  Looting is in between.  Armed vigilantes circling mosques are in between.  Cross-burning in public squares is in between.  Such activities, whatever their motivation and however well / poorly their goals are defined, are not "civil disobedience" even if they don't cross over into actual physical violence against people.

 

Personally, I truly don't understand what the Oregon guys WANT.  OK, maybe that will emerge over time.  Hopefully, peacefully.

 

What their ACTIONS are is called "squatting."  They have broken into and occupied a building that isn't theirs.  They have publicly and clearly stated that they will resist arrest and, moreover, defend their position with violence if arrest is attempted.  

 

It.is.not.civil.disobedience even if it hasn't erupted into actual violence yet.  (God willing, it will not.)

 

 

 

A thought experiment: if, say, Latino migrants, or Syrian refugees, broke into and occupied a building that wasn't theirs... and announced they would resist removal with force of arms?  

 

 

[Xuzi]

The LDS church has specifically come out against what these militants are doing. They gave no opinion on whether their grievances are valid, but that their way of dealing with them is out of line with church scripture and just general law-abiding-ness. One of the LDS Articles of Faith specifically states that we believe in "sustaining, honoring and defending the law."

[Amira]

Just as a bit of an aside -

 

I'm surprised how few commentators are noting that these guys are LDS - theology matters, especially in discussions of land sovereignty here. They have more motivation than your average joe to do something like this.

 

That thought occurred to me today. *shrug*

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about this. While I agree with their cause and think the Feds have ridiculously overstepped their authority here and in other cases of land rights in the west, this sort of armed civil disobedience is something I cannot endorse. It is a last resort against an unjust government that isn't fit to rule, and unless they have exhausted all peaceful channels, including getting representation in local and state government, arms are a bit much. But I admit I don't have my theology focusing on the North American land mass and the stakes would then look different for me in that particular cost benefit analysis.

While some of these militants are certainly using religion to try to establish their legitimacy, I think you'd have a hard time finding many Mormons who think our theology focuses on the North American land mass. Is that why you think that Mormons have more motivation to do this than your average joe?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just as a bit of an aside -

 

I'm surprised how few commentators are noting that these guys are LDS - theology matters, especially in discussions of land sovereignty here. They have more motivation than your average joe to do something like this.

 

It isn't noted because it isn't relevant.  While I don't have a favorable opinion of the Mormon Church, there is absolutely zero support from the church leadership for these clowns.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Pam in CT]

Surely we're old enough to be able to distinguish the extreme poor judgment of individuals from the normative values of the faith traditions to which they lay claim.  

 

 

[Guest]

Surely we're old enough to be able to distinguish the extreme poor judgment of individuals from the normative values of the faith traditions to which they lay claim.  

 

Oh trust me. MANY are not.

 

If those ppl have a religion that's not mine, I automatically know their inner machinations, and it's proof of the wrongness of their whole religion, to boot.

[Bluegoat]

What is it you think militant means?

 

Listen, I'm not saying their motivations are mystifying. Their motivations are clear. So are just about every other brand of militants' motivation.

 

I just googled the definition of militant:

 

"combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."

 

They are not the most objectionable , violent or even most unsympathetic militants who have ever existed . Still I can't see how this falls on the civil disobedience side of the line. Just because they are not actively firing at anyone doesn't make it a peaceful protest.

 

Carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or agressive.  There are many situations where it isn't. 

 

Other than the guns, their methods are very similar to things we see in other kinds of protests.

 

A military type action with guns is clearly agressive, but that has not, yet, happened.

 

If we want to call them militants, without them having yet done something along those lines, I think the test would be - is their goal in having their guns there to carry out a military type action? 

 

I don't think that is why they have their guns there.  I doubt they thought deeply about it at all - I'd say they likely felt, on an emotional level, that they should bring them.  Why feel that way - because their political identity as citizens includes having a gun.  Kind of like people in a religious protest might bring a religious symbol.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or agressive.  There are many situations where it isn't. 

 

Other than the guns, their methods are very similar to things we see in other kinds of protests.

 

A military type action with guns is clearly agressive, but that has not, yet, happened.

 

If we want to call them militants, without them having yet done something along those lines, I think the test would be - is their goal in having their guns there to carry out a military type action? 

 

I don't think that is why they have their guns there.  I doubt they thought deeply about it at all - I'd say they likely felt, on an emotional level, that they should bring them.  Why feel that way - because their political identity as citizens includes having a gun.  Kind of like people in a religious protest might bring a religious symbol.

 

Are your serious?  They said they brought the guns to defend themselves if the federal government tried to retake the building.  Others in the group have posted statements online about fighting and dying for their cause. 

 

A good rule of thumb is that when an armed group takes over property that doesn't belong to them then it is quite reasonable to call them militant.  Gee whiz.

 

[Lb20inblue]

Carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or agressive. There are many situations where it isn't.

 

Other than the guns, their methods are very similar to things we see in other kinds of protests.

 

A military type action with guns is clearly agressive, but that has not, yet, happened.

 

If we want to call them militants, without them having yet done something along those lines, I think the test would be - is their goal in having their guns there to carry out a military type action?

 

l.

This is hilarious!

 

A kid had a toy gun and was shot dead in less than five seconds.

 

A kid brought a clock to school and was picked up by the cops and processed as a criminal.

 

But a bunch of grown men in swat gear and guns take over a federal building and now we have to have sympathy for their plight?

 

This is crazy talk.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is hilarious!

 

A kid had a toy gun and was shot dead in less than five seconds.

 

A kid brought a clock to school and was picked up by the cops and processed as a criminal.

 

But a bunch of grown men in swat gear and guns take over a federal building and now we have to have sympathy for their plight?

 

This is crazy talk.

 

And don't forget some of these involved here actually POINTED firearms at federal agents during the standoff at the Bundy ranch.  For an oppressive dictatorship that allegedly has its boots on the throat of these folks, our government sure is showing a tremendous amount of restraint.