150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[loomer]

That's one of the things that marks these 'militia' as different from the ones in the Clinton era and from the more dangerous ones active today. They - for their many, many flaws - actually planned their actions out, and it lead to things like the Montana Freemen where the sieges could go weeks without supply problems. These fuckheads, on the other hand, don't actually have a plan. Worse, they've gone away from their supplies and their supply line to seize land of no actual significance, without significant reserves of food on site, in a sufficiently isolated area as to render resupply difficult even by rural standards.

I find the proper militias intensely fascinating - they're delusional, often venomous and wretched men, but not idiots - but these twats barely qualify as militiamen at all because of their disorganization and stupidity.

[Patroklos]

Why exactly are they "militiamen"? What does that even mean?

[loomer]

Militiaman just means a member of a militia or of the broader militia movement. I argue these men are not actually 'real' or 'proper' militiamen as they are not members of an organization I would consider a militia, on the following grounds:

-There is no apparent organization beyond the ad hoc;
-There is a lack of drill, practice, or planning;
-There is a general lack of the stockpiling of armaments and supplies associated with the militias.

Without these factors, I don't think they can be accurately categorized the same as 'real' militiamen. Though they are, ironically, proving more successful than the 'real' militias so far.

[Patroklos]

Why do you think they have anything in common with the militias at all? Are militias known for what so far is nothing more than sit in protest?

The thing is, why was an association made in the first place? Because they are are armed? I might as well say they are the same as Black Panthers looming armed over polling lines. That would be ridiculous, yes? There really is no straight line between them and say the specific self identified groups you mentioned earlier. Its wishful thinking. Just like it was with the Bundy ranch. You can feel the glee from people like Flagg just wishing these people acted in real life like they do in his head. But, repeatedly, they don't.

They are not denying public access to the location BTW. I listened to an NPR reporter on the way home from work walk up and chat with them. He had free range of the facility and apparently anyone else did to, the protesters only followed him and reiterated they are not leaving.

[loomer]

Well, they're being identified in the media as associated with the militias because they speak freely about being so, called on the militias publicly for the Bundy ranch stuff, and accepted their aid. This group of protestors also included several Militia organizations but they didn't join in the seizure.

[Sea Skimmer]

So the relevant Hammond family members are now in prison, and the morons are already looking for excuses to pack up and leave.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... eek-pardon

Anti-federalist militants continue to hold the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., as law enforcement officials keep their distance. But they say they're willing to leave if local residents ask them to, Oregon Public Broadcasting reports.

For three days, this heavily armed group has occupied the federal building to support Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been convicted of arson on federal lands and served short terms. Those sentences were extended by a judge who said they were too brief.

The county sheriff says the Hammonds have turned themselves in to serve the extended sentences.

A lawyer for the Hammonds was quoted on Monday as saying the ranchers will ask President Obama for clemency.

Late Monday, the apparent leader of the armed occupiers, Ryan Bundy, told OPB reporters that the group — which has branded itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom — would respect the wishes of the local community.

"This is their county – we can't be here and force this on them," Bundy told OPB Monday. "If they don't want to retrieve their rights, and if the county people tell us to leave, we'll leave."

Bundy tells OPB that he hopes to have a community meeting organized within the next day.

Ryan's brother, Ammon Bundy, accused multiple federal agencies of pursuing the Hammond family because they have refused to sell their ranch. The Hammonds "have multiple times refused the purchase of it, and because of that, have been prosecuted for actions that ranchers have done for over 100 years in this country, and this valley." NPR has not independently verified Bundy's version of the events.

This is their only demand, he says: "All we have been asking from the very beginning is that they put together an evidential hearing board to look at the evidences, look at the accusations that are set forth, and to look at the abuses the Hammonds have been experiencing."

Harney County Sheriff David Ward accuses the armed men of having larger goals. "These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States," OPB reported.

The Two-Way has gone into depth about the history of tension between the federal government and ranchers in the West.

It's important to note that the Hammond family has not said it is linked to the armed occupation claiming to support it. Susan Hammond, who is married to Dwight, told OPB that "I don't really know the purpose of the guys who are out there. ... I kind of understand where they come from, as far as their priorities in life."

NPR's Martin Kaste, who is at the scene, told our Newscast unit that it's not clear how many people are occupying these buildings. Here's more from Martin:

"People are calling this a standoff, but it isn't, at least not at the moment. Really what we're talking about here is maybe a handful, maybe more — men mainly, as far as I can tell — who have taken up residence at this National Wildlife Refuge, in some of the buildings here. There's no law enforcement visible. In town, about 30 minutes away, there is an increased law enforcement presence.

"They say just to kind of show the fact that they're around. But there certainly [aren't] blockades, there isn't any kind of a confrontation, at least nothing like that yet."

[Broomstick]

I was reading up on this whole issue, and it seems to center on these farmers being accused of setting fires on federal land... what are they actually protesting?

They're protesting the notion that the Federal government owns any land at all. They want to continue the great, western tradition of extracting the resources from an area at no cost to the exploiters and damn the consequences.

[Broomstick]

No repeat if heavy handed jailing like what happened to the Hammonds and got people pissed in the first place (not these people mind you, the Hammonds were just an excuse much like how people used the death of Micheal Brown in Ferguson to got looting, people who want to use a something serious that they really don't care about to cause trouble and give them people who actually care about it a bad name) but completely fair and even prosecution.

The only people saying the Hammonds were disproportionately sentenced are the numbnuts camped out at the refuge center. The Hammonds did light fires on Federal land, deliberately, during fire season. This resulted in fires that required deployment of professional fire-fighters when there was already a significant fire going on. Wildfires out west cause significant damage and put human lives at risk. 5 years is the typical sentence for that sort of arson. They were treated no differently than anyone else doing something so fucking stupid. The particular statute they were convicted under may be of recent origin, but prosecuting people for starting fires is nothing new. Arson has long been a crime under common law, even if done with good intentions.

It is telling that the Hammonds want nothing to do with the protesters at the nature center. The Hammonds naturally are not happy about being told to serve the balance of their sentences (they've received credit for time already served so they aren't going away for a full five years, just what's left of it) but they have surrendered peacefully and are adhering to the law and pursuing their side through the courts. The Hammonds are not the problem here and I hope they don't suffer for the hijinks of their "supporters".

If the elder Mr. Hammond is, indeed, elderly and there's a risk he might die in jail too fucking bad. Being old is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Part of the problem is that through the 20th Century owners of large ranchers out west have regarded themselves as lords in their personal fiefdom, able to do whatever the hell they wanted and answer to no one. They extracted whatever resources they wanted from whatever lands were around them without cost to them and damn the consequences. They resent the notion that laws they don't like apply to them as much as laws they do like.

When they say they want the refuge under "local control" what they mean is they want to use the area for hunting, they want to build whatever they hell they want on the land, and basically destroy it as a wildlife refuge. They say the land was "stolen" from the locals, nevermind that the locals took it from the Natives. And given that the refuge was set up by Teddy Roosevelt in 1908 it seems to me a damn long time to wait to protest. According to the Malheur website the refuge was formed of unclaimed Federal lands, in other words, taken from no one (other than usurping Native claims). Additional lands have been added to that, but those lands were purchased. What this is, is an attempted land-grab by a bunch of yahoos who think they're entitled to get shit for free.

The saving grace here is these bozos are so accustomed to being their own lords they aren't used to working in groups. As a sign of their stupidity, they haven't even given a formal list of demands even as they say "give us what we want!". It wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing dissolves into in-fighting.

[Broomstick]

The protest that these guys broke off of was in regards to an increase in the prison sentence of the Hamands. They were initially prosecuted for starting two fires on their own land that spread to public land, one in 2001 and one in 2006.

Actually, whether or not the fires were started on their land or Federal land was part of the dispute – which shouldn't surprise anyone. Disputes over property lines are common enough in cities and suburbs, much less out west in scrublands and ranches where property lines might be nowhere near any sort of natural landmark.

It should be noted the Hammonds did not start the 2006 fire, it was sparked by lightning and the Hammonds tried to fight it on their lands with a back fire.

They started a back fire that might or might not have been needed, without consulting any sort of actual firefighter. Actual firefighters frown on that because what can happen is the backfire spreads and becomes a serious problem in its own right – which is what happened here. Again, these guys are so used to being the law on their own land they don't understand that rules about setting fires in fire country exist for a reason and their actions put other people at risk, they aren't arbitrary be-mean-to-ranchers rules.

The true controversy was that the government tried these fires as terrorism charges.

^ This is a legitimate point of contention. However, their actions didn't suddenly become illegal, it's never been OK to start fires on public lands. If you start a fire on your land and it spreads you're still responsible for damages.

There's another point of contention over the over-turning of the plea deal, but, again, the Hammonds are pursuing a legal remedy through the courts. They aren't attempting to seize land over this.

In addition the feds finagled a 400K damages fine on the Hammonds at a later date despite the earlier courts findings of a far small value for the unremarkable and uninhabited scrub land in question.

It has also been argued for the past 50-60 years that the Feds have consistently undervalued wilderness lands. There was also the issue of the costs of fire-fighting above and beyond the land value.

Now, whether you want to think these occupiers are really motivated by that is up to you, but the original protests that sparked this were based on the above.

The original protest was a bunch of people peaceful holding signs and clearing opposing the court decision in an urban setting. The group at Malheur are a splinter off that group and do not represent the original group disagreeing with the decisions against the Hammands in a lawful manner.

[Flagg]

There's really no need to get dramatic about surrounding them. They're on top of a mountain in Oregon in January. Just cut off utilities and don't plow the road next time it snows. They'll be begging for mercy inside a week.

They don't plow the roads anyway. I live in the Pacific Northwest, it snows and everyone shits themselves, whines about there not being enough plows, drive 25mph on I-5, and then shit themselves again.

But fine, just napalm the mountain to ashes and do a few runs with a half a dozen A-10's. The point is, this is at least the second time you have redneck dipshits with guns defying federal officials. If this were in Compton, as opposed to a lilywhite group of inbreds camped in Oregon, there would be martial law, the blood would be running in the gutters, and the bodies of dead children, from infants to grade-schoolers, would be piled up in the local parks getting picked at by police dogs. And all but a very few American News outlets would be outraged, the rest would be justifying it, and Donald Dump would be cracking jokes to rapturous applause at Downs Syndrome Republican Fundraisers.

Seriously?

US law enforce has its problems, but its not the fucking Gestapo or the Mongol Horde. Piles of dead infants being eaten by dogs in the streets? Really?

And people say I'm an alarmist.

And can you even begin to fathom the political consequences of something as excessive as an air strike on these people?

Impeachment is the best case scenario if you ask me.

Moron.

But then, you're practically salivating over a potential bloodbath.

Edit: My ideal response-

Designate them terrorists, surround them, arrest anyone trying to enter or exit and bar any resupply except for essential supplies delivered by a credible NGO such as the Red Cross (to prevent dying children and such). If they start shooting, have the police storm the place with the National Guard as backup. Charge any survivors with trespassing and terrorism.

That's a very basic outline, of course. I'm sure their are many other nuances that would require someone with greater knowledge of law enforcement to address.

It's called hyperbole, dumbass. When your brainstem fully forms and the rest of your fetal brain tissue grows from that, maybe you'll catch on.

[The Romulan Republic]

When one is foolish enough to say something literally, why should I assume it is hyperbole?

I've seen things just as stupid and offensive plastered all over the internet with complete sincerity.

Unless I have a good reason not to, I'll be inclined to take what you say at face value. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. But I had no way to know that.

[Flagg]

When one is foolish enough to say something literally, why should I assume it is hyperbole?

I've seen things just as stupid and offensive plastered all over the internet with complete sincerity.

Unless I have a good reason not to, I'll be inclined to take what you say at face value. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. But I had no way to know that.

That's because you're incredibly ignorant of recent American history. Like that time when a black "militia" full of women and children barricaded themselves in a building in the middle of a (I believe Philadelphia, but it could have been Pittsburg. I'd look it up but Wikipedia and google are 2 of about half the fucking sites that won't open today thanks to my spotty internet, likely brought about by one of the many morons in the Seattle area who can't drive in the lightest flakes of snow without a torrent of shit filling their pants resulting in them driving into a telephone pole, thereby fucking with my ISP's service. Hope they had airbags.) neighborhood full of houses right on top of each other and the police dropped bombs on them from a helicopter and IIRC set half the neighborhood on fire with zero consequences. But you know, that was in the 70's, and I'm sure that the police would never kill innocent black women and children with zero consequences these days, am I right?

Sorry, but if you're too goddamned stupid to know hyperbole (piles of dead black babies with police dogs gnawing on them is a statement you would take seriously? Really?) from literal statements then maybe you should stop taking everything so goddamned literally. Like you do; ALL. THE. FUCKING. TIME. I mean did the thought that that over the top statement might not be meant seriously even enter your tiny mind? And if it did, did you just immediately dismiss it so you could pretend you're a tough guy with a spine, or did you think maybe you should ask, "Is that a serious statement, or hyperbole?"

[Executor32]

Yeah, it was Philly.

[Broomstick]

Honest to god, Flagg, you couldn't manage a link to the wiki? 1985 MOVE bombing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Flagg, I'm going to say this once.

I am, of course, well aware that their is a long history, some of it recent, of racist violence both by law enforcement and people outside the law in America. The specific incident you referred to is new to me, but I am aware of others like it (sadly, their are quite a lot of them). Your implication that I am ignorant of that history is false (or are you going to try to weasel out of this by claiming that was hyperbole too?). That does not change the fact that your initial post contained, if I am being very charitable, gross and inflammatory exaggeration.

Even if it was not meant literally, it changes little or none of what I initially said. It would still be alarmist, inflammatory, and stupid.

In any case, the degree of my knowledge of the historical record is scarcely relevant to the question of weather your posting was hyperbole. Such knowledge could only either confirm (hypothetically) that your writing is accurate, in which case you would not be engaging in hyperbole but stating fact, or confirm that it is false, in which case it would still tell me nothing about your motives/intent.

In any case, I have, as I said, seen things just as stupid proclaimed with utter sincerity. I'm sure you have too. Things that might clue me in to your intent, including expression, gesture, and tone of voice, do not get conveyed over the internet. I am obviously aware that you might not be speaking literally, and I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but frankly, why the fuck should I? You said what you said, and if I responded to your post as anything other than what it actually, literally says, I would simply open myself up to being accused of lack of comprehension anyway.

As to your speculation about my motives, I have no need to prove I am a "tough guy". That honestly seems to fit more with your posting style.

Anyhow, I have no desire to find myself in another interminable defamatory shit show. I believe I have responded to more or less everything you said, and see no need to continue if this is simply going to descend into another round of dishonest posturing. I would prefer to return to the original topic, namely the group of actual wannabe tough guys playing incompetent terrorist in Oregon.

[bilateralrope]

What's this about a terrorism law being used on the HAmmond's ?

The explanation I read on Popehat makes no mention of any terrorism law being used. Just:
- Hammond's get convicted by a jury of a charge with a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.
- While waiting for the jury to decide on some remaining charges the Hammond's reached a deal to serve the sentences concurrently.
- At sentencing, the judge refused to impose the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.
- Government appealed, the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence was applied. The deal about serving time concurrently remained in place.
- Hammond's have to go back to spend the remaining time on their sentence.

[Flagg]

Honest to god, Flagg, you couldn't manage a link to the wiki? 1985 MOVE bombing.

Do you read threads, or just skim them? Because if you actually read them, you'd know I was having internet issues.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, you're having internet issues but you're still making multiple posts. Funny sort of malfunction. Not impossible, just odd.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, you're having internet issues but you're still making multiple posts. Funny sort of malfunction. Not impossible, just odd.

SDN is a pretty easy site to load with spotty internet. Others can be problematic depending on how they're built, especially newer ones.

[Broomstick]

Wikipedia is one I don't have much problem with, even with a wonky internet. Even a quick Google will bring up enough that you can definitely state it was MOVE and in Philadelphia even if you don't click on any of the links.

[Elheru Aran]

If he's only on his phone, copying and pasting links may not be the easiest process. I know I could do it on mine, but it'd be a royal pain.

[Grumman]

What's this about a terrorism law being used on the HAmmond's ?

The explanation I read on Popehat makes no mention of any terrorism law being used. Just:
- Hammond's get convicted by a jury of a charge with a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.

That 5 year mandatory minimum sentence is because of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996. Page 84.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What's this about a terrorism law being used on the HAmmond's ?

The explanation I read on Popehat makes no mention of any terrorism law being used. Just:
- Hammond's get convicted by a jury of a charge with a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.

That 5 year mandatory minimum sentence is because of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996. Page 84.

Increasing sentences for federal arson as an anti-terrorism measure is different from terrorism charges.

[Patroklos]

There are regular federal arson laws, the prosecutors specifically selected the terrorism one. They could do that because it was poorly written to be vague, and as they proved it can be applied to anything. They didn't have to use that law, they chose to.

Do you think the crimes as accused were terrorism?

[Gaidin]

For the penalties I'm not seeing anything tying them to specific versions. It's just saying arson. What am I missing?