Jump to content

Armed Militia Group Takes Over Federal Building In Oregon...plans To Stay For Years.


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

They definitely need to cut the power and utilities. It's cold as **** there. Not sure if it's legal/constitutional (probably not), but if so, block their cell and data signals also.

I know we're all half-joking about this, but this situation is freaking insane. I don't even know what kinds of laws they're breaking, but I've got to imagine this is life in federal prison type stuff.

It depresses me to think of how many people that don't necessarily support these folks, but secretly hope there is a shootout so these guys will be martyrs and/or start some revolution against the federal government.

These guys aren't martyrs. If the government had taken their land or something like that I could understand. But these guys are trying to defend poachers who set forest fires.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 "Terrorism”:

"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©.

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

Please explain how this group does not fit the FBI's definition of domestic terrorists?

I don't think that I've even called the militia group "terrorists". I called them "armed militia group" in the title of the thread and talked about the DOJ's report about the dangers of "right-wing domestic groups" in the post that Snake responded to.

As usual, Snake is off the deep end.

IMO, they fit the FBI's definition of domestic terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, they fit the FBI's definition of domestic terrorists.

They probably do fit the legal definition, but that definition is pretty broad, IMHO. I'm on the fence right now about whether to call the "terrorists" or not. But at the very least, they are exactly the type of right-wing domestic group that the DOJ warned about years ago, and they appear to be a dangerous group of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow PG. If any of these guys had of shot anyone, they'd be in jail. My point is, these guys are not violent as of yet and may never. Civil disobedience is common in our country. It's when you go to violence is when you need to go down.

Stop it.

The ones who shot the cops are in jail, but it doesn't mean they weren't part of the militia as you seem to be implying. Let us also not forget that these are the same people who put these wives in children in front of them so they would be the first ones shot in case a shootout started with federal agents and bragged about how they had snipers itching for a chance to shoot federal agents. They have also repeatedly called for a violent uprising against the federal government. They are not non-violent protesters by any stretch of the imagination. They are terrorists seeking to spark a widespread, violent revolt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please.

If they had hostages or were shooting at people from the building then there would, at the very least, be plans in place to storm the building. They would have also been dead by now if they were on a shooting spree. Instead they're holed up in an empty building in an isolated area and talking a big game while also begging for food on twitter. They're a threat but not an immediate one to anyone so why would law enforcement risk their lives by storming the building when they can just starve them out?

And law enforcement wouldn't kill armed white people? Are you serious? Have you never heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge?

I'm sick of these **** arguments.

Thank you for injecting some reason into that nonsense.

And for the record, I'm perfectly ok with them going all Waco. Except this time I would suggest AC-130 gunships instead of actual police raids.

Ruby Ridge is slightly different, in my opinion, as the federal government was pretty complicit in the escalation of that fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they have taken possession of a federal building, have guns and have said that they will shoot back if law enforcement shoots at them. I would not call this exactly a peaceful protest and it certainly is not lawful. We have to be consistent and call what is unlawful what it is, unlawful conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please.

If they had hostages or were shooting at people from the building then there would, at the very least, be plans in place to storm the building. They would have also been dead by now if they were on a shooting spree. Instead they're holed up in an empty building in an isolated area and talking a big game while also begging for food on twitter. They're a threat but not an immediate one to anyone so why would law enforcement risk their lives by storming the building when they can just starve them out?

And law enforcement wouldn't kill armed white people? Are you serious? Have you never heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge?

I'm sick of these **** arguments.

Sorry that you're sick of them, but Rolaids are hella-cheap. It is what it is. Anyway, my argument wasn't that law enforcement wouldn't ever kill an armed white person, but that law enforcement would not kill an armed white person as fast as they would an armed or unarmed black or brown person. Some Americans are presumed guilty and violence-prone while others are assumed to be principled and peaceable unless and until provoked, even when actually armed and on a federal installation. Your examples of Waco and Ruby Ridge are government not wanting to make the same mistakes in those particular scenarios because of all the outrage and feelings they seem to incite from the anti-government militia types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please. If they had hostages or were shooting at people from the building then there would, at the very least, be plans in place to storm the building. They would have also been dead by now if they were on a shooting spree. Instead they're holed up in an empty building in an isolated area and talking a big game while also begging for food on twitter. They're a threat but not an immediate one to anyone so why would law enforcement risk their lives by storming the building when they can just starve them out? And law enforcement wouldn't kill armed white people? Are you serious? Have you never heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge? I'm sick of these **** arguments.Sorry that you're sick of them, but Rolaids are hella-cheap. It is what it is. Anyway, my argument wasn't that law enforcement wouldn't ever kill an armed white person, but that law enforcement would not kill an armed white person as fast as they would an armed or unarmed black or brown person. Some Americans are presumed guilty and violence-prone while others are assumed to be principled and peaceable unless and until provoked, even when actually armed and on a federal installation. Your examples of Waco and Ruby Ridge are government not wanting to make the same mistakes in those particular scenarios because of all the outrage and feelings they seem to incite from the anti-government militia types.

So do you have actual stats to back up your claim that law enforcement are more likely to shoot an armed or unarmed black/brown person than they are an armed white person?

Also, how many of these scenarios have actually played out, where large numbers of people are holed up in a compound and making threats/demands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just . . . I can't even . . .

Oregon protester Ammon Bundy compares himself to Rosa Parks

By Justin Wm. Moyer

The Washington Post


The tweet snuck out under cover of night — when many on the East Coast were asleep, and those braving freezing temperatures at the occupation of a federal nature reserve near Burns, Ore., were presumably bedding down, waiting to see whether authorities will cut their power.

But the 24 words sent into the world by Ammon Bundy — a man who wants ranchers convicted of burning federal land freed and the Bureau of Land Management out of Oregon — were perhaps the most provocative that have come out of the would-be standoff out West.

“We are doing the same thing as Rosa Parks did,” Bundy wrote. “We are standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom.” The tweet was still online early Wednesday morning, but Bundy has tweeted and deleted before — and his Twitter account was also temporarily suspended Tuesday afternoon.

To be clear: Rosa Parks — the black woman who, on Dec. 1, 1955, refused to give her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, to a white man — was protesting legally sanctioned discrimination. She was willing to be arrested — to serve time and expose an unjust system. Bundy, armed and possibly dangerous, takes a quite different position. He says his protest won’t “end until we get our public lands back,” denying the federal government’s role in land management — a legally dubious position.

And, crucially, he doesn’t seem willing, as Parks did, to nobly march into a jail cell. Quite the opposite. As he put it: “If force is used against us we will defend ourselves.”

Though much of the commentariat was not awake to weigh in, Bundy promptly got a few choice responses on Twitter. Bundy’s invocation of one of the saints of the civil rights movement did not seem to go over well.

“You terrorists are no Rosa Parks,” one commenter wrote, “and it’s an insult to her to compare yourselves to her.”

“Rosa Parks did not have a gun,” wrote another. “Also, your white privilege is showing.”

Those in the peanut gallery weren’t just taking umbrage. They were wondering whether Bundy’s quixotic undertaking — condemned even by the fellow ranchers he wishes to liberate — was doomed to failure.

“Even Rosa knew when she was outgunned,” one commenter wrote.

Whatever the merits of his cause or its chances of success, Bundy’s tweet fed into a heated debate about the meaning of the Burns occupation and how it is being covered by the media. Every conversation about the protest, it seems, is a crucible fueled by American hangups about race. Relevant questions: Should Bundy’s crew be called “activists” or “terrorists”? Would armed African-Americans who occupied a federal building in, say, Baltimore to support Black Lives Matter be as indulged by the feds as those in Oregon seem to be? Or what if the men openly carrying weapons were Muslim?

“Whatever you think of the politics of Occupy Wall Street and BLM, these campaigns are in the tradition of civil disobedience and pose no threat to anyone,” Sean Illing wrote in Salon. “If the protesters in Zuccotti Park or Ferguson, Missouri arrived in military fatigues with pistols in their pockets, they would’ve crossed a legal line, and the reaction — from the media and the police — would have been dramatically different.”

In the face of such criticism, Bundy has said that he is just a rebel with a cause.

“We are not terrorist, we are concerned citizens who realize we have to act if we want to have anything left to pass down to our children,” he tweeted earlier this week.

Ironically for one enamored of Rosa Parks, Bundy has tried to distinguish his action from terrorism by slighting the wave of protests against police brutality that have erupted across the nation since Michael Brown, an unarmed African American teenager, was gunned down by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014.

“Unlike other protest that have taken place in this country over the last year and a half we have not put anyone in danger,” he wrote.

By invoking Parks, who died in 2005, Bundy — already out on a limb as locals, many employed by the Bureau of Land Management, condemn his occupation — enters dangerous territory indeed. Others who have looked to Parks to justify actions that seem contrary to her legacy have not fared well. One recent victim: Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who sought to thwart the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage last year.

“Kim Davis is our Rosa Parks,” syndicated Christian columnist Bryan Fischer wrote on the website of the conservative American Family Association. Fischer, in a way, even deemed Davis superior to Parks: “Now it must be noted that Mrs. Davis is not, like Mrs. Parks, being punished for civil disobedience, but rather for an act of brazen and bold civil obedience. In Mrs. Davis’ favor is the simple and manifest truth that she is fulfilling the oath she took to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Kentucky.”

While embraced by many who agreed with Davis, such arguments were quickly edited out of the first rough draft of history.

“It’s an attempt to make something ugly be beautiful,” Van Jones, a civil rights activist and a former adviser to President Obama, said. “It’s an attempt to take an ugly stand on behalf of intolerance and to confuse people into thinking it is similar to a beautiful stand on behalf of inclusion.”

Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/nation-world/national/article53266210.html#storylink=cpy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are the facts, face facts, they will set you free.

Your interpretation of facts /sarcasm

2+2 can be interpreted as 6 because objective truth doesn't exist. It's just an interpretation ! I could not imagine going through life like this lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to post #88 and tell me what is wrong? Or just go on with your hyperbole if it makes you feel good about yourself.

I wasn't arguing with you lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

When I initially read the story, I thought the prison sentence was ridiculous and excessive. Then I read more into what they had actually done and I'm a lot less sympathetic to the ranchers. Still think it's a little harsh, but not nearly as excessive as it seems at first glance.

As for the "protesters"...not even sure what to call them at this point since they are engaged in an armed takeover and occupation of a federal building...they do need to follow suit. But if they don't, I hope that at least a message gets sent to all of the other would-be insurgents wanting to "take back" the country for their cause about the perils of armed uprising against the federal government.

They've been spouting off about "taking back" the country and "revolution" and other insurgency type language for years now. Let's see how many are willing to put their arzes where their mouths are.

Edit: Reading this again, it might give the false impression that I'm supporting the federal government killing them all. When I talk about sending a message, I'm talking about very lengthy prison sentences for the entire lot of them. If they start shooting at federal agents, then bloodshed might be unavoidable. But I'd rather they rot in jail than make martyrs out of them.

Is it true those ranchers were tried under the patriot act? Do you think the judge who initially heard the case thought maybe it was a bit harsh. Also the ranchers claimed they set the fires to kill invasive plants and a back fire against wild fires. I've no problem with the sentence they were given. Now that the judge that heard the case has retired I think they wont to rearrest and sentence those ranchers. Sorry I think that is a crock. Not saying that I agree with what the Bundies are doing but there is more to this story and I do not think those ranchers deserve this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/04/the-mysterious-fires-that-led-to-the-bundy-clans-oregon-standoff/

Edited by Sobeit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the militia leader's brother is saying that the Rosa Parks tweet was from an Twitter imposter.

I lost focus after reading that Bundy got a $530K federal loan from the big government that he detests so much. This guy is the trifecta of cowardice, mockery and hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...