Posted on 01/03/2016 9:31:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
In the last day or so, a very dangerous situation has emerged in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, near the town of Burns, Oregon. Ammon Bundy and about a dozen men, armed with firearms, have occupied a closed Federal building on that property. The local Sheriff has backed down, and there are rumors of Special Response Teams staging nearby.
This building is a smallish, very isolated building in the middle of a large National Refuge. Someone posted on a thread under a Guardian news article about this, "I'm in Oregon. These guys took over a headquarters building but it's kinda like an old brick house your grandma would live in and it's at least 50 miles from nowhere. You guys have a good time."
I do not intend to explore the minutia behind the case. That is a matter for courts. I do intend to explore the responses to this that we should take, and those we should not take.
I had a chance to hear a CNN interview with Ammon Bundy. At best, his narrative can only be described as incoherent. The CNN host, remarkably constrained in his questioning, asked what the government could do to unravel this. After a lot of "um's" and "uh's", the best Ammon could come up with was, "The government needs to start following the Constitution." The host wanted a more definitive answer, and Bundy had nothing. Simply put, this guy is the perfect foil for a police-state government move.
We all agree. The Federal government does need to start following the Constitution. This is a fight for the court system, and if there is no relief there -- AND it happens to more than a handful of us -- THEN other more drastic measures can be considered. The key is the universality of violation. The cases of Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Bundy Ranch -- while all eregious -- are spread apart by years and have happened to the tiniest percentage of people. The proper response to these actions are judicial in nature. Take these things all the way up to the Supreme Court. These venues NEED to be fully-explored, first.
If, however, this sort of government abuse begins to happen in greater and greater numbers, there comes a time when there is a tipping point. When OTrauma just starts going full-Stalin, we must react, or die on our knees.
I don't think we are there yet, notice how delicately he's treading on his gun control Executive Order tomorrow. It's basically a tiny measure -- purported to be background checks if the seller sells 25 guns a year -- and he had his people research it for months before deciding to proceed.
There comes a time he won't be so careful or delicate. That's when we know the balloon went up. Either that, or if we ever awake to find that the electric or communications grid is down. Those are proper signs that something srastic must be undertaken.
If the Feds undertake an attacking action, and lose anyone, this will be the chance for OTrauma to actually impose some Stalinist directives. Anything from a declaration of a National Emergency to martial law could be reasonably taken, and the masses of people would go right along with it. See, the masses of people need to feel the boot before they will join. There must be more support by the general population before we can move. There are also several ways to conduct ourselves. One is more direct action, but another seems to be effective as well. Look at Czechoslovakia for how a successful 'velvet revolution' can occur, or how the 'Arab Spring' caused (admittedly harmful, in this instance) change. Anything where we are the vast minority, and a Fed-supportive populace is the vast majority, is simply a death sentence for more of our liberties, and perhaps even a death sentence for we who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
This particular set of actions by Ammon Bundy are just unwise. One actually wonders if he wasn't emboldened or encouraged to act recklessly by agents of the administration, embedded in his group.
I call upon Ammon Bundy to stand down, and work the court system -- all the way up to SCOTUS -- at this time. I plead for all patriotic-minded individuals to stay away from this situation.
I don’t think so. Where was the “intent” to do harm. The fact that it got out of control is not a deliberate intent. Questionable at least, legally.
That pretty much sums up my feelings on the incident, too.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to make up your own set of facts. The defendants were originally convicted on the terrorism charges. The appeal did not change that, and indeed, the defendants chose to not appeal their conviction on that charge.
There were only two questions on appeal. 1) did the prosecutor waive its right to appeal the sentence and 2) was the sentence within the limits established by Congress for the crime for which they were convicted.
In this case, the militia crowd seems to be doing their best to prove that they are the ignorant loudmouths that their detractors paint them to be. (Some may know better, and just be less than effective liars). They have shown that they don’t understand ex post facto, double jeopardy, or 9th grade civics. They don’t understand the structure of the courts, criminal procedure, or separation of powers.
I remember one time when i was about 14 or 15 and bird hunting on my uncle’s land,when I inadvertently crossed over into the adjoining “posted” farm land. I raised a covey of quail and took down a few. I already had a good bag for the day and offered a brace to an old man who “happened” to cross my path in the field. I had no idea he was the landowner and we talked for a few minutes about the fun of hunting, having a good dog, the weather, etc. He thanked me for the quail, said he was a bit too feeble to hunt anymore, but he and his wife loved quail. Then he told me that the land was posted. I was embarrassed and apologized. He smiled and told me I could hunt anytime I wanted to as long as I was alone. I hunted his land often the next few years and always kept him supplied in quail or rabbits. He died when i was away at college. Never forgot him.
Snicker!
Amen Laz... Amen.
If those are the only cases you're going to mention it does seem like a short list. You could at least add Rick and Terri Reese to it.
It wasn't really double-jeopardy since it involved a single conviction.
The "intent" is in the fact that they started a fire in 1999 and were told not to do it again, they started a fire in 2001 and were told not to do it again, and they started the fire again in 2006. Third time's a charm.
Permission freely granted.
Yeah. I understand that these days.
PING!
The question is one not of whether the sentencing guidelines are too high for "terrorism", but should those guidelines have applied to this situation.
Was the intent of the Hammonds to terrorize? If so, who was 'terrorized' by setting a backfire to stop a fire from burning their property?
Who was terrorized by a controlled burn that got loose (seems to me the BLM has some of those on its records, so was the law equally applied to those responsible for BLM controlled burns that 'got away'?
That answer is "No."; no parties were charged with terrorism, arson, or likely suffered so much as a reduction in pay grade.
The injudicious application of terrorism laws here is the problem.
The intent and actions of the defendants were questions for the jury. The jury that heard the evidence answered those questions.
Are you in favor of doing away with jury trials?
Are you in favor of judges ignoring the law?
If your answers are ‘yes’ and ‘yes’, then perhaps you should move to a third world dictatorship. If your answers are ‘no’ and ‘no’, then you really shouldn’t have any complaint with the result.
This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Just offhand it sounds right up someone's alley, not only pitting groups of Americans against each other but now states also?
Please elucidate.
Just a guess, could it have something to do with the Red River changing its course in some way? Nothing about it in the local news.
Well-said, Laz!
After the DoJ defined right wingers as terrorists I don't think that argument will fly in the court system anymore.
After some significant digging, I discovered you are 100% right. The Bundys are the only ones putting forth the terrorism prosecution angle. The law is covered by the 1996 Anti-Terrorism act in that it SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES prosecution as terrorism for this law. Source
Additionally, asserted by the AG of Oregon, Billy J. Williams: "Williams also disputed the notion that the Hammonds were prosecuted as terrorists, as Bundy suggested. "The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism," Williams wrote. "Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."
Thank you for correcting this widely-repeated lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.