DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

These days? That law has been on Oregon's books since 1971.

and how in the world can you roll your eyes and dismiss breaking into a federal government building with weapons as "Eh, NBD." Are you serious?

Yeah, I don't know how to look that crap up. Not following this story, or most stories that get posted in here with the intent of starting arguments (like most are) anymore.
Don't have the energy to give that much of a damn about it.

Oh my! They stormed an empty building at an abandoned wildlife refuge!
OOOooo Menacing...

Certainly is bringing attention to the plight of Ranchers and other Citizens as they face a Federal land grab all over the West and showing the injustice of Tyranny.

Mission Accomplished!

I'm more upset about the government stealing people's land they have owned for 100 years for the excuse of saving some silly turtle species. I mean this is the issue that they are upset about especially since the government after stealing their land had the audacity to charge them a fee to continue to use that same said land which means them owning it never put the turtle in danger to begin with.

I'm really surprised to just how uninformed the general public is on this subject. Not pointed at anyone in this thread....just in general.

That video I posted was sent to me by one of my friends who is in his own battle with the Feds over his land and problems he is having....I'll ask him if he is ok with me posting his story...people really are clueless to whats going on.

these last few comments proves Lurker's original post correct.

For me...this isnt a race issue...its a serious overreach of Federal authority...and I wouldnt care if the people involved was green...but I wont speak for anyone else...its just my opinion.

it doesn't have to be a race issue.

but this shows that if our own people do it, we refuse to call it what it is, even though they check the box on a lot of things ISIS is doing.

be real here FBH, if they were muslims, what would the country be calling this?

you can spin this a lot of ways, a race issue, religion issue, american bias issue, but the fact is, people don't wanna call it what it is.

Well I would hope they would call it the government is being called on their crap...but I get what your saying.

Surprising, because folks love to put a label on everything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

History[edit]
Much of the West is controlled by the federal government.
Map of all federally owned land in the United States. The area in yellow represents land managed by the Bureau of Land Management


The land to which Cliven Bundy claims ancestral rights was originally inhabited by the Moapa Paiute people.[22] In 1848, as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States purchased from Mexico land that is now the southwestern region of the United States. Since then, the government has continuously owned land in what is now Nevada, including the Bunkerville Allotment.[3][23] The Nevada Territory, which was partitioned in 1861 from the Utah Territory, became a state in 1864. The original settlers in the 1840s and 1850s were Mormons from Utah and southern small-time farmers and ranchers from Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. After the end of the American Civil War, much of the land was settled by rural farmers, squatters and small-time cattle ranchers from Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and Kansas, escaping from the post-Civil War Reconstruction and the associated violence and displacement.[citation needed] Since 1934 federal rangelands in Nevada have been managed principally by either the Bureau of Land Management or its predecessor, the United States Grazing Service, or the United States Forest Service. As of 2010, 47.8 million acres[24] (more than two-thirds of Nevada's 70.3 million acres) were managed by the BLM. Throughout the nation, the BLM manages nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases,[25] of which about 700 are in Nevada.[26] The season of use and the details of forage are stipulated in permits and leases; thus federal control can be exerted on the land used for grazing.[25]

Permits[edit]
Under Bureau of Land Management permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In that year, as a protest, Bundy did not pay to renew his permit, and it was canceled in 1994.[27] Though the agency made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, the rancher declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing and he asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze cattle on the land.[3] Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorizing the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use.[3][4]

Bundy has since accumulated more than $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines.[14][28] The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM.[29] Excluding Bundy's unpaid fees, the total of all late grazing fees owed nationwide to the BLM was only $237,000, the newspaper said.[30]

[3] Decision and Order - United States v Bundy - 1998. United States District Court for the District of Nevada. November 3, 1998. p. 5.

[23] Gray, Tom. "Teaching With Documents: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved April 24, 2014.

=============================================


It looks to me like his family never owned the land in question. He owned some land in the area and previously had his cattle graze on the federal land. Later, in the 50s, the gov't started charging permit fees to let cattle graze on public land. Then he stopped paying the permits in the 90s.

What part exactly makes him wronged, here?

This summed up my feelings if you feel like wasting 25 min of your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90

Are there facts? I'm more interested in facts than feelings. If there is true conflicting information then I'd like to watch it.

1848?

and all of a sudden it's a problem NOW?

huh.....

i'm sorry but this guy is just trying to get out paying something everybody else has to pay.

this group feels entitled.

ooo...the word "entitled".....

Facts about the Arson's


The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account.

But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire. His attorney said in court that Hammond called the land bureau beforehand.

The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed.

But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew.

How prosecutors pursued the ensuing criminal case over the two fires is what bothers Hammond supporters.

When the men were indicted in 2010 on federal arson charges, they faced sentencing under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Some Hammond backers and a host of recent social media posts translated that to mean the Hammonds were treated as terrorists.

"When you starting bringing in the terrorism act for God-fearing livestock producers in eastern Oregon, something is wrong," said Barry Bushue, a Multnomah County berry farmer and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Federal prosecutors say they did no such thing.

"At no time have I ever called these two men terrorists. Never," Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last October. "They committed arson."

But the five-year sentence mandated by terrorism law also concerned people. Among the critics: the federal judge who presided over the Hammonds' trial in Pendleton.

U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan said at the men's original sentencing in 2012 that such a term would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.

"It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience," Hogan said before sentencing Dwight to three months and Steve to one year.

The men served their time and went home to raise cattle. But their case, it turned out, was far from settled.

Amanda Marshall, then U.S. attorney for Oregon, said she recommended the government challenge Hogan's sentence as illegal.

"If the government stands by and doesn't pursue the statutorily mandated sentence in this case, what kind of precedent does that set?" Marshall asked. Hogan, she said, imposed "an unlawful sentence."

Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last fall that "the government did what we are supposed to do when someone doesn't follow the law, be it a judge or be it two ranchers in eastern Oregon."

The solicitor general at the U.S. Justice Department authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge's order.

The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds trooped to federal court last October to face a second sentencing.

Family and supporters filled the Eugene courtroom and U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken gave the two convicted ranchers a chance to speak.

"I have nothing to say," Steve Hammond said.

"I have got nothing to say," Dwight Hammond said.

"Really?" the judge asked. "That's so unusual."

She sentenced them to prison to finish five-year terms but left them free until after the holidays.




Also:




A long federal case has revealed friction within the Hammond family, and it's cast light on a lesser-known conflict between the authorities and the Hammonds.

A key witness for the government's arson case was a family member who was a teenager at the time of the 2001 fire. The Oregonian/OregonLive is not naming him because some material presented in court, concerning his experiences with the Hammonds, was gathered while he was a minor.

The young man testified how he and his relatives started the blaze. He said in court that Steve Hammond gave him a box of matches on a September morning and told him to "light up the whole country on fire." He testified that his relatives told him later that day to keep quiet about what happened.

In October, prosecutors told a judge the young man had a reason he didn't talk about the arson for eight years.

According to a court document filed by prosecutors in the arson case, the government's witness told federal agents "he feared when Steven Hammond learned he had talked to police, that Steven would come to his front door and kill him."

According to police reports filed as part of the Hammonds' second sentencing, the boy previously had accused Steve Hammond of physical abuse when he was 16 and living with Dwight and Susan Hammond.

He said the Hammonds disapproved that he'd used a paperclip to carve two initials in his chest, according to a Harney County sheriff's deputy who interviewed the boy. The teenager told the investigator "Steve used a very coarse sand paper to sand off the initials," the deputy's report said. The teen said Dwight Hammond left the room but that Susan Hammond stayed, telling him to clean up afterward and "not to have a pity party," the report said.

Steve Hammond was charged with criminal mistreatment, but a diversion agreement got the charge dismissed. He had to take anger management classes, perform 40 hours of community service, and stay away from his nephew.

Dwight Hammond explained it was "decided by the family" to sand off the initials, the investigating deputy wrote. None of the Hammonds would say who did the sanding, the investigator's report said.

Steve Hammond did make one thing clear during their three-hour interview, the investigator wrote, telling the deputy "he did not agree with the government getting involved in family matters."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northw...feds_spark.html

The federal government should give the land back... To the Native Americans.

the problem is, as i've said before, is that the original punishment is the judge's fault.

the judge set the punishment, and they both served the time.

At this point, nobody should be able to go back and say "nah, you need to go back longer"


if that's what this whole thing is about...then sure. i support them.

however, it's turning out to be less about that, and more that they're crying they can't let their cattle go wherever they want.

according to Steve's link, Bundy has been paying the permit since the 50's, and then stopped in the 90's because more or less "i shouldn't have to"

And now he's trying to use the same ideology with the hammond's.

y'all need to stop giving these guys a pass. they are wrong, what they did is illegal.

At the end of the day there is nothing legal about the actions of this group. You can not "Occupy" a government building by force and threat to negotiate with the government regardless of your grievance.

No harm has been done that we are aware of regarding bodily harm to others or property damage, BUT their "non-violent protest" has broken the law. If a group of persons of color had taken these same actions, there is no way they would not have been ousted and or killed by now. These GOP-like good ole boys get a pass though; they are not people of color.

Arrest and prosecution should immediately follow this stand off. Hopefully violence can be avoided, but a line in the sand needs to be drawn, a time frame to surrender peacefully be set in stone and action taken if they fail to comply. We can not let this example of common thuggery stand.

Just because you are white, own a gum and some camouflage gear, and have a strong opinion about perceived government wrong doing; you are not above the law.

The guys have made themselves criminals, period.

I personally do not see them as terrorist. I did not see the occupy wall street movement as terrorist. These two groups have been compared, but I see one major difference; the occupy movement occupied a public accessible park where people were allowed and expected to be. They broke the law of being in the park after hours, and unenforced misdemeanor at best.

Taking control of a federal building I presume is a felony.

I agree.

Not really. Not even the cops care enough to show up. Actually they've been made out to be a practical joke, which I think they are.

They storm a place claiming to have taken it over. How can you claim that when the building wasn't even occupied in the first place? lol

Then they say they aren't going to leave. Only a day or two later to claim, "Hey we didn't bring enough food. Can somebody bring us a snack? LMFAO

Is Elmer Fudd running Ya'll Qaeda?

This is a joke and they're being made look the fools. Sad thing is, I believe some of what they are saying. Sad thing is, these are the self appointed people who seem to make many who share their ideas look like fools.

Native Americans have done this a few time in a few different places without being killed. Do they count as "people of color"?

Dont watch its your choice..

I half way agree with you...and is why I never truly involved myself with Oath Keepers..but I do know a couple on a personal level and they are anything but Elmer Fudd types...the rest of the group well not so much.

And that's really the problem FBH.

I liken it to politics. Moderate Dems and GOP rarely make headlines. They don't produce the shock value that sells or panders to the extremes of their parties. So we rarely hear a lot from "the practical people". We hear from the outliers and extremists.

The same goes for people like this. As I stated, I share some of their sentiments. But it seems those that lead the charge, come up with scatter brained ideas are where the attention is focused. It takes away from the message and adds to the foolishness.

I'm sure there are level headed people that agree with and may even align with the group. Yet that's not who we'll see in the headlines or who we'll see interviewed on camera.

The occupy wallstreet took over a Federal building..not armed but they did...wi ll there be felonies maybe..



Can you show me where Oath Keepers has said this...or broke any laws please...Honestly Ive not saw where they have...maybe they did but what laws have they broken??

But them good ole boys went to help black people in Ferguson

http://heavy.com/news/2015/08/oath-keepe...stewart-rhodes/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/oath-keeper...g-march/208682/

but by all means bash away...and the ones I know are not trying to make themselves felons and lose thier right to bare arms...all of them idk..but the ones I know no freaking way.

We are in agreement Pit. Thanks for your response..

No problem Bud.

Not aware of the situations you are referring to, how recent was this?

I can think of wounded knee where a couple of natives died.

You left off "Willing to mass murder innocent civilians because of their beliefs". Oh, wait...that doesn't apply.

They took over Alcatraz Island in 1969.

they said they are willing to fight to their deaths for this.

somebody is gonna get murdered if it comes to this.

so...they just checked off another box. thanks for clearing that up for me, bro. i wasn't sure at first.

You might want to go back to school for reading comprehension.

Which innocent civilians are going to be mass murdered?

And just so you can understand, law enforcement doesn't count.

so mass murder is a requirement for terrorism?

where do they show that in the legal definition?

Don't deflect. You said you were checking that off your check box. So which innocent civilians are being mass murdered?

Well the cops hat might get popped are innocent.

I didn't deflect anything. You're just making up definitions and hoping somebody will back you up.

Hey have similarities to a typical terrorist group. If you fail to see it, all well, I really don't care.

Nope, typical terrorists mass murder as many as possible. These dudes aren't mass murdering anybody.

Again, is that the legal definition? Or just your interpretation of terrorism?