The phrase domestic terrorism is completely appropriate. Are these men Americans? I think we can say they are.. Therefore they are "domestic"
Are they using the threat of force and intimidation to further their political aims? Yes. That is also a fact Therefore they are "terrorists".
If they were peacefully demonstrating and making their case in the court or court of public opinion, that would be fine. But they are not.
teråároråáism
èöterªèÎrizªm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
I haven't seen any screams for blood, just the due process of law to be imposed uniformly. That is what we are not seeing.
The idea that we should wait around until the actually harm a person is not the way this usually goes. How many FBI sting operations have we heard about where they swoop in and take out potential terrorists simply based on what they have said, LET ALONE taken up arms against the US Government.
Williwaw, post: 354119, member: 7066 wrote: this ain't no video game.
I ain't got time for that now...
[MEDIA=youtube]OVHNwBbkSj4[/MEDIA]
Paul D, post: 352090, member: 323 wrote: Saw this interesting article regarding the native american claims. Interesting from a land title/rights/claim perspective as the article states that the Paiute tribe never gave up any of their rights to the land.
My company surveyed the boundaries of Reservation Lands given to the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe circa 1905. They had never claimed any of it, and in the 1980's their Chief, an uncommonly intelligent woman, discovered the fact and approached Congress. Congress ordered the Navajo tribe to cooperate with them, and surrender lands given to them circa 1910, and after several years of negotiations they had come to an agreement of sorts. Congress had ordered both Tribes to hire a surveyor agreeable to both to monument and survey the boundaries. We met with representatives of both Tribes to"walk" the agreed boundary line. About 30 minutes into the process the Paiute representative said he was not going to be a party to the actions and left. The navajo representative said he was going to fulfill his duties, so we followed him around setting monuments. We located them all and prepared the required maps and descriptions. No one could ever decide what to do with the information, so we never delivered them. About 10 years later I heard that the Cheif had been convicted of money laundering and was in a Federal Penitentiary. The maps and description are sitting in a tube by the side of my fireplace. I have tried several times over the years to find someone who might want them but found no takers...
Well gee whiz they're not terrorists so why don't the Marshalls go in there and arrest everyone, I mean nothing will happen, right?
Imaudigger, you could use an injection of empathy. An armed group of men take over the area's major employer with an implied threat of violence. Having been a victim, it's surprising how little it takes to induce PTSD.
Murphy, post: 354097, member: 9787 wrote: The moniker "domestic terrorist" should not be applied to a group that has not physically harmed anyone...
Really? How many terrorist groups has the FBI taken out before they've harmed anyone?
Major Terrorism Preventions, Disruptions, and Investigations
Andy J, post: 354121, member: 44 wrote: The phrase domestic terrorism is completely appropriate. Are these men Americans? I think we can say they are.. Therefore they are "domestic"
Are they using the threat of force and intimidation to further their political aims? Yes. That is also a fact Therefore they are "terrorists".
If they were peacefully demonstrating and making their case in the court or court of public opinion, that would be fine. But they are not.
teråároråáism
èöterªèÎrizªm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.I haven't seen any screams for blood, just the due process of law to be imposed uniformly. That is what we are not seeing.
The idea that we should wait around until the actually harm a person is not the way this usually goes. How many FBI sting operations have we heard about where they swoop in and take out potential terrorists simply based on what they have said, LET ALONE taken up arms against the US Government.
I am fairly confident that the reasoning for the gov. taking the tactic that they are is out of fear of triggering a larger movement and awaking a sleeping giant (that is armed to the teeth).
I would be interested if anybody can provide an example of any of the following;
1.) That carrying a sidearm on public land is illegal.
2.) That they USED their sidearm to gain access to the public land.
3.) That they have drawn their sidearm and used it in a threatening manner.
4.) That they have made threats to the law enforcement, public, or federal employees.
5.) That the federal employees ever attempted to return to work and were prevented.
6.) That they have resisted arrest.
7.) That through their actions, they are directly responsible for additional security costs in a town 50 miles away.
8.) That they have prevented the public from using the public land.
9.) That they constructed new roads on public land.
10.) That they removed 30' of fencing that belonged to the public.
11.) That they are guilty of trespass on public property.
I'm not saying they are not guilty of anything...I'm just trying to dissect the situation and see what exactly they will be guilty of. This is very interesting to me, because on a smaller scale, I could strap on my sidearm and "occupy" public land, refusing to leave until my demands are met. I could refuse an offer by the Sherriff to take me home. I could state that if anybody comes to do me harm, I will respond in kind. Am I then a militant terrorist? Will I be shot or arrested for trespassing on public land? The response would be "knock yourself out buddy".
There are differences between that scenario and what is occuring and I believe they will be charged for those differences.
Dave Karoly, post: 354133, member: 94 wrote: Well gee whiz they're not terrorists so why don't the Marshalls go in there and arrest everyone, I mean nothing will happen, right?
Imaudigger, you could use an injection of empathy. An armed group of men take over the area's major employer with an implied threat of violence. Having been a victim, it's surprising how little it takes to induce PTSD.
PTSD really? Should the government open up a counseling center for the victims?
I am just trying to keep it real - it's not like people have been killed, injured, or even directly threatened. I actually don't think a single gun has been pointed by either side. How many people do you think live/work within a 20 mile radius of that place? Probably a handful of ranchers that are not losing any sleep over this.
Dave Karoly, post: 354133, member: 94 wrote: Having been a victim, it's surprising how little it takes to induce PTSD.
I agree that the mind is a powerful thing that is uncontrollable at times. The smallest thing can induce many different kinds of afflictions.
I just think this is getting blown out of proportion a little bit and little recognition is being given to the type of people that live in a small rural ranching community like Burns. It is likely a curiosity more than anything.
Amendment II of our Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
We forget the first half of the amendment. The 2nd amendment to most is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", however in the writing is "A well regulated militia." Security of a free state is at stake to these people.
This situation may not very well represent the intent of the Constitution, however what is happening may not very well represent the intent of the laws broken as spoken by the representative in the video.
Murphy, post: 354079, member: 9787 wrote: Yes, lets send some more American citizens to prison. What a wonderfully thought-out solution. After all, theoretical harm is a very serious offense and certainly merits long term confinement, financial ruin, and the job friendly label of felon. While we're at it and emotions are real high, why not press for some additional regulation and laws to prevent any such occurrence from happening again. Perhaps we need to rethink this First Amendment foolishness. After all it was never intended that the First Amendment might give voice to boisterous factions.
Threatening people, stealing vehicles and destroying property are crimes. Commit enough crimes and you go to prison. That's kind of how it works. ..
The Gov has tossed in her .02å¢.
SO how much is that property worth? Pragmatically.
Wonder if she is related to Jerry? ÷¼
thebionicman, post: 354152, member: 8136 wrote: Threatening people, stealing vehicles and destroying property are crimes. Commit enough crimes and you go to prison. That's kind of how it works. ..
I understand that at least one man got arrested for stealing a vehicle to go into town. OK that has been taken care of.
Who have the people threatened to do harm?
Property damage - did the fence belong to the ranch, where the employee gave them permission to remove it? There was a long standing controversy where the gov. demanded that the land owners build fences to keep the cattle out of the refuge. Perhaps the fence did not belong to the public?
As I said before it will be interesting to see what charges actually stick.
"The very fabric of this community is being ripped apart,Û Brown said at a news conference at the Capitol." So she thinks that the wildlife refuge and it's employees is the very fabric that holds the community together?
imaudigger, post: 354234, member: 7286 wrote: I understand that at least one man got arrested for stealing a vehicle to go into town. OK that has been taken care of.
Who have the people threatened to do harm?
Property damage - did the fence belong to the ranch, where the employee gave them permission to remove it? There was a long standing controversy where the gov. demanded that the land owners build fences to keep the cattle out of the refuge. Perhaps the fence did not belong to the public?
As I said before it will be interesting to see what charges actually stick.
"The very fabric of this community is being ripped apart,Û Brown said at a news conference at the Capitol." So she thinks that the wildlife refuge and it's employees is the very fabric that holds the community together?
OMG are you brain dead? They have guns you idiot. This is not normal social behavior. It is a criminal act. It is not a matter of opinion. Get over it or go out there and become one of them.
not my real name, post: 354239, member: 8199 wrote: OMG are you brain dead? They have guns you idiot. This is not normal social behavior. It is a criminal act. It is not a matter of opinion. Get over it or go out there and become one of them.
Keep to the issues and avoid the personal attacks. This thread has survived a long time because folks have shown restraint. Lets see if we can't continue to discuss this like professionals.
Stephen Ward, post: 354242, member: 1206 wrote: Keep to the issues and avoid the personal attacks. This thread has survived a long time because folks have shown restraint. Lets see if we can't continue to discuss this like professionals.
+1
To keep the discussion civil - So your opinion is that the specific crime they will be charged with is .."They have guns..It is a criminal act."
I can understand that logic. However that is not something that would be brought into a court of law. They need to be charged with specific crimes. Possession of a firearm while in the commission of trespassing? Possession of a firearm with the intent to terrorize? Is there such a thing?
I'd like to see if the guy that was arrested for stealing the vehicle had a firearm on him when he was caught. That will likely bring enhancements.
By the way around here it is common practice to strap on a sidearm when using public land. We just don't go around occupying federal buildings :-D.
Please... A professional would not defend domestic terrorism. A professional would be able to recognize the difference between opinion and a treasonous act of terror. These occupiers need to be imprisoned. There is no excuse. I don't think their behavior should be encouraged. Not reacting with force will only serve to encourage these recalcitrants.
Concerning the so called "destruction of federal property" claim I read a report that the occupiers are actually mending and repairing areas of the facility. They are performing maintenance and are showing respect to the property. Not saying they are right by any means, but at least they aren't beer bashing & trashing the place.
Let's stop calling them "terrorist". A terrorist wouldn't go to town meetings and allow themselves to be ridiculed, threatened or imprisoned. Which is what they ultimately want. They want their day in court - not a revolution.
Not one shot has been fired in all this time. Its a protest people! Not domestic terrorism. Which is what the media wants to call it. Don't be a media or political pawn.
All they really want is to access to grazing land that is pretty desolate to begin which they pay a fee for. Oh and the argument about how the cattle damage the land is "bull". Prior to the cattle were these things called buffalo. Millions of them. Wonder if anyone remembers those.
The government was also required to build a fence to keep the cattle off of public land. It was an agreement that was signed and sealed. They didn't do it. Now who really is to fault. Its not so black and white is it?
imaudigger, post: 354234, member: 7286 wrote: I understand that at least one man got arrested for stealing a vehicle to go into town. OK that has been taken care of.
Who have the people threatened to do harm?
Property damage - did the fence belong to the ranch, where the employee gave them permission to remove it? There was a long standing controversy where the gov. demanded that the land owners build fences to keep the cattle out of the refuge. Perhaps the fence did not belong to the public?
As I said before it will be interesting to see what charges actually stick.
"The very fabric of this community is being ripped apart,Û Brown said at a news conference at the Capitol." So she thinks that the wildlife refuge and it's employees is the very fabric that holds the community together?
When you tell Federal agents there will be violence if they enforce the law, it's called assault. When you follow up by showing your weapon to reinforce the threat it's called flourishing. Flourishing is a felony.
The fence that was destroyed was private property. The rancher did not want it removed. Destruction of private property may be a felony depending on value. They have also cut new roads on the refuge. That is our property they are destroying.
At every turn they prove that their agenda is the only thing they care about. They are liars and criminals. That not emotion, it's fact.
Was it their camera to disable?
Mr. Bionicman, I would tend to agree with you IF...
Anyone in the group has stated that they will invoke violence if law enforcement attempts to arrest them AND displayed their weapon in an angry or threatening manner while making that statement. Has anyone done this?
I'm not defending them, just trying to dissect what they will end up getting charged with in the end. I have not seen anyone brandishing in any of the videos that I have watched.
------
Per the new road, I read that they plowed snow and cindered an existing road. We will probably know more in the coming months.
Radar, that guy in the background of the last picture is kind of creepy the way he wears his hat so low. I don't think it's hiding his identity very well...
