Breaking Oregon Militia Occupies Federal Building

[Oberon]

The first definition on Google gives me:

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Now, the Bundy bunch haven't used violence...yet...but by carrying firearms into a federal office and occupying it, one could definitely make the argument that they are using intimidation. In fact if you were to ask them if they wanted to intimidate the federal government they would probably reply in the affirmative.
Are their aims political? Definitely.
Therefore one could make the arguement that they are unofficially using intimidation in the pursuit of a political aim.

Honestly though, right now, I would probably withdraw the claim of terrorism, but it is very close to it. If one of those men fires on an American federal agent then it becomes a 'federal crime of terrorism' under the definition of 18 U.S.C. § 2332b:

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(c) (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.).

What they are guilty of, at the moment, as per US code 2384 is seditious conspiracy, or:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Either which way it was a stupid move, but Bundys group are rather...zealous in their beliefs and they've been given a lot of leeway by US authorities, some might say too much leeway.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by August

Whose definition would?

Saudi Arabia's. Looks like any critique of government will suffice. No violence required.

[Oberon]

Meanwhile in Taiwan:

[vienna]

In jest, there is some truth...



<O>

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Does that make these people Yeehawdists?

That's the funniest thing I've read this year. You democrat panzies do come up with some good ones.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by em2nought

That's the funniest thing I've read this year. You democrat panzies do come up with some good ones.

Considering it's just the 4th day of the year that doesn't say much.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Therefore one could make the arguement that they are unofficially using intimidation in the pursuit of a political aim.

Which is still not terrorism. Why don't you just admit that you were a little too eager to pursue your usual political aim of belittling those on the other side of the political spectrum. In fact your constant attempts at doing so is a kind of intimidation so you might be considered an "almost terrorist" too.

Honestly though, right now, I would probably withdraw the claim of terrorism, but it is very close to it.

So which is it, are you withdrawing your claim or are you not?

If one of those men fires on an American federal agent then it becomes a 'federal crime of terrorism' under the definition of 18 U.S.C.

And if one of their aunts suddenly sprouts testicles she'll meet the definition of an uncle but that doesn't make it any more likely to happen no matter how much you hope it does.

[Platapus]

Does anyone know what these knuckleheads want?

I think it is unreasonable for them to expect the government to release the Hammonds. They seemed to have been given a fair trial (for both the 2001 and 2006 arson events) and it was reviewed by the court of appeals.

So what do they hope to accomplish?

How do they think this will end?



http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison


Despite repeated publications that the Hammonds were convicted under an anti-terrorism law, they were, in fact convicted under18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1)



Subsection f was amended under an anti-terriorism law to add the minimum 5 year sentence. But amended by does not equate to convicted under.


Of course parties sympathetic to the Hammond case and or unsympathetic to the government would never deliberately miss-cite the law in order to get people emotionally spun up. That would be wrong.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Does anyone know what these knuckleheads want?

I don't think it's really about the Hammonds. The Bundys and their buddies believe that federal land should belong solely to the states or the ranchers themselves since the ranchers have grazed their cattle on it for so many generations. Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government sway over land in the nation’s capital, but nowhere else. If you believe that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states, then I suppose the Bundys are correct. However, the federal government has owned land outside the capital pretty much since 1790, when Alexander Hamilton convinced the states to give up land west of the Appalachians in exchange for federal assumptions of state debt. A few years later, Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase even as he wrangled the Senate to approve it.

It's possible that is what Bundy and his ilk think they are doing. Just as tree sitters raised public awareness of issues related to old-growth forests in the 1980s, maybe these guys see their occupation of a closed Fish & Wildlife Service building as their way to raise public awareness of alleged federal overreach on land control. Seems a few centuries late though.

The underlying problem with this tactic is that nowadays 90 percent of western US residents are urban dwellers who are much more likely to sympathize with spotted owls and sandhill cranes than with cattle and sheep.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Which is still not terrorism. Why don't you just admit that you were a little too eager to pursue your usual political aim of belittling those on the other side of the political spectrum. In fact your constant attempts at doing so is a kind of intimidation so you might be considered an "almost terrorist" too.

So which is it, are you withdrawing your claim or are you not?

And if one of their aunts suddenly sprouts testicles she'll meet the definition of an uncle but that doesn't make it any more likely to happen no matter how much you hope it does.

Sweet, I'm an almost terrorist. I can add that to the list, the Liberal Communist Political Correct Almost-Terrorist. I think it'll go well on the CV.
Truth be told, sometimes there's not much belittling needed, I mean these guys are clowns, no two ways about it, and far from helping their objective, they are actively undermining it, in a manner similar to how Trump is actively torpedoing the Republican party. You think I'm tarring all right wing folks with the same brush? I tend not to, but I do point at the crazies, because they do tend to pop up a lot. Do I think all right wing people are like the Bundys? Heck no, just as I hope that you don't think that I'm like Joseph Stalin....if anything I'm more like Gorbachev in my beliefs, and that would get me lynched by most Russians.
I've met a Stalinist, on another forum I once frequented which had a rather high communist to capitalist ratio. My head still hurts when I think about this guy, he believed the Holodomor was lies and propaganda put forward by Ukrainian kulaks and the west. It was quite literally like meeting a holocaust denier only it was a different massacre. On that forum I was actually more center-right than anything else.
On this, I'm left, and sure this does colour my vision somewhat, I may perhaps sometimes skip over some left-wing nutjob to gape in horror at a right-wing one. They're both still nutjobs and I won't ever wind myself agreeing with either, but I'll focus on the right wing one because that personifies the greater alarm to my political subconscious.
It's not something I'm proud of, but it is human nature, and besides August, if I didn't do this, who else on this forum would? Who would there be left to balance the fear of Islam out with some good old fashioned homebrew extremism? Most of the others have left now. If there isn't some attempt at balance, to address all sides of the spectrum of extremism and indeed, terrorism, then there runs the risk of a pure focus on hating one particular group of people, and I don't think that that is healthy for what is supposed to be a forum for all people.

But yes, I do withdraw my classification of this as an act of terror, but if the circumstances change, if indeed your aunt does grow a testicle and becomes your uncle, then I will reserve the right to reclassify this incident as such.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Considering it's just the 4th day of the year that doesn't say much.

Can I be a democrat panzy tank, perhaps?

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Can I be a democrat panzy tank, perhaps?

Wish granted

[Oberon]

Brilliant!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

I don't think it's really about the Hammonds. The Bundys and their buddies believe that federal land should belong solely to the states or the ranchers themselves since the ranchers have grazed their cattle on it for so many generations. Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government sway over land in the nation’s capital, but nowhere else. If you believe that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states, then I suppose the Bundys are correct. However, the federal government has owned land outside the capital pretty much since 1790, when Alexander Hamilton convinced the states to give up land west of the Appalachians in exchange for federal assumptions of state debt. A few years later, Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase even as he wrangled the Senate to approve it.

It's possible that is what Bundy and his ilk think they are doing. Just as tree sitters raised public awareness of issues related to old-growth forests in the 1980s, maybe these guys see their occupation of a closed Fish & Wildlife Service building as their way to raise public awareness of alleged federal overreach on land control. Seems a few centuries late though.

The underlying problem with this tactic is that nowadays 90 percent of western US residents are urban dwellers who are much more likely to sympathize with spotted owls and sandhill cranes than with cattle and sheep.

I'm going to go with this answer. Bundy is a religious fruit loop, looking for attention. I'm not even paying attention to it and I live here. Meh. This is the red neck version of greenpeace. Go do you protest and enjoy the freezing rain.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I'm going to go with this answer. Bundy is a religious fruit loop, looking for attention. I'm not even paying attention to it and I live here. Meh. This is the red neck version of greenpeace. Go do you protest and enjoy the freezing rain.

Aye, we all have our fruit loops. I'm a tree-hugger but some of the stuff that Greenpeace and PETA get up to makes me facepalm big time.
I just hope that these rednecks do not live up to the stereotype and exercise firearm discipline if the federal agencies do take action.

Of course, the Feds could just not take action and wait for the news to get bored of Bundy, that would be a logical course of action, but I dunno whether Bundys group would move on once the mainstream media stops watching, or whether they will try to set up some kind of Mecca for the Minutemen like they seem to want to.