Oregon 'terrorists' don't plan siege very well, put out plea for snacks and supplies

[Expat1 971]

I see plenty of humor in the reactions to this story, but the actual Domestic Terrorists are not particularly funny. I'm very amused, for example, with trying to find fault with the FBI agent who shot one said Domestic Terrorist by posting a tiny fraction of the openly posted video and claiming that the Terrorist was reaching for his wound. After he gets shot it's straight to the ground and pretty obviously instant death. He never moved again. The missing video shows just how justified the shooting was. Dead Domestic Terrorists aren't funny in and of themselves though.

I fail to see the connection between terrorists and this group of clowns. But another Mosque got hit over here in Hasa last weekend so perhaps my definition of what constitutes terrorism (randomly killing innocent people) and your definition of domestic terrorism (a group of idiots inappropriately expressing their displeasure with government policies in a hut miles away from the nearest innocent person) differ.

In fact they differ to the degree that in my view your histrionics and capitalized Domestic Terrorist comments are so far off base that they are also pretty funny. Just sayin'.

ya, that's stupid, to make it racial -

as it's over land and 'grazing rights' for the cows.

that's it. anyone could have this complaint, no racial bits needed.

I'm just stumped they not slaughter a cow and cook it ! Cows abound, and it's THEIR cows, to boot !

+1 for most sensible and practical (and on topic at that) post on the thread

Edited February 1, 2016 by Expat1

[Rob L 3,811]

I fail to see the connection between terrorists and this group of clowns. But another Mosque got hit over here in Hasa last weekend so perhaps my definition of what constitutes terrorism (randomly killing innocent people) and your definition of domestic terrorism (a group of idiots inappropriately expressing their displeasure with government policies in a hut miles away from the nearest innocent person) differ.

In fact they differ to the degree that in my view your histrionics and capitalized Domestic Terrorist comments are so far off base that they are also pretty funny. Just sayin'.

+1 for most sensible and practical (and on topic at that) post on the thread

We tried pretending these goofs were not dangerous to themselves or others in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Now the evidence shows that this approach is a mistake . Federal workers have been physically threatened ( terrorism for political aims in my book), One man has died and now even though the original armed criminal is calling for a stand-down others outside of this community are putting out the call for others around the country to bring their arms and rebel flags.

This is not going to end well.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's not going to end humorously either.

[lostinblue 1,989]

It's not going to end humorously either.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Hammonds’ range fire prosecution: a deeper look

Most citizens hope for a good government that will do the right thing. Perhaps this is why the story of the Hammond family and their fight against the U.S. government is catching the attention of a growing number of American citizens. In the July 13 issue, WLJ reported that the Hammonds—a long-time ranching family in eastern Oregon—were prosecuted by the federal government for having started two range fires on their property that spread onto Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land.

Two men from the Hammond family have already spent time in federal prison for the fires. Now the federal government is demanding that they go back to prison. Given the questions raised by the story, a more in-depth investigation is warranted.

Review of the facts

BLM filed charges against the Hammonds back in 2012. The federal prosecutor chose to prosecute them under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Anti-terrorism Act).

The trial court’s 2012 findings can be summarized as follows: Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.

The trial court sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, to a combined three months, one year and one day in prison. They served their time in 2013 and are now under three years’ “supervised release.” The court additionally revoked their firearms and Dwight lost his pilot’s license.

The Hammonds are also paying $400,000 as part of a separate settlement agreement with BLM.

They may be forced to sell part of their ranch to BLM to make the payment. BLM has additionally refused to renew the family’s federal grazing permits for two years running. This means Hammonds can use neither their BLM allotments nor thousands of their private acres, which are intermingled with BLM land. It should be noted that the civil settlement and the BLM’s refusal of Hammonds’ grazing permits are, technically, unrelated to the criminal case.

In the criminal case, the Hammond pair face a re-sentencing on Oct. 7. Chief Judge Ann Aiken of the District Court of Oregon will decide whether, and for how long, the men may go back to prison.

How is this possible, after the trial court made its decision and the men served their sentence? The answer is two-pronged. First, the federal government chose to prosecute Hammonds under the Antiterrorism Act, which bears a five-year “mandatory minimum” prison sentence for offenders. Second: the federal government was unsatisfied with the less-than-five-year sentence handed down by the trial court, and decided to appeal.

In the first instance, why did the federal government choose to prosecute under an anti-terrorism statute? A reading of the court documents does not provide a clear answer. The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted following the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings in the 1990s. Legislative history shows the law’s purpose is to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” More specific pur poses

include authorizing federal courts to hear claims against “terrorist governments for acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens...” and revising criminal laws regarding “unlawful possession, use, transfer, and trafficking in nuclear materials and biological and chemical weapons.”

The government originally attempted to prosecute the father and son for nine violations of the Anti-terrorism Act. The trial court found Hammonds guilty on only two counts: for having started the 2001 prescribed burn and the 2006 back-burn. The guilty charges came under section 844(f) of the Act, which calls for a minimum of five years in prison for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property [of] the United States…” However, the judge and jury appeared to be conflicted over applying the Anti-terrorism Act’s full force. As noted by Judge Michael Hogan of the District Court, Hammonds’ fires likely rejuvenated and improved the federal range. Indeed, it would defy logic to expect Hammonds to purposefully and “maliciously” damage their own BLM allotments.

Of importance, too, was the trial court’s finding that no lives were endangered or harmed by the fires—which, under the Anti-terrorism Act, would have meant a minimum prison sentence of seven years.

Government’s appeal points

When then-U.S. Attorney for Oregon S. Amanda Marshall submitted her appeal the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the stated goal was to get a “re-sentencing”—not to reopen the case or challenge the trial court’s findings of guilt. Below are the main arguments in the government’s appeal:

• Lack of constitutional authority – Marshall first challenged the district court judge’s authority under the Constitution to give Hammonds a sentence shorter than the five-year term required by the Anti-terrorism Act. Judge Hogan had said that a five-year sentence would have violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution by inflicting “a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here...”

• Offenders need not be terrorists – The government’s appeal stated, “the fact that they are ranchers who set fire to rangeland and not terrorists adds nothing to the analysis.” The government’s admittance, here, that Hammonds “are ranchers” and “not terrorists” may give question as to why the government chose to prosecute them under an anti-terrorism statute. Judge Hogan had called Hammonds “pillars” of their community. Marshall recognized this in her appeal, but argued it wasn’t enough to “disregard” the arson charges.

• Malicious intent and “endangerment” argument –The U.S. Attorney’s appeal stated that Hammonds had “maliciously damaged federal property by fire” and that “lives…were adversely affected by fire.” But the trial court had found that the fires had endangered no one. Instead of simply asking for a re-sentencing, it appears the federal government may be seeking to reopen the facts of the case by bringing up the already-decided “endangerment” question.

• Similar sentences for theft and drug possession – The government’s appeal cited two examples where the Supreme Court “affirmed much lengthier sentences” for “far more innocuous crimes.” One such crime was theft of golf clubs under California’s “Three-Strikes” law. Another crime was a conviction of cocaine possession. The U.S. Attorney’s appeal seems to argue that, like thieves and drug offenders, the Hammonds should serve the full mandatory term.

Fallout

Hammonds’ case has caused alarm among other ranchers. Dustin Van Liew of the Public Lands Council (PLC), a national organization representing ranchers with public land grazing rights, said that PLC intends to work with Congress to fix the Anti-terrorism Act “so that it’s not applied to such cases in the future.”

But it seems a growing number of Americans are beginning to recognize an over-criminalization problem that stretches far beyond the ranching community. In fact, Congress has been moved to act. Just last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6) announced a criminal justice reform initiative. The initiative has bipartisan support, including the support of the Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH8).

Chairman Goodlatte has gone on record criticizing the “ever-increasing labyrinth of federal statutes and regulations, many of which impose criminal penalties without requiring that criminal intent be shown to establish guilt.”

“We need to make sure,” Goodlatte continued, “our laws and regulations protect freedom [and] work as efficiently and fairly as possible...”

Is the Hammond case an example of a government that protects freedom and operates fairly? That’s for the citizens to decide. — Theodora Johnson, WLJ Correspondent

https://wlj.net/print-article-11862-print.html

[smilesammich 10,727]

I fail to see the connection between terrorists and this group of clowns.

of course you can't, they're christian. white. american. you probably feel quite the affinity.

[Expat1 971]

We tried pretending these goofs were not dangerous to themselves or others in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Now the evidence shows that this approach is a mistake . Federal workers have been physically threatened ( terrorism for political aims in my book), One man has died and now even though the original armed criminal is calling for a stand-down others outside of this community are putting out the call for others around the country to bring their arms and rebel flags.

This is not going to end well.

I don't see this lot carving out their own little country there so this "political gain" thing may be just a little bit exaggerated.

The government stepped outside its bounds on the original case and these boys picked an inappropriate way to protest it. Open/shut and cut/dried.

[Expat1 971]

of course you can't, they're christian. white. american. you probably feel quite the affinity.

I never said that. Still at it are ya? LOL

[smilesammich 10,727]

I never said that. Still at it are ya? LOL

EAD

[Expat1 971]

EAD

SM :-0 Edited February 1, 2016 by Expat1

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's not going to end humorously either.

The'tyrannical' government is leasing grazing land for LESS than the cost of maintaining it. Not a great reason to illegally occupy a government building and then make weeks of public threats to anyone who might try to take it back. Cute but totally irrelevant meme.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The'tyrannical' government is leasing grazing land for LESS than the cost of maintaining it. Not a great reason to illegally occupy a government building and then make weeks of public threats to anyone who might try to take it back. Cute but totally irrelevant meme.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about/

“”The FWS was keen to acquire privately owned land on the nearby Silvies Plain, so the refuge diverted the water, channeling it into Malheur Lake. Water levels rose, soon doubling, and over 30 ranches on the plain were utterly destroyed: homes, barns, and the verdant pastures on which cows once grazed were under water….This broke the back of the rancher resistance: most came to the FWS and gave their land away for a song …”

[lostinblue 1,989]

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Okay. Still not feeling comfortable discussing your posting of a tiny fraction of the openly released video leading up to the Domestic Terrorist getting shot?

I already get that as a Patriotic American you feel like the Federal Government is out of control and an enemy of"the People" Lostinblue.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I'm going to laugh if these ranchers get their way and then some left leaning do-gooder from California buys up the BLM land when it goes to auction and tells them to get those $%& cows off of his property.

Edited February 1, 2016 by OnMyWayID