Militia takes over wildlife refuge headquarters

I'm confused as to where this idea that they were prosecuted for terrorism is coming from as well. I've read everything I can find from the District court, Dept of Justice and DA's office about the case, and have yet to find any reference to prosecution under anti-terrorism laws. All they were prosecuted for is destruction of government property. Being unable to find anything about that from primary sources, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is indeed just propaganda.

Bottom line, they knowingly set multiple fires to destroy evidence of crimes on public property, nearly burned over a BLM fire camp and endangered numerous lives. 5 years doesn't seem like an outlandish penalty to me. I wish the poaching alone brought that kind of time.
 
Hunting Wife said:
I'm confused as to where this idea that they were prosecuted for terrorism is coming from as well. I've read everything I can find from the District court, Dept of Justice and DA's office about the case, and have yet to find any reference to prosecution under anti-terrorism laws. All they were prosecuted for is destruction of government property. Being unable to find anything about that from primary sources, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is indeed just propaganda.
.
Click to expand...

That's what I see too.

This is from the US Attorney:

"The evidence at trial convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hammonds were guilty of the federal crime of arson; that is, maliciously damaging United States property by fire. The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism. Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."

It seems their sentence had nothing to do with terrorism. That's just more propoganda.
 
Last edited:
noharleyyet said:
dannyboy, did you just call some of us idiots?
Click to expand...

Nope, I called you ill informed as the idiots in Oregon. Which in this case you are if you failed to read this thread before commenting, which extensively details the Hammonds actions as provided in court documents (also in this thread) and believe that the Hammonds were just some ranchers who let a couple fires get away.


"Putting the setting of an illegal fire on your own property that then burns over to federal land...." was the crux of my statement, as if you know ANY of the details you know this wasn't the case in the context of the Hammonds and BLM situation
 
Last edited:
Hunting Wife said:
I'm confused as to where this idea that they were prosecuted for terrorism is coming from as well. I've read everything I can find from the District court, Dept of Justice and DA's office about the case, and have yet to find any reference to prosecution under anti-terrorism laws. All they were prosecuted for is destruction of government property. Being unable to find anything about that from primary sources, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is indeed just propaganda.

Bottom line, they knowingly set multiple fires to destroy evidence of crimes on public property, nearly burned over a BLM fire camp and endangered numerous lives. 5 years doesn't seem like an outlandish penalty to me. I wish the poaching alone brought that kind of time.
Click to expand...

Spot on!

Thanks for the link to letter NR.

Even given benefit of doubt,it is what it is.They were found guilty and that's what the sentence is for the Federal crime.
Given their history, they finally got something IMHO.
Bet the local sheriff is happy, the idiots at the Refuge will have to deal with the Fed.s now.
USNPS will defer to leading Fed LEO's ,that's the FBI folks.
I hope ......the electrical cut off is a start.
 
Gerald Martin said:
The problem with scenarios like this is neither side knows when to say when and then it comes to a head and the situation gets much worse.

The occupying Militia is a bunch of extremists who are exploiting a bad situation for their benefit. The Hammonds were convicted by a jury of their peers of arson and sentenced to prison for their crimes. Do the crime, do the time.

However, and a big however for me is the automatic 5 year minimum prison sentence drawn from the language in an anti-terrorism bill. The original prosecutor made no reference to them as being terrorist during the trial and prosecuted them as arsonists. I think the judges original sentence was fair and they deserved some prison time for arson, not domestic terrorism.

A different prosecutor coming on the scene and invoking an anti-terrorism law to force the judge to send them back for a longer sentence after they had served their time, seems way out of proportion to the crimes committed and smacks of a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself.

We all lose freedom when laws intended to be enforced for our protection are misused as a way to overcome a weak case for the prosecution and used to ensure that there is punishment regardless of guilt or innocence.

Keeping in mind the ongoing feud they had with the BLM and multiple court cases concerning water rights and access, some of which they won, I don't see BLM managers as being saints and good neighbors either.

Unfortunately, I don't see this situation being resolved in a manner that brings opposing interests to any kind of decent working relationship.

The way this needs to be resolved is to make sure the Yehadists get really hungry without their ration of fruit loops, until they give up and then make them accountable for their illegal trespass.

The sentencing of the Hammonds needs to be re-addressed in a legal manner that holds them accountable for their crimes with the laws that are written to address their situation. Not adding additional charges by calling what they did domestic terrorism. This is a bad precedent and the prosecutor who did this should face legal sanctions.

Putting the setting of an illegal fire on your own property that then burns over to federal land into the same category of domestic terrorism as shooting a bunch of people like happened San Bernadino, is just as ridiculous as calling Ammon Bundy a patriot.

Life's hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

The only upside to this story is seeing some pretty clever remarks about the occupiers. Hope nobody gets killed over this.
Click to expand...

SPOT ON! Great post.
 
This appears to be where the terrorism label is being drawn from

From Think Progress:

"In a final bit of irony, this latest militia dust-up stems from a law created in direct response to the perception that right-wing domestic terrorism was surging during the Clinton years.

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created the five-year mandatory minimum sentences that the Hammonds face for arson on public property. That law sailed through a Republican Congress in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

Had anyone been killed by the fires the Hammonds set, they could have faced life imprisonment or even the death penalty under the AEDPA. But the rigidity of punishments that Bundy’s armed men are protesting today was established in law partly in response to the actions of their ideological forebears."

Ignoring the history of the militia movement in these type of actions, it all boils down to willfully setting fire to government property, as has already been stated.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see these "nut jobs" try to occupy Yellowstone National Park in June, July or August and see where that gets them.
 
The Oregonian article you posted has what to do with the issue being discussed?

Do a prosecutor's personal problems have anything to do with whether or not the Hammond's were treated unfairly? If so, how?

I assumed you were looking at the conservative tree house article based on you referencing her and the judge one after the other, just like that article. Perhaps I was mistaken.;)
 
Gerald Martin said:
The sentencing of the Hammonds needs to be re-addressed in a legal manner that holds them accountable for their crimes with the laws that are written to address their situation. Not adding additional charges by calling what they did domestic terrorism. This is a bad precedent and the prosecutor who did this should face legal sanctions.

Putting the setting of an illegal fire on your own property that then burns over to federal land into the same category of domestic terrorism as shooting a bunch of people like happened San Bernadino, is just as ridiculous as calling Ammon Bundy a patriot.
Click to expand...

Quick question? If Bubbla Habib purposely set fire to public land in an effort to cover up evidence of his illegal activities would you be as quick to post the same thing.


It's pretty evident this is going bad for everyone. The anti gun crowd has a new set of poster boys to show their liberal clan that all of us gun loving rural white folks are going to take over the government and can't be trusted with legal firearms. The land grabbers have a bigger audience to pitch their anti public land, down with the big oppressive government, let us give it to the states (or our largest campaign contributors) propaganda to. It's all over social media and has been pasted in this thread. If law enforcement goes in they will be damned for going after poor Constitution loving church folks who were only standing up for the common man. If they don't go in they will be damned for letting those radical activists take over federal property and opening the flood gates for the rest of the wing nuts who think they have a cause. The spin doctors are cranking out rhetoric as fast as their sheeple can share it on Facebook.

The local Sheriff put out a press release yesterday that pretty much sums it up. Just go home.
 
What I do know is calling people names who state opinions or telling them to post like you want them to is a non starter....perhaps I'm mistaken.
 
What I do know is calling people names who state opinions or telling them to post like you want them to is a non starter....perhaps I'm mistaken.
Click to expand...
You are not mistaken, as it is the emotional responses such as name-calling that exacerbate an already bad situation and surrounding discussion.

Similarly, it seems detrimental to resolution of these issues for those "constitutionalists" to so loudly criticize the government (at whatever local, county, state, or federal level) for not following the Constitution when they cannot cite examples or link policy, actions, or governmental regulations to anything clearly specific in the Constitution. Many assertions are based on ignorance, poor reading comprehension, or blatantly false logic regarding the relationship between and among the people, their representation, government, governmental agencies and the Constitution, Federal or State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SilentBirdHunter
Threating a Waterfowl Production Area with an Office Complex
Replies
18
Views
713
Mallardsx2
Mallardsx2
B
Biden Announces Lead Ammo/Lure Ban Across Eight National Wildlife Refuges by 2026
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
9K
MTGomer
MTGomer
Sytes
Hunting: Human Vulnerability to Orf Virus?
Replies
7
Views
561
ismith
ismith
B
CSF Webinar: At The Tipping Point – Misguided Efforts to Reform Wildlife Management
Replies
0
Views
353
bayoublaster7527
B
D
Clear pictures of wildlife?
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SilentBirdHunter
SilentBirdHunter

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,429
Messages
1,958,590
Members
35,175
Latest member
Failure2Adapt

Share this page

Back
Top