I have read codes which define crimes of treason, and IIRC they stipulate working with enemy governments. If so, unless these characters are acting for or with other countries who the US recognizes as enemies, it seems like it wouldn’t be treason.
They could make a case for it being sedition, which they define as simply acting against the existing government. But it’s a lot easier for them to simply add up lots of weapons-related charges.
YDNRC
Please. these things from your ass are polluting the conversation. Out of respect for the community do a bare amount of research. Ask an unbiased question. Start a new thread, discuss off topics there. Whatever. Just stop with the bullshit man.
Vanilla ISIS ISIS, baby.
I have read the relevant bits of the US Code, and I was replying to somebody with what I remembered of it. If I was mistaken, then FFS simply explain how, instead of complaining. I was replying to another poster, in this topic, with what seems like relevant information. It’s not relevant to you, but it might be to them, or others.
Your tendency to turn observations and opinions you don’t like into personal confrontations strikes me as being both rude and dishonest. Please, just explain why you disagree with people, or simply ignore them.
counteroffer: armed insurrection
If you’re going to go by a historical basis, then maybe you should try using it in the original language(s) in which it was used that way. Of course, you’ll have some difficulty there, since (as has been previously pointed out) the two words entered the English language from two different language sources.
If you’re going to use it in the present-day English language, going by the way it is defined in most current English dictionaries would be a much better way to go.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Which implies that things are already bad…in that region, or in the country at large. Not sure what you mean by that.
And the Hammond brothers illegally poached, and then set fires to cover that poaching, eventually burning something like 130 acres of woodland. Charges, in my view, warranted.
Comparing action taken by a municipal police force in an urban environment to this situation is pretty intellectually weak and lacks critical thought.
tl;dr: If you want to compare responses, #BLACKLIVESMATTER should go take over a federal building without letting the entire world know what they’re doing in advance. If the response is different, then play the racial bias card.
This action was not in anyway pre-advertised; the perpetrators broke into a locked building in a rural area and took it over. Contrast this to “Hey everyone, go protest at Mall of America on X day”.
This is on federal land, so federal jurisdiction applies. This means the lead responding agency is going to be the FBI, not BLM or local LEOs.
As an interesting aside, when local LEOs fuck up & infringe on civil rights, who intervenes & investigates: the feds. Who’s responding to this incident, the feds.
In terms of response, the feds now need to deal with a bunch of heavily armed, batshit-crazy rednecks with a moderate amount of training. That means bringing in tactical teams & preparing for a siege. Said tactical teams take time to assemble, particularly when they need to get to the middle of nowhere.
My prediction:
You might be somewhat disappointed that the good ole’ boys aren’t getting an up-front ass-whoopin & tear gassing, but you should stay tuned while the federal system grinds them long 'n hard. 4 years for arson convictions is nothing compared to what these dumbasses have signed up for.
Is that an actual charge in the U.S. Code? It might be - I certainly haven’t read the whole thing - but I haven’t seen it there.
Sure, but according to these same sources, “war” itself also has specific definitions. In legal terms, war is still a formal relationship between governments with specific declarations, budgets, and objectives. This is why the US has been investing so heavily in modifying its laws with regards to terrorism, as a way to confront non-state actors.
The NYT has this image on the front page, they apparently didn’t prepare for the cold so they are burning the furniture for warmth. Next up is “Man on Man” action strictly for survival sake, and then comes the cannibalism.
Same shit different day. Black protesters “loot” and “mindlessly destroy private property,” white protesters “burn furniture for warmth.” “Resourcefully,” no doubt.
Who cares? Insurgency is so 2015.
They’ll go mad without wifi though.
Lack of toilet paper will get them too…
Thanks, I am familiar with the term. I was originally responding to your earlier post:
…based upon having studied these a bit. I assumed you were discussing this in terms of what crimes they could be charged with. But if you are just trying to stick informal labels upon what they are doing, I guess you can call it whatever you choose.
They will probably get rather “wifi” if their hygiene suffers!
But the Boing Boing post highlights this case as a particularly blatant example of a more general problem. The post is not primarily about those guys in that building. Do you not at least see how many would see this case as an example illustrating a double standard?
And do you think that America is currently facing any issue more important and more dangerous than that double standard?
