I’d seen that. I think it’s great. These guys are definitely criminals.
Neither am I. We both think they’re criminals and I also expect there will be some felony charges. I’m not sure how you went from us disagreeing on the application of the Patriot Act to the idea that I support the Bundy Bunch.
2 Likes
so, is their end game really just to change the fairly light sentencing of a couple of convicted arsonists? is that what would make them walk away? cause i can fake an Oregonian newspaper to say exactly that, air drop it from a drone, and see them all get stuffed in a paddy wagon.
1 Like
I don’t really care about the Patriot Act. I dislike people whitewashing that these are domestic terrorists of the white militia sort that have been kicking around for a couple of decades now. You know, the same sort that led to the Oklahoma City bombing and also support things like attacks on Planned Parenthood. People give them a pass because they’re white or not Muslim but they’re terrorists. The discussion of the act was a tangential bit.
3 Likes
We may not agree, but I hope you stick around, reasonable guy with zingers.
7 Likes
How odd. Is there any chance there is a coincidence that these are 30 to 60 year old white men, suddenly being held to account by these laws? Suddenly there is a microscope at the ready?
Have there been -any- other potential terrorists you have felt simimlarly compelled to speak out in defense of?
And did they look like you, the ones you spoke out for?
7 Likes
I appreciate your post. I am hesitant to seeing the use of the term terrorist, but your post is a very nice quick resource to understand why this is acceptable.
It doesn’t fully quelch my concern though. Before I get too brow beaten for not instantly jumping on the bandwagon of accepting this labeling to these people, please know that I do not agree with / condone what they’ve done (or currently doing). I believe it will end, at least, in a way that brings emotional harm for those personally associated with those criminals, to their community members, and cause harm our civil liberties.
The reason why I pause to join the labeling bandwagon now is because I wonder if such labels would be rightly used for people that are more in line with my political beliefs. A fictional example would be a group of people lock themselves into a vacant community building slated to be demolished via eminent domain for a large corporation to build a strip mall instead. Some of the group members is said to have brought various types of unknown weapons with the purpose to use as self defense because they personally believe the police will act violently towards them and their protest. Should these people instantly be labeled as terrorists too?
The point I’m trying to make is that I am cautious to use rhetoric due to it being politically convenient to vilify the other political team before considering if such rhetoric would be justified towards a group of liberals (badly) protesting the government. Right now I can only bring myself to call these guys, and what they’ve done, as criminal; and they need to be brought to a court of law to be judged by a jury of their peers.
Remember, charges of terrorism can come with limits to due process than what non-terrorist people receive when charged with a crime. So, should we ask the question if what qualfies as a domestic terrorist in the Patriot Act too broadly of a casted net?
If they have made it known to the public that they have guns and will use them to enforce their demands, yes.
2 Likes
Is is a government property, and they there to explicity overthrow the us government?
Have you ever been so quick to be ‘careful’ with the term terrorist before it was one of your own, or someone you can identify with, being accused? Think on that a second, please. Please!
2 Likes
I hope you check the false equivalence your entire prior paragraph was ,
and take the smoke gun away from my ass.
1 Like
Yes, I have been careful to giving someone the terrorist label prior to this criminal act. I would say it was when the FBI started manipulating misguided youth to try to attempt a tertorist act (see Portland’s attempted Christmas tree bombing) that I really started being concerned about civil rights and being labeled a terrorist.
I wasn’t trying to create an equal example. However, I wanted to create an example where those from the other political side could connect similiar dots to make the same argument.
Now a question for you…
Do you think what constitutes to be a domestic terrorist under the Patriot Act to be too broad of a casted net to define person as a terrorist?
I’ve read that the criminals in Oregon have not claimed they will use guns to enforce their demands, but that they have them as a means for self-defense.(Still a very bad justification) If you can link to where a member said they will use their weapons to enforce their demands I would appreciate it. I prefer to work with accurate information, and if I do not have that then please correct me.
What they’re asking for is tangential to the Hammonds. The place they’re holed up in is central to longstanding tensions in the area between federally-owned land and local ranchers.
I’m in Portland, not anywhere near Burns, but it sounds like the Refuge surrounds the Hammonds’ land. There have been lots of disputes over the years between BLM and the Hammonds. The elder Hammond has been accused of repeatedly making death threats against the managers of that facility as far back as the 80s.
So the Bundy Bunch has latched onto the Hammonds failed appeal to push their cause of wresting control of federally-owned land from the government and giving it to state and local governments. Who, they probably believe, would turn it over to private interests to do what they will, since they couldn’t possibly manage it all.
That’s the end game. While the Hammonds have disavowed these guys, there demands are similar to the Hammonds’ agenda. They have said they will stay until the government provides a plan and timetable to turn over the BLM land.
2 Likes
shakes hand with fellow oregonian, i’m down near Eugene
2 Likes
They stated on the CBC tonight that they will use guns “if necessary” also they were very rude!
2 Likes
“Self-defense” against police enforcing the laws?
5 Likes
We agree on this. I was actually arguing your side of this on another forum just a day ago—because I do believe they meet the dictionary definition of terrorists and someone was bemoaning how we’ve watered down the word.
As an Armchair Lawyer, I just object to all the other armchair lawyers citing some law without really understanding whether it applies or not.
2 Likes
i can’t put my finger on exactly why, but it just feels like the, “stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!” defense that every eight year old says when they make a friend hit themselves.
self defense my arse.
5 Likes
Gonna lawyer this and point out I was quoting another commenting person here who cited the law. I didn’t (and wouldn’t bother) go find it myself because it doesn’t really matter since I wasn’t focused on the Patriot Act or its definition of things.
2 Likes
