What to do with the armed thugs occupying a wildlife refuge in Oregon?

January 4, 2016 • 1:45 pm

Protesting government regulations of farmers and ranchers, a group of armed men have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. They’re occupying several federal buildings in protest at the treatment of two other men about to go to jail for setting fires on federal land (those men aren’t involved in the protest). The protestors say they might stay there for years, and have threatened violence if authorities try to remove them.

The government apparently isn’t doing anything about it, resolutely ignoring the trespassers. They didn’t do anything, either, about Cliven Bundy (the father of the Oregon protest leader), who has defied federal law for years by grazing his cattle on government land.  In 2014, Cliven and his supporters, also armed, resisted the government’s attempt to legally confiscate his cattle, and as far as I know he still has them.

In both cases the government is afraid of using weapons against protesting citizens. In light of the 1993 debacle when the government attacked the compound of the Branch Davidiansn in Texas, that’s a smart thing to do.  But I’m appalled at how the government lets these armed libertarian thugs flout the law with impunity.

My solution: starve ’em out.  Cut off the roads, cut off the water and electricity, and surround the compound. Eventually they’ll either capitulate or, if they’re stupid enough, come out firing. If there’s one principle of US democracy, it’s that nobody is above the law.

218 thoughts on “What to do with the armed thugs occupying a wildlife refuge in Oregon?”

    1. No, you can’t just ignore them. These are domestic terrorists.

      I agree with Jerry’s recommendation: surround them and starve them out. There’s no hurry. Eventually they will surrender at which time you try them and lock them up for a very long time.

      1. Is it really “terrorism” to occupy an empty building out in the middle of nowhere? I’m not afraid, are you?

          1. GB James said these people are “domestic terrorists” and that is what I was referring to. If these guys aren’t shooting people, the mere fact of carrying weapons does not make them terrorists. That term is overused.

          2. From what I understand, the locals in Burns have kept schools closed and are terrified because of these fully armed yahoos. Does that count?

          4. Yes. They remind me of the old cartoons depicting the prewar (WWII) European anarchist. If it where not for their defiant threat of violence it would not be hard to consider them equally as comical as those cartoon characters. Instead they come off as pathetic but very dangerous losers.

          5. I agree that the term terrorist is overused but in this case it isn’t too far off the mark. They are carrying guns and threatening violence if their demands are not met. This is way outside their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. Do they actually have to kill someone to become a terrorist? What exactly are they then?

          6. I agree. To me, they are terrorists. However, I agree with Prof. Coyne that an armed storm would most likely be counterproductive and it is better to besiege them.

          7. I definitely do not think they should be confronted directly (and never said so). They should be humiliated publicly not made into martyrs. I was simply trying to understand why they are not called terrorists when they (to me) are clearly using the tactic of terrorism to achieve their aims.

          8. I don’t think that is clear at all.

            Here’s the FBI definition of the word.

            “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

            Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

            Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

            Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

          9. I know this sounds flippant, but my carrying a gun will not harm you. My shooting the gun may harm you…and that’s the difference in a nutshell. On the other hand, if I and twenty of my friends showed up armed at a city council meeting and said we’d start shooting if our demands weren’t met, then that would be terrorism. Occupying an empty building out in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to coerce anyone to do anything…it’s not that threatening. These nut jobs are armed for “self protection”, not to coerce. Again…fine lines.

          10. I’m not on the ground, but if you take over federal property while brandishing weapons you are behaving in a very threatening manner. I don’t think you have to pull the trigger to qualify as a terrorist.

          11. Are you sure? To me, it looks like “textbook” domestic terrorism. According to 18 U.S. Code 2331 (5): “the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that–

            (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

            (B) appear to be intended—

            (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

            (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

            (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

            (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

            Here is a link to the text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

            It seems to me that by carrying guns and threatening violence, they are acting in a way that is dangerous to human life in violation of the laws. Given their statements, they seem to want to influence government policy by their actions, which I take to be coercive given the threat of violence. And the acts clearly occur within the territory of the United States.

            Given the way the U.S. Code defines “domestic terrorism” do you still think it’s clear that the occupation in Oregon is *not* terrorism? Why?

          12. “Involve acts dangerous to human life”.

            Carrying a weapon doesn’t satisfy this point. Threatening to defend yourself with said weapon if attacked does not satisfy this point. Driving into town and randomly shooting innocent people would satisfy this point, but they haven’t done that.

            Let’s look at the BLM people for a moment. They have a protest. Some of the people who show up bring weapons and Molotov cocktails. Buildings are burned, cops are shot at, stores are looted. Mayhem and lawlessness ensues. But, even though this is closer to domestic terrorism than what is going on in Oregon, it still is not domestic terrorism. The FBI domestic terrorism task force would not even blink an eye, although the FBI itself would get involved. It would be a police matter. As Jerry said, “Armed thugs”.

            Now, let’s say the KKK hold a protest and decide to blow up a couple of buildings in town go get attention to their cause. So they bring some explosives and blow up a closed bank and a black-owned grocery store. This would certainly be domestic terrorism and the task force would be there in a short time.

            I know there are some fine lines drawn here, but basically, it’s a combination of actions and motives. Sometimes even the FBI argues among themselves whether to label a specific act “domestic terrorism”.

          13. I really don’t care about if this is terrorism or not, but I have to point out that if someone breaks into a building that they have no business being in, and they are armed, they have no right to “self defense” from the authorities who try to arrest or evict them.

            No more than if someone breaks into your home does. You would have every right to shoot them. No questions asked. These people have no right to be in that building. They have no right to state they will use violence to protect themselves. They are criminals. They do not have a right to be in a public building.

            That said, I agree they should be blockaded, have all services shut off and put up signs saying they may leave on foot unarmed.

            The other possibility is a few sensor fused weapons for the ones in the parking lot, and a couple of stinger missiles for the building. But I think that patience is a better strategy.

          14. I can’t disagree with any of that, except the Stinger missile part, those are ground to air missiles for shooting down aircraft. Perhaps an AGM-65 Maverick air to ground missile would be better suited for your purposes?

          16. Threatening to shoot law enforcement for the act of attempting to remove them from their clearly unlawful occupation is not the same as protecting themselves from attack.

          17. Yes. That’s why Jerry’s term “armed thugs” is appropriate. Bank robbers are similar. People are rightfully afraid of armed bank robbers. They’re willing to shoot police officers if they get in their way. They disrupt commerce, they take over buildings, they take hostages, they harm civilians. They are not terrorists. They are criminals. They are thugs.

          19. It might be true that simply carrying a gun around is not an act dangerous to human life, but that clearly isn’t *all* that they are doing. And I said as much in my initial comment: “It seems to me that by carrying guns and threatening violence, they are acting in a way that is dangerous to human life in violation of the laws.” It is important that among their actions are (1) carrying firearms, (2) breaking the laws, and (3) specifically threatening violence against humans.

            And while I’m here, in response to your suggestion further on that they are on par with bank robbers, I would agree *except* that in this case, their armed, threatening action is intended to affect public policy. The outlaws here satisfy (or at least seem to me to satisfy) point (B)(ii) of the U.S. Code’s definition of domestic terrorism. By contrast, bank robbers do not satisfy (B) at all.

            In the end, it seems to me that your line of defense goes to the *competence* of the outlaws. But nothing in the law says that one has to be a competent terrorist to count as a terrorist. It might very well be that they are not actually terrorizing many (or any!) people. But so what? Nothing in the definition says that they have to *succeed* or even be *likely* to succeed in harming anyone or in coercing anyone in order to count as a terrorist.

          20. I guess we can argue about this until the cows come home, but I will change my opinion about this if one of two things happen. The FBI task force on domestic terrorism shows up in Oregon or Homeland Security decides to get involved. If they considered this domestic terrorism (and they are the final arbiters of this), then it is domestic terrorism. Otherwise, these guys are some nutty armed thugs who will be dealt with (or not) by law enforcement and/or the ATF.

          21. Democrats are calling them “terrorists”, although they haven’t done anything but occupy an empty building and make speeches.

            BTW, they’re also showing videotape of BLM techs *burning out* a rancher, burning down his house, killing some of his cattle, and arresting two ranchers who made a firebreak to stop the fire from reaching a nearby town. Has anybody mentioned that?

          1. These guys definitely qualify as Seditious Conspiracyst. An initially alarming but ultimately harmless bag of puss.

  2. In both cases the government is afraid of using weapons against protesting citizens.

    In a pig’s eye. If they’d been environmentalists rather than anti-environmentalists, the protest would have been called “eco-terrorism” and crushed with maximum force.

    1. I think they’d probably treat any heavily armed protest group the same, because its about preventing a shoot out, not the politics of their cause.

        1. As a matter of fact, a good shot with a rifle *can* take out a drone. It’s been done. I suspect that back-country ranchers are fairly good shots.

          1. The military drone can fly at 25,000ft (7,600m). I’m sure that would be out of range for a back-country rancher.

          2. I responded with almost the same comment before I saw yours…I didn’t even mention the altitude part of the equation, or the fact that the ranchers wouldn’t even know the drone is there until it is too late.

          3. On the other hand, sending a continuous stream of low altitude, low cost drones, would be a fun way to get them to burn through their supply of bullets. Then it’s jut a matter of snapping on the cuffs and dragging them away.

          4. Low cost…something like this?

            A coworker of mine was flying one of these around our open floor office at the end of the day one day and another coworker took it down with a nerf gun. It was pretty impressive. I’d bet the ranchers could probably do likewise and from a slightly farther distance.

          5. @rickflick

            Reminds me of a tagline I saw (about the time Iraq invaded Kuwait IIRC) –

            “Iraq keeps shooting down our $1,000,000 Patriot missiles with their $100,000 Scuds”

            cr

          6. Probably anything costing less that $5,000 could be fielded economically in swarms to befuddle those mountain men and get them shooting wildly into the air excitedly. Anything to distract them from shooting birds in the bird sanctuary would be a win.

          7. Why not just send a single marshal, with a truce flag and a tape-recorder, to ask them to *detail their complaint* against the BLM? That’s what they’re complaining about. If they could get their complaint heard and something done about it, they’d most likely go home.

          8. It’ll never work…well it might, but it’s not as much fun as sending in hundreds of drones with GoPros.

          9. But the ranchers are *inside* the building. How is the drone supposed to see what to shoot at without getting close enough for a good rifle shot to hit it? Now of course if you wanted to blow up the whole building with them inside it, you could do that from any good height — but I thought the idea was to get the building back.

          10. In order to flush them out of the building, some of the low level drones would have PA speakers calling on them to “leave your weapons inside and come out with your hands up.” Then, from a Predator, fire in a AGM-114 Hellfire filled with Cool Whip under pressure and render the building uninhabitable.

          11. We’re delving so far into the realm of hypotheticals that this is nearing the point of being a meaningless discussion. Of course a drone flying close enough could be shot down, but while we’re here fantasizing about what might happen, no I don’t think sending drones with hellfire missiles attached would indicate that our goal is to get the building back. We have a rather unspectacular record when it comes to human rights and what we use our drones for. In our ongoing thought experiment, I don’t think it adds to the discussion to assume drones armed with hellfire missiles have any purpose but to take out combatants. We can rebuild the building later.

            Disclaimer: I don’t think any scenario involving drones and hellfire missiles would end with a satisfactory solution for any party involved, but the ranchers would certainly sustain the greatest loss in terms of casualties, as in 100% of them.

          12. Predator drones are often armed with hellfire missiles that can take out a target from five miles away. A rancher who is a good shot is going to take that down? Not in his wildest dreams.

            Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting we attack this group with hellfire missiles, just saying it’s not going to be a contest if we did.

    2. I have an understanding of the phrase “maximum force” which escalates very rapidly to headlines of “Government Black Helicopters nuke tree-huggers” – which may sound attractive to the Republican candidates, but isn’t likely to be productive in the longer term.
      Let Trump lead the charge. In a white paper suit and a cricketer’s box for “protection”.

      1. It would make better sense to send in one marshal, bearing a white truce flag and a tape-recorder, to ask them precisely what their complaint is and to make it into a legal petition to put up on the ballot.

    4. @Cvdf “In a pig’s eye. If they’d been environmentalists rather than anti-environmentalists, the protest would have been called “eco-terrorism” and crushed with maximum force.”

      Not sure that I agree with that at all. I live in Southern Idaho, probably politically closer to the Burns area than a lot of Oregon. I can think of two examples in this area that contradict your statement. The Occupy Boise group camped illegally at the old courthouse for many months a few years ago. They were not crushed. This was only about three blocks from where I work.

      More recently, there was a protest where a group camped illegally to protest lack of adequate resources for the homeless. The city waited three months before taking any action. When the group was finally moved, the city provide transportation for the protesters and even moved their possessions (to anywhere within the county) for free. This was about a mile from where I work and I passed by every day on my commute.

      In both cases there was no violence. Not exactly the storm trooper image that you were invoking.

      This is independent of whether I am for against the current protest in Burns or the ones that I mentioned above. Just saying that whenever there is a sizable group protesting, even when they are trespassing, the authorities will often take their time to see if it looses momentum of its own rather than force an immediate confrontation.

      I agree with Justin Zimmer above. Just ignore them. I’ve driven through Burns many times. It really is the middle of nowhere. And the building they are in is ten miles outside of town. Personally, I think that is a good place for all the crazies to be. If they aren’t in the media, they could probably go for weeks at this time of year without anyone ever coming by, unless they worked at the refuge.

      The “starve out” option seems very impractical. They are on public land, and there are public highways in and out. How are you going to stop people from just driving into Burns and getting a burger at the Dairy Queen?

      It’s sad that there are people like that but the best thing to do is ignore them.

      1. “How are you going to stop people from just driving into Burns and getting a burger at the Dairy Queen?”

        You wouldn’t need to stop them from leaving. Use the reverse-rat principle. They can check out, but they can’t check back out.

      2. Stop them and arrest them for the crimes they’ve committed. Or arrest them at Burger King.

        1. Aside from taking over an empty building — and complaining about ranchers being *burned out* by the BLM (there are videos) — just what crimes have they committed?

    5. Poor pig. But I can find no examples of the phenomena you claim. A number of individuals have committed eco-terrorism: arsons, spiking trees, etc. Some have been charged and convicted and are serving time for such crimes. I do not think there are any episodes of eco-terrorists being “crushed with maximum force”, unless that is a euphemism for long federal prison terms. Perhaps you have some examples in mind and can help improve the wikipedia article: eco-terrorism

      That said, I have little sympathy for whatever happens to these Oregon fellows. They are quite beyond the pale. Well, I do have that generic sympathy I feel whenever I see someone really dumb destroying themselves. In that sense, and that alone, I feel bad for them and anyone unfortunate enough to be associated with them.

    6. I keep reading this allegation all over the internet, assertions that if it had been environmentalists, Muslims, Blacks, (even Japanese in one case?) then the government would have killed them or gone in with “maximum force”, but I see very little evidence, only assertions.

      I don’t recall seeing similar situation happening with those groups and the government going in gangbusters.

      Cenk Uygur tweeted: “Let’s be clear: If Muslims had seized a federal building, they’d all be dead by now.”

      It most certainly is not clear. When exactly has this happened before? Where is the evidence? Just stating it doesn’t make it true.

      It’s an easy accusation to make but I haven’t seen a single one backed up with facts showing a similar situation with a result stated.

    7. “In a pig’s eye. If they’d been environmentalists rather than anti-environmentalists, the protest would have been called “eco-terrorism” and crushed with maximum force.”

      Yes indeed. The government never hesitated to act with force against my friends and I in the 80s. Of course we were always unarmed so it was easier for them.

      1. To answer some of the dissenting comments above, we often occupied federal facilities, usually Forest Service, in Texas. Granted we never got shot at (we were unarmed so there was no chance of escalation to that level). But we were never allowed to hold out there for very long. We were usually removed by force. Of course this was different because we offered no resistance (though sometimes we were hard to remove because my friends would use those U-shaped bike locks to lock their necks to bulldozers, etc).

  3. They’re occupying several federal buildings in protest at the treatment of two other men about to go to jail for setting fires on federal land (those men aren’t involved in the protest).

    Moreover those two men left their Oregon home yesterday to report to jail (in California; thus the travel time).

    Given that the arsonists are voluntarily serving out their sentences, I’m not really sure what these protestors hope to accomplish (other than publicity for their cause). Do they even have demands?

      1. Too late. I was in Texas visiting relatives over the holidays. There’s about 6.5 million urban/suburban Texans totally cosplaying ranchers and cowboys. There’s got to be at least 100 pretend cowboys/ranchers for every real one.

  4. My solution: starve ’em out. Cut off the roads, cut off the water and electricity, and surround the compound. Eventually they’ll either capitulate or, if they’re stupid enough, come out firing. If there’s one principle of US democracy, it’s that nobody is above the law.

    I agree, but take names and :

    1. plcase leans on their property
    2. Arrest them for trespassing and obstruction of duties of federal employees (at a minimum) after they leave.

    Don’t these jokers have to earn a livelihood? Do they have jobs? Are they all on welfare?

      1. And “leans” should be “liens”, just for the record. But you can’t just go around placing liens on property without due process — at least “we the people” can’t. Them Bundyites think they can, if they are like many of the right-wing anti-government sovereign citizen lunatic fringe. One assumes there are some hefty liens on ole Cliven’s “ranch” by now, if there weren’t before.

        1. Thanks for “liens”. I’ll claim senior moment.

          I thought the IRS needs very little to place liens. But, give them their due process and make them show up in court to defend. When they don’t appear, the liens get placed.

    2. Well unfortunately they took over a wildlife refuge, and would probably hunt the animals for food if they needed to. I’d prefer if that didn’t happen, so I’m not in favor of a long-term siege. I don’t have any better solutions, though. Ridicule in an attempt to get them to slink away, maybe.

      The refuge’s website notes that it was set up in 1908 by Roosevelt on federally owned lands, and that the feds purchased additional lands as it grew. So I have no idea why these folks think the feds did something wrong or unconstitutional. The feds in this case literally bought land from the locals. How is that unfair?

      2. As best I can tell they are just entitled morons wanting a free handout, nothing more.

        They graze their cattle on federal lands for a pittance already, but object to even that and chafe at the rules the federal government puts on them for the privilege (e.g. don’t burn the refuge). It seems they want the refuge given over to them to run any way they see fit. That is, they want free stuff from the government.

        1. And they are the same morons who will complain about others getting free handouts and claim it is grounds for a revolution. Hypocrisy, thy name is “right-winger”.

        2. You’re thinking of the Bundy ranch situation. This one is different and AFAIK nobody is accusing these folks of illegally grazing their cattle. These two were found guilty of setting illegal fires. Near as I can tell, one was just a blatantly illegal attempt to cover up evidence of an illegal deer hunt on the federal wildlife reserve. In the other, the ranchers appear to have set a controlled burn/backfire on their own property, in order to protect some other parts of their property from a nearby uncontrolled fire. Something that would normally be legal but they did it at a time when the feds had declared a temporary halt/stoppage of any backburns or additional fires being set. In any event, something like 1,000 acres of national wildlife reserve was illegally burned between the two incidents, they admitted to doing it, and that’s why they are going to jail.

          HOWEVER, its worth noting again what Jerry already said – the two ranchers going to jail appear to have nothing to do with the Bundy yahoos and disavow them, their cause, and their actions. So we should not blame the principles for what Bundy and his armed thugs are now doing.

          1. I believe you are mistaken. Here is what they have said their goal is:

            For the federal government to relinquish control of the wildlife refuge so “people can reclaim their resources,” he told CNN early Monday. And second, they want an easier sentence for a pair of father and son ranchers convicted of committing arson on federal lands in Oregon.

            They want to control the wildlife refuge. The arson conviction is just symbolic of their desire to operate as they please without having to answer to federal laws or federal officials in BLM.

            Basically the Bundy’s and their like have been waging a slow burn war with the feds for decades over what they see as their sovereign right to do as they please on federal lands. There is really nothing more to it than that, and this episode is “different” only in the sense that the Battle of the Buldge is different from the Invasion of Normandy… different places, different tactics, same purpose.

          2. Of course, one can be forgiven for not really knowing what they want because when they talk it’s often incoherent babble. But when they do manage to string together a coherent thought it boils down to the desire to control land they currently do not control. For example,a semi-lucid statement quoted in this Rolling Stone article:

            In a phone in interview with The Oregonian, another Bundy son, Ryan, laid out the militants’ demands: that the Hammonds be released and that the surrounding federal lands be ceded to local control. “The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area… will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control,” Ryan Bundy said. He added, “What we’re doing is not rebellious. What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.”

            The Hammonds are mentioned, of course, but their beef is not primarily about harsh sentences or the validity of the Hammond’s actions, but about the very presence of the federal government in managing those lands. The Hammond’s fate is to them merely an example of how the federal government is oppressing the poor ranchers who only desire their God given right to do on the land whatever they wish.

            This is is actually just another chapter in last year’s Bundy standoff and not really a different situation at all. It even involves the same family, for goodness sakes.

          3. It’s striking to look at the parallel between the way these people interpret the Constitution and the way they interpret the Bible. They are both “supreme laws” and nothing can override them. In the Bible’s case, it’s because the Bible says it is the supreme law and in the Constitution’s case, it’s because they link it back to talk of the Creator in the DI (or some similar vague line of reasoning).

            But, the Constitution simply isn’t want they want it to be. It’s only supreme in the sense that it establishes broad principles by which the law of the land is established and enforced. It isn’t divine mandate. Of course, the Bible isn’t either, but it never stopped these people from participating in circular reasoning.

          4. Part of their worry I suspect is to realize that vast amounts of land is federally controlled in western state, while in other parts of the country, it’s just the opposite. In Ohio or New York, people generally own the land privately. So, according to them, Ohio breaths free while they are enslaved by Big Brother.
            The goal for them then, is to have their way with the land. Allow them to make more money by leaving them to manage the resources. They can judge how much grazing is enough, and decide how much wilderness is good for wild birds. It sounds like a set up for a ‘tragedy of the commons’ scenario to me.

          5. I can imagine their frustrations. When you look at the photos, empty land seems to go on to infinity in every direction. From their perspective it is not really being used, and the use of it that is allowed is controlled from far away. I read somewhere that in Oregon about half of the land is owned by the federal government. It’s 80% in Nevada. 80%! And then to feel that even what they do own is being coveted and schemed for by the feds. It is not hard to imagine how an us-vs-them mentality develops.

            Of course, there are legitimate reasons to have huge tracts of land set aside for nature and reasons to have rules for it’s use. And it is also comical to imagine that ranchers, left to themselves, would manage the land for the greater good.

            This might be a case of various legitimate concerns colliding, where finding the proper balance will always be a struggle.

            All I am really sure of in this episode is that the arming yourself and issuing threats to anyone who tries to remove you is totally illegitimate and can’t be tolerated.

        3. Actually, they’re complaining about the BLM making a policy of driving ranchers off their land — even unto *burning them out* (there are pictures) — steadily reducing the acreage and times that ranchers can graze cattle, while raising the rates, and then leasing the land to foreign corporations. I bet you hadn’t heard about any of that. The protesters aren’t very articulate, and frankly should have hired a professional propagandist/advertising company to plan their protest for them, but their complaints are solid.

          1. I have little doubt that the rough outline of what you say is true, that BLM would like to incorporate the rancher’s land, that they reduce the acreage and times they can graze cattle (some done in the name of protecting some threatened turtle and this has been widely reported). So? The use of public land for ranching is not a right, as much as these guys seem to think it is. I can certainly understand that it’s frustrating, just as I find it frustrating when my rent goes up, or when my landlord decides to sell the house I’m renting forcing me to move. But that frustration doesn’t change the fact that they are users of federal land, not owners. I do not find it difficult to imagine that they have legitimate beefs too, beyond “we want to run the land our own way, not the owner’s way”, but I’m pretty sure that none of these rises to the level of armed seizure of property.

            As for the BLM trying to burn them out… I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you are implying that the BLM has tried to burn down their ranch, well, that strains credibility. If true and documented as you claim then they should be making a lot more noise about it because that’s not bad management but criminal conduct. While they are clearly inarticulate and confused in their thinking, I do not think even they could be so obtuse to fail to mention such an important thing in their press releases if true. Not to put too fine a point on it, I simply do not believe it.

          2. I’ve seen the videos, which the ranchers are trying to get people to look at, that show BLM agents *setting fire to the land* — in *July* yet — and preventing people from trying to stop the fire or keep it away from their land. That fire burned several cattle, killed 11 head of them, burned fences and a farmhouse, and threatened to burn out a small local town. That is severe mismanagement, to say the least.

          4. I think this is the video she is talking about.

            It’s an interesting video, but all it tells me is that there is fire and someone accusing the BLM of setting it for malicious purposes.

            Perhaps it shows what they claim. Perhaps it shows something else. From what I’ve experienced of dealing with city hall, I can imagine the video shows BLM burning down ranches. From what I’ve seen of the rancher’s own ethics in this and previous instances, I tend to think this video is little more than a rancher hoax, cobbling together footage to tell a false story. Adding to my feeling that this video is bogus is it’s low profile. The Bundy’s are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they can’t be that dumb. The BLM burning someone’s house down is INFINITELY more sympathetic than any of the other things the ranchers are going on about. Even today, when they are asked what they want they say things like:

            “We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won’t leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners,” Bundy said. “More than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government.”

            Which is a pretty unsympathetic call to give them free land. Who could be dumb enough to say that and not, “We want the BLM held accountable for burning down our ranches!” That’s a serious charge, and if there is any truth to it that charge would have teeth.

            The fact that they have a lawyer, who is often quoted on TV, and so many supporters, and that even friendly outlets like Fox News and Breitbart aren’t picking up this “BLM burning down ranches” story tells me that it’s a crock.

            But if it’s not, well, they may have more of a case than I thought but they are also even dumber than I imagined.

          5. @gluonspring–Thanks for the link.

            I agree with you, there’s a big need for more information before we accept just this one side of the story. I have to think that all the burn was on public land, and I’d be surprised if there hadn’t been a lot of forewarning. It’s possible the ranchers left their cattle specifically to thwart the feds, and quite possible they’ve built structures on BLM property. It looks pretty clear to me that the BLM knew the road would act as a firebreak.

            Even if everything the Hammonds/Bundys say is true, the way to react is through the courts. Since when has it been legal (or rational) to make an armed stand on Federal property?

        1. I wonder who libertarians think ought to join the military and go in harm’s way on their behalf. Responding with the “volunteer” trope begs the question.

    3. Some of them probably are on welfare — of a sort. The public lands uses in the US West are highly subsidized (that is, they get to graze their animals or cut the trees or extract the minerals for much less than the market price).

      They just don’t think they are getting enough milk from the Federal cow.

      US “Red States” get a lot more from the Federal government than they contribute — while at the same time complaining about the Federal government, its taxes, etc.

      Hypocrisy is a well-honed skill amongst the right wing in the US.

  5. Imagine this scenario with 150 (or whatever the number really is) armed Muslims (American citizens) taking over a federal property. Would the response be this restrained? Would the media have refused to use the word “terrorists”? Of course not. Perhaps the solution is to call in the Ferguson P.D. and tell them the buildings are occupied by black teenagers.

    1. Surely those strapping teenagers would not walk out of the buildings and make a beeline for those police cruisers and try to reach in and manhandle the officers out of them, eh?

  6. I suggest they surround the compound with giant speakers and play “let it go” on a continuous loop at around 150dB. I’d give them 24 hours before they crawl out begging to be arrested.

      1. Laurie Anderson’s “O Superman”.
        Perhaps alternating with the Crass’s “Do they owe us a living? (Of course they do!)”

          1. Nope ; not +1 but continuous repeat.
            “Continuous” for values up to and including “chew your own ears off”.

    3. I like that song, maybe not that much, but I could go at least a month or two before the idea of going Beethoven occurred.

    4. Or ten-year-olds taking turns reading Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” or Jimmy Durante repeatedly singing, “I Read It in a Book.”

    6. Adele’s “Hello” on a continuous loop would do it too. I bet they’re all country music fans.

  7. Agreed. Cut off water, power, supply line, satellite TV, especially Fox News, and make it a cell phone dark spot.

    1. Inmarsat blocking too. A little bit harder since it involves out-of-country corporations.

    2. Cellphone eclipse is what I figured was probably either already done or about to happen.

      But for now I think the best thing is to just ignore them.

          1. The first fire they were convicted of (which is not the first they set) was set to cover up poaching. The later fire probably wasn’t. Tehre were other fires, though, that they weren’t convicted of, in the plea deal.

    3. So, according to his sympathizers, this white rancher is getting treated by BWL as badly as a poor black person regularly is by the police. They judge wasn’t fair. The jury was manipulated by the lawyers. The feds have animus against them. These sympathizers think this treatment is so unjust that they’re going to stage and armed takeover of a building they don’t own. Is that about right?

    4. It is certainly possible that these fellows have been badly treated by the feds. When they talk, however, it’s difficult to discern anything but a vague right wing idiocy and sense of entitlement to all they land they can lay eyes on.

      In any case, even supposing they have been harassed by BML in an attempted land grab, and even supposing theirs was a reasonable and coherent protest movement, they seriously crossed the line when they threatened to use force, and are carrying the weapons to back up this threat, on anyone who tries to remove them. That crosses right over from “citizen fighting some government abuse” into “dangerous criminal”.

      1. BLM.

        Agree, there’s NO justification for their actions. These guys are just the Westboro Baptist Church sect of the ultra-libertarians.

        1. Considering that they have documentary footage of the BLM *burning out* grassland, fences, and buildings, and killing cattle — and threatening to burn out a small town — I’d say that the ranchers actually do have a serious beef.

          1. The occupiers aren’t the local ranchers, though. (And I’d like to hear the BLM’s side of things, too.)

          2. Provide your evidence of this claim of grossly criminal conduct on the part of BLM. You’re saying it is so is worth less than nothing without something to back it up.

            Better yet, provide it to Fox News or some other sympathetic outlet, and work to have the BLM personnel involved charged with the crimes you accuse them of.

            The fact that this hasn’t happened, that even when the CNN cameras are there the ranchers don’t mention this obvious criminal conduct, tells me that it’s pure fiction.

          3. Go to the protesters’ own website and see the video for yourself. (Note also how inarticulate the ranchers are when describing what’s right in front of their eyes.) They have a legitimate beef; they just don’t know how to proceed with it.

          5. Here is the video she is referring to.

            Here is a pretty sober account that probably gives a reasonable picture of what is going on across the state:

            Ranchers criticize Forest Management and Fire fighting Tactics

            It’s obvious that in fighting fires back burns are performed frequently. Often there is disagreement over tactics, including long term strategy.

            “We recognize they had limited resources and a massive fire,” Haeberle said.

            But a Forest Service consultant turned around Gebbers’ Cats and “they backburned the rest of our summer range and our cabin to try to save the town,”

            They aren’t specifically talking about the burning building in the video but that’s almost certainly the sort of thing that is going on here. Legitimate firefighting efforts that sometimes involve hard choices.

            A group of ranchers is suing for losses in what they consider mismanagement of some firefighting efforts. That is how you get to the truth of such matters.

            Armed thugs demanding land is right out.

          6. gluonspring:
            “Ranchers criticize Forest Management and Fire fighting Tactics”

            – that link doesn’t seem to work

            cr

          7. @ gluonspring–I posted a response that hasn’t yet appeared, so I imagine I mistyped my name or eddress; in that case, it usually shows up after several hours…

            Meanwhile, thanks for the vid. I don’t think it’s entirely clear what’s going on, or that we have to take just the ranchers’ view as accurate. But meanwhile I’ve read a few other articles that cast doubt on the BLM as well.

            Wherever the truth lies, the fact that these supporters consider an armed takeover a suitable response can’t possibly do their “cause” any good.

          8. It’s obvious that these ranchers aren’t terribly smart, or articulate, or they would have chosen a better tactic. They do, however, have a serious gripe. Best thing the govt. can do is send a marshal up to talk to them and get the full details (which may take some time, seeing how scatter-brained the ranchers are).

          9. How do they have a serious gripe? Because they want to bring back the Homestead Act and receive free land? Because they want to ignore the laws of the land and be vigilantes? I have yet to hear an honestly serious gripe from them or you.

          10. Their complaint — and not just theirs, BTW — is that the BLM’s shifting policies have driven ranchers — and farmers, and small miners — off their own land and out of business. And there’s that case of the BLM agents setting fires that burned a house and killed several cattle. At the same time, the BLM has happily leased large stretches of public land to big foreign corporations. These are serious peeves.

          11. Their complaint is that lands that have been set aside for the public good are not being managed for their private gain. The same complaint their father had in Nevada. Their solution seems to be that these lands should be turned over to them because they have guns and can make threats. You find this to be a legitimate complaint. Not everyone agrees.

          12. There’s an old English poem which goes: “The law doth punish man or woman Who steals a goose from off the Common, But turns the greater villain loose who steals the Common from the goose.”

            It refers to the Enclosure Acts of the 19th century, which pushed so many small farmers off the land — so that the Big Rich could use the land exclusively — thus forcing the former small farmers into the cities where they had no choice but crime, the workhouse, or working under horrendous conditions for totally inadequate wages. Anyone who knows history knows what severe social, legal, and political problems that caused.

            Well, the “public lands” are America’s Commons, and the BLM is repeating history. Long before the current problem, the BLM adopted a policy of forcing small ranchers (and farmers, and miners) off the Commons — and more, restricting how they could use their own lands, and even damaging those small users’ private lands — just so that the BLM could then lease the Commons to big foreign corporations for big money. This policy may gain lots of juicy money for the government, and the BLM in particular, but it isn’t doing any good for the American people. This is what those unfortunately inarticulate and not-too-bright ranchers are complaining about.

          13. The land they’re occupying was set aside in 1908, when Congress recognized that some land should be held in public ownership because of its resource values, rather than merely settled and pillaged for private gain. The idea that this land has been stolen from “the people,” as the Bundys like to claim, is nonsense. It was stolen from Native Americans, but that doesn’t concern the Bundys.

            These so-called ranchers, (after all, Ammon Bundy is hardly a rancher, he runs a Phoenix-based company which specializes in repairing and maintaining trucks, and whose business happens to have been kept afloat with a $530,000 loan through a Small Business Administration loan guarantee program), are on some sort of warped mission from God, to protect “the people” from the evil government. Except when that same government doles out money and favors to them, of course. The patriarch of the family, good old boy Cliven Bundy, still runs his cattle unfettered on public land, with over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees. These are the people you’re defending.

          14. Is there a fundamental difference between cattle that grazes under care of a corporation and cattle that grazes under the care of a local rancher? The BLM website makes no distinction: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

            Is the BLM leasing land out to the highest bidder? That’d seem to be in line with the libertarian philosophy. Or is the complaint that they use a more socialist policy in evenly distributing the land among 18,000 permit holders?

          15. From what I’ve seen (I’m a small miner, not a small rancher), the BLM’s policies toward ranchers are shifting, capricious and arbitrary. What they have been consistent about is general hostility to small ranchers, continuously pressuring them to give up and sell out. One of the reasons all the neighbors showed up to defend old Cliven Bundy is that he was the *last* rancher left in the county. There was also a questionable land-deal with a Chinese company at the time, and Bundy’s ranch was in the way. In brief, the mismanagement has a long history, and we’ve barely scratched the surface of it.

          16. Miners and ranchers have a long history of ignoring the law and destroying the environment, and we’ve barely scratched the surface of it. When California outlawed suction dredge mining, many of these “miners” came to Oregon to practice their hobby at the expense of Oregon’s rivers, wildlife, and salmon runs. In southwest Oregon, (my neck of the woods), miners have gone to jail for repeatedly ignoring court orders to halt illegal mining, for shooting an ATV rider on public land, (they claimed he was “trespassing), and for constructing an illegal road with bulldozers in a botanical area. These are just a few of the instances that are damaging Oregon’s fish and wildlife, of course the vast majority are never caught or prosecuted.

            Much like the Bundy mob, ranchers and miners have an unjustified sense of entitlement. They seem to see themselves as holdovers from the golden age of the American West, and, as such, they are free to ignore the law of the land and the will of the majority. They need to be disabused of this notion.

          17. Look closer, at some of the real histories. The real robber-barons have always been the big rich — today, those same big corporations that the BLM is cozying up to — not the little guys making a bare living on a couple hundred head of cattle/sheep/goats, or with less than ten mining claims, or maybe 40 farmed acres. The first ecological protection laws were passed in the late 1800s, at the insistence of small farmers/ranchers/miners, against the big-rich companies using hydraulic mining to blast the topsoil off bedrock, which did nasty things to everybody downstream. It’s always the big-rich who have the money to suborn the law, not the common citizen or small businessman. Politicians and high-level bureaucrats don’t come cheap, you know.

          18. Sure, the little guys, like Cliven Bundy, the pampered millionaire who has been fleecing taxpayers for years because he’s somehow above the law. Or his sons, intent on destroying what was set aside as wildlife sanctuary, for the benefit of all Americans, over 100 years ago. It was unclaimed land then, yet somehow the Bundy children are going to “return it to the people.” Or the delusional miners who think they’re going to strike it rich, while they destroy the Oregon rivers and wildlife. I have a lot of sympathy for them.

            These people don’t recognize the federal government – Bundy said last year, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing,” so they feel free to use public federal land as though it were their own. Small miners are no different – public streams and rivers are simply resources to be plundered at will, laws be damned. You need to get over this attitude of privilege, that resources are free for the taking and the damage that is caused is immaterial.

            If you don’t like the way the BLM is run, then, instead of meaningless rhetoric about robber-barons and such, lobby your Congresspeople to actually make changes. The BLM could definitely improve – they should do more to protect the environment; they should crack down on scofflaws like the Bundy family; they should raise grazing rates by about a factor of 10 and end the rancher’s welfare that the rest of us are paying for, among other things. But Congress is where these changes will be made, not by a bunch of armed yahoos, and not by people who think these yahoos have a legitimate gripe and make excuses for them.

          19. *Sigh* Anybody who works his own acres isn’t exactly pampered. And what makes you think that the big — and often foreign — companies the BLM is happily leasing public lands to are likely to treat the land so much better than little guys who have lived there all their lives? At worst, a small miner or rancher, however stupid, can’t do nearly as much damage as a big corporation. And don’t talk about “entitlement” until you’ve seen how the big corporations behave; those guys buy and sell politicians for a living! Do you think they respect anybody’s laws or rights?

            Those guys who took over an empty building may not be too bright, but they’re right about BLM mismanagement of the public lands. With luck, they’ll get some lawyers and lobbyists to take on their cause and do some serious leaning on the BLM, which is what they need.

          21. I may be foolishly naive, but in the US the government IS “the people”. Mr. Bundy is no more “the people” than I am and should have no more influence about public land use policy than I.

            Should I go get an assault rifle so I can have greater influence, too?

  9. Their cell phone signals should also be squelched so they can’t communicate with friends/family/media.

    Give a demand (“Come out with your hands up.”) and a deadline (“You’ve got 2 hours.”)

    If they decline, send in the tear gas grenade-throwing robots to drive them out and then they can be arrested. If they resist arrest by pointing weapons at or firing at law enforcement, there should be reciprocal pointing or firing, squared.

    1. I trust that no children are or will be involved in this.

      What’s the likelihood that religion is not involved?

      2. Likelihood that religion is not involved: 0

        Here is an article that describes the LDS elements of their “cause”.

        Religion doesn’t make people crazy, but it sure can be gasoline on the fire.

        1. Well given the final line of the Times article, I’d say the odds are pretty high: “If they think that’s worth bringing their armies in here and harming or fouling that endeavor, we’ll just have to read the Constitution and look at our Bibles and see who’s on the right side.”

          A part of me would love to see the military roll in and demonstrate just how inane it is to suppose we should have guns in case the Government tries to go to war with us. It is interesting that ISIS also thinks Jesus will come to the rescue in their fight, the irony is amazing considering these people are fighting for “freedom.” Freedom to do what? Spend eternity in celestial North Korea?

          1. Sorry, I used confusing sentence construction, mixing not and odds and reporting probability. Here’s a key to my intended view:

            Probability religion not involved: 0
            Probability religion involved: 1.0

  10. My only concern about starving them out is how the government gets viewed. Absolutely though – no one in and no one out unless they are surrendering.

    The government should consider bringing in some kind of independent, international body. Red Cross maybe? Basically someone to make sure people are not in dire straights and also to keep an eye out for abuses.

    I joked yesterday that they should consider bringing in Native Americans to arbitrate the land dispute. All of a sudden that doesn’t seem so crazy.

    1. I joked yesterday that they should consider bringing in Native Americans to arbitrate the land dispute. All of a sudden that doesn’t seem so crazy.

      Glyphodonts or Smilodons?
      That last cries out for a “Far Side”.

  12. The first act of a successful revolution is taking over an unoccupied visitor center and gift shop.

    1. “It’s too soon to tell” (Allegedly by Zhou Enlai, concerning the French Revolution, though it is less clear if he was talking about the Revolution of 1789 or 1968.)

  13. Sounds like rats. So how to get rid of rats? Maybe one of the Bond villains has the right idea: let them all fight it out among themselves and then the last rat standing should be let go and he will be self-trained to find other rats in America and get rid of them. (That probably shames some of the CIA training techniques…which are already pretty shameless.)

  14. It’s misleading to say they were “setting fires on federal land”. From the NY Times article:

    “Three years ago, Dwight and Steven were convicted of lighting fires, in 2001 and 2006, that they said were efforts to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plant species.

    The fire in 2001 accidentally spread to about 140 acres of government land, documents show. In 2006, a burn ban was in effect while firefighters battled blazes started by a lightning storm on a hot day in August. Steven Hammond had started a “back burn” to prevent the blaze from destroying the family’s winter feed for its cattle.

    The Hammonds each served sentences for the arson charges, but they were ordered to report to a prison in California on Monday after a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served were not long enough under federal law.”

    So apparently it was on their own land, and they were convicted of recklessness, not arson.

    1. From the NY Times article:

      You can find very different versions. Here is from the WaPo:

      The trouble with the Hammonds and fire began in 2001. That year, the government showed, Steven Hammond went hunting, killing deer on land under control of the Bureau of Land Management. What to do to erase evidence of this game violation? Break out the matches.

      “Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire,’” a Justice Department account of the trial read. “One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson.” …

      2. Thanks for publishing the document. Good background. The 5 year sentence seemed a bit harsh to me for just starting a 160 acre fire, but the sentence was not under the discretion of the judge, so harsh as it may be, it’s the law.

          1. Ironically enough, the right wing (who tend to sympathise with the Hendersons) are also the faction that usually supports mandatory minimum sentences.

            cr

          2. Agreed. Mandatory minimums are a bad idea. It’s very hard to see all the nuances of what situations might occur when crafting a law. One tends to think of the most awful cases and writes minimums with that in mind, but reality often presents variations you couldn’t foresee.

  15. The way the government handled the “Montana Freemen” in 1996 was unusually PR-savvy. Rather than rush in with armed force, the government took its time, inviting one after another “patriot” leader in to serve as intermediary. And one after another, the intermediaries said, “these are not principled patriots, they’re just common criminals.”

  16. Eastern Oregon is predominantly composed of very conservative Republicans. This militia mentality is similar to that seen in the panhandle of Idaho and parts of Texas, etc. An armed citizenry that rebels against government agencies has not proven very effective in those areas in the past. Media attention seems to be what’s desired. And, they’re getting plenty of that.

    That said: federal agencies have not done a great job of managing federal lands and interacting effectively with local land owners and others. Mostly, they seem to use federal powers to face down complainers. They haven’t put down such previous rebellions without causing significant backlash for mishandling. Our federal government has been less than adequate in managing land use issues sufficiently well to keep homegrown militias from attempting change by force.

    1. As someone who has done a fair amount of research on plants in eastern Oregon, I’d say there is enough blame to go around.

      The BLM and Forest Service don’t always manage the land well. The agencies are usually divided, disagreeing on what’s best.

      Both the BLM and the Forest Service can be heavy handed when dealing with the public. (One reason is that personnel change a lot.) The agencies can, on the other hand, meet with people and discuss things until long after the decisions needed to be made.

      Some landowners do not manage the land well. Overgrazing is common. Conversion of native perennial grasses to weedy exotics is common. Trampling streams is common. Letting riparian shrubs be browsed so badly that the ranchers don’t realize the willows are still there is common. Chronic trespass by cattle where they don’t belong is less common but not rare. Many, many ranchers believe that they way they manage the range is the best way, even if an objective observer would disagree. The formal agreements that ranchers sign with the agency about how much and when they will graze the allotments tend to favor the ranchers more than the plants, but graze more than planned anyway. If the agencies try to improve the range, some cattlemen tend to squawk as if they were being destroyed, and they cry wolf so much it gets hard to take them seriously even if they happen to be right.

      Some landowners do manage the land well. Perfection is impossible, especially during droughts, but some ranchers are doing their best to preserve and improve their grazing allotments and preserve wildlife. I worked on one project where the rancher with the grazing allotment was working with some agency employees to push the agency into reducing and better controlling grazing along a stream!

      Throw this all together with very small populations who socialize with and depend on their few neighbors, and fears and resentments build up beyond realism.

      So, the federal agencies deserve some blame, but I wouldn’t blame them for the existence of the militias.

      1. Thanks again for the scuttlebutt. Interesting situation. I’m kind of puzzled, though, about why it’s so difficult to set up some pretty standard policies on grazing on each of the various environment types. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or even a Ben Carson) to know what the basics of overgrazing are. If everyone is treated the same way, why so much controversy?

        1. You really can’t treat all the ranges the same, because they aren’t the same. Timing of rain, dominant plants that could be there, dominant plants that actually are there after a history of grazing, soil type, slope, exposure, regional differences — each allotment has to be evaluated on its own, within broad guidelines.

          Another problem: range managers may not know as much about the range as they think. More than once I’ve met botanists struggling with range guys who think the forage is 50% utilized when it’s actually more like 90% utilized. So things get planned wrong.

          And then there’s always the fact that some ranchers won’t follow the plan.

      2. Thanks for all the info. I can certainly imagine a heavy handed BLM. Who hasn’t encountered an over-zealous and/or incompetent bureaucrat at some point? It’s an eternal struggle, regulating things for the common good while not trampling on people in the process.

        How do you keep regulators from being heavy handed? How do you ensure that they actually regulate and aren’t just lap dogs of the people they are supposed to regulate? How do you ensure competency? All very hard stuff, and harder still when the things being regulated are so remote and so outside the familiarity of all but a handful of people.

        This is one reason that I like it when problems can be solved by creating markets for externalities. It’s very hard to figure out how to micro-manage the economy to, say, reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the most efficient way. Who knows enough to do that? But creating a market to trade sulfur dioxide emissions permits lets people with a vested interest and knowledge sort out the most efficient way to accomplish that goal.

        I don’t know nearly enough about ranching to guess how to deal with these public land questions. I do think it’s worth considering whether we are doing it right, even if the reason we are even thinking about it is because of law breaking of ranchers.

  17. I think the far more interesting question is what would the authorities be doing if those persons were BLACK…

      1. Trevor Noah had a hilarious piece on the same subject tonight. He said NO black person would consider hanging out in such a cold place.

        1. Al might not be the brightest intellect in the country, but somehow I can’t see him doing something as – daring as this.

          But it’s a long time since the series aired. Kelly was always my favourite. Dumb, but with a streetwise cunning that made you wonder if the dumbness was just a front.

          cr

  19. I live in the Las Vegas area so the Bundys are big news here. My understanding is that Ammon Bundy and his buddies weren’t invited by the Hammonds either, they just decided to go up and occupy the wildlife refuge. They are breaking the law.

    I agree with Jerry that there are things the government can (and should) do to get them out of there, short of shooting at them.

    Whether one calls them terrorists right now is a little beside the point. What’s important is not to allow them to continue. They are getting a lot of free publicity, and that’s bad. It will only embolden other such people to do similar things. Law enforcement has to make life tough for them without having another Waco-like incident. To do nothing is the worst thing.

    1. I have heard some of the same. The Bundy’s are simply using the Hammond business as an opportunity to jump in and do their thing. The Hammond’s made it clear they had nothing to do with this take over or any of the demands, such as giving land to private citizens. The Bundy’s are a joke and the Hammond’s did some very illegal things so they went to prison.

      At the very least, they should shut off all the utilities and get them out of there and then arrest them for the illegal acts they have committed.

    2. The Hammonds specifically rejected the Bundy “help,” and, in fact, have complied with every court ruling, including turning themselves in to serve four more years in prison.

  21. Does anyone know what actually is being done about it?

    It’s interesting how armed citizens are turning out to use their guns to impose their own views on everyone – instead of to protect themselves from a lawless government.

  22. “starving them out” is indeed the most sensible, rational, compassionate thing to do with these morons. Furthermore, as each one of them decides to quit the stupidity, they should immediately be disarmed, handcuffed, taken to a holding facility, photographed and given citations (for as many offenses as possible) to appear before a Federal magistrate for adjudication. My guess is that the bulk of them are already wanted on some civil offense and they can just have their asses carted right off to jail.

    What a bunch of freakin’ loony tunes.

  23. There are native occupied lands here that are largely ignored. The latest near where I live resulted in new houses bettor burned down and residents already living in the area being refused entry to their homes. You think thus us bad, try dealing with armed protesters in a volatile, culturally changed environment.

    1. “What is the militia ultimately hoping to achieve?

      Garner enough attention over next few weeks to be brought onstage during rally for a low-polling GOP candidate.”

      Oooh that was a low blow. 🙂

      cr

  26. In respect of the Hammonds (not the occupying Bundy idiots) I think the five-year penalties are probably too harsh. The statutory 5-year minimum was probably passed with those who tried to burn down Federal buildings in mind.

    This link has more background:
    https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/04/rancher-arson-case-that-inspired-oregon

    It also highlights the injustice of statutory minimum penalties – which the original judge was looking for a reason to sidestep, I think with justification, but which legally couldn’t stand up. The link I gave cites some horrific precedents the Ninth Circuit quoted. It isn’t only the death penalty that’s barbaric, IMO.

    cr

    1. Your larger point about mandatory minimums is exactly right, but that link glosses over a few of the, ahem, extenuating circumstances around the particular convicted felons at the center of this case.

      Here’s a link to a page from Where Land & Water Meet: A Western Landscape Transformed, a book by Nancy Langston & William Cronon that chronicles some of the prior heck-raising adventures by Dwight Hammond, who’s now in jail for arson.

      (Link via Roy Edroso at Village Voice)

      1. That’s not ‘extenuating’, rather the opposite.

        If your link is correct, the Hammonds were asking to have the book thrown at them. I still think 5 years mandatory on the actual charges they were convicted of is way too harsh. However, if all their other actions were brought up as charges, maybe 5 years would be justified.

        The Hammonds don’t seem to be stupid, they seem to realise the Bundys’ efforts aren’t going to do them any good.

        Part of the trouble is *lease*holders thinking they own the place.

        cr

  27. This dialogue I just ran across, from John Scalzi’s novel Lock In (chapter 14) seems particularly à propos:

    “I don’t know,” Davidson said. “Maybe it’s not about politics. Maybe these guys are just assholes.”
    “Seems the simplest explanation,” I said.

  28. I can get really upset by these selfish bastards, but then I read this and gain some calm:

    “You know you’re a badass Tea Party patiot motherfucker when your militia takes over an unprotected bird sanctuary” — Jim Wright, Stonekettle Station.

    1. LOL!

      They just better get the hell out before the birders descend in early March or thereabouts…

  29. I agree with your proposed solution, but it’s even more important to starve them for the attention they so desperately crave.

    Cut off their internets, bring in one of those FBI fake cell phone towers to redirect their phones to a 24-hour busy signal, and watch them shrivel as they lose the ability to squall publicly for more free government handouts (in the form of grazing rights on public lands), and they’ll bail out of that empty, frozen bird sanctuary in a few days.

  30. My father was a Branch-Davidian when the raid occurred. He was not injured but I knew many of the people that were killed. I am against the use of deadly force to settle matters such as this.

    2. Ruby Ridge and Waco supposedly taught the Feds about Pyrrhic victory. Deadly force = very bad PR.

  31. Bundy also confirmed to OPB that the family’s motivation in this occupation is rooted in belief that their action is the modern-day equivalent of Captain Moroni’s “title of liberty.”
    “This is just like that,” Bundy said. “My Mormonism plays a large part in what I do … the biggest part.”
    http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/bundy-well-leave-occupied-buildings-if-community-wants-us-to/#.VotY55OGAJ4.facebook

  32. Rules:

    Perceived deadly threat to yourself or others? Shoot first.

    Never point a non-smokin’ gun. In other words, never, never, never point a gun at anything you’re not shooting.

  34. Lay Siege to them, cut off their Water and Power and close access in and out, and when they finally come to their senses disarm them and throw the book at them. The Gov brought this on themselves when they caved in to Bundy and did nothing about “militia Morons” pointing weapons at them.

      1. Good point. Good news if they’re actually that smart–I’ll presume so until it’s proved differently.

  35. Yes: Starve them out.

    No one goes in, no one goes out, unless to give up.

    Cut off power, water. Take down cell coverage and phone lines. Let them stew in their own juices for a while.

    But, first serve them with arrest warrants, so there’s no mistaking what this is about.

Comments are closed.