Ammon Bundy and his band of gun-toting thugs continue to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, protesting the arson sentences of two fellow thugs, and trying to make the larger point that the Federal Gubmit is taking away the rights of farmer and ranchers. In effect, they’re claiming that they and not the government have the rights to government land.
This cannot stand. Although the Guardian reported on Tuesday that the feds plan to shut off power to the refuge, freezing out the outlaws, I’m not sure if they’ve done that yet, and Bundy’s group would probably just chop wood (an illegal act itself) to keep themselves warm. Granted, an armed assault on the thugs would be a disasterous mistake, but I still think they should cut off supplies and water until the group surrenders. They should then be promptly clapped in jail. But the authorities remain curiously disengaged from the occupation, as they have been with Ammon’s father, Cliven Bundy, who has yet to be punished for his own illegal activities.
The non-response of the government to both Ammon and Cliven’s crimes is disturbing for two reasons. First, it sets a bad example: letting one class of citizen break the law without punishment. That sends the message that some people are above the law, which of course outraged people when the “affluenza teen” got off lightly. Although this is civil disobedience, it differs drastically from the civil disobedience of the Sixties civil rights protests. The protestors in Malheur are armed, will not be taken willingly, and have threatened to “defend themselves” if action is taken to remove them. And the laws against grazing and farming on federal land are not unjust, as were the segregation laws of the South.
Second, the government’s failure to take action simply emboldens libertarian thugs like the Bundys who think they know how to use the land better than the government (i.e., us), and we can thus expect more actions like the one at Malheur. And more guns will be involved.
One thing I didn’t know when these protests began is that the Malheur refuge is an important one for wildlife, as noted by bird-lover Peter Cashwell’s op-ed in today’s New York Times,”Bird-watching, patriotism, and the Oregon standoff.” Cashwell makes two points, the first about the importance of the refuge for wildlife—and for people who like wildlife:
The Malheur refuge itself was established by Teddy Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman who in 1908 set aside federal property around three Oregon lakes as a place for migratory birds to breed, one of more than 50 such refuges created during his presidency. I wonder sometimes whether T.R. became a conservationist because he came from New York City, a place where the principle of setting aside land for the public is close to sacred. This can be observed every spring, as thousands of urban birders fill New York’s carefully defined green spaces, hoping to get a glimpse of the brightly feathered migrants that settle in the trees on their way north — without kicking out the Frisbee players in their midst.
. . . Malheur is such a property. A birder will tell you that more than 320 different bird species have been recorded at the refuge, and more than 130 have nested there — a pretty fair total considering the entire North American continent hosts about 800. But this isn’t just a tiny spot on the map where hard-core birders can ooh and aah over rarities. Because the refuge lies along the Pacific Flyway, a common route for migration, a substantial part of a given species’ population may well come through in the spring and fall. Mel White, an author and birder, says that when they see more than 300,000 snow geese in Malheur during migration, “even non-birders will be impressed.”
Cashwell’s second point is simple:
[Ammon Bundy] is leading this action, he explained, so “people can reclaim their resources.” The identities of the people who will be doing this reclaiming remain unclear, but to me this action seems much like many others in American history: a loudly proclaimed defense of principle intended to cover up a land grab.
And the land being grabbed? It’s ours.
. . . And that, I think, is where Mr. Bundy and his followers miss the point: When land is held by the federal government they so despise, that land belongs to us all. You cannot “reclaim” territory for the “people” if they already own it. The seizure of Malheur is an attempt to claim the land, at the point of a gun, for unnamed individuals, all while taking it away from every other American. Whatever this action may be, it is not patriotism.
Yep, it’s our land to keep intact, not theirs to ravage, burn, and overgraze; and I for one prefer to see it kept unsullied. So does the government.
If you doubt the resolve of the birders who share Cashwell’s animus against the thugs, read this piece on The Daily Kos: “Warning from the birding community to the terrorists in Oregon: We’re watching you“. It’s a bit extreme, I think, and perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek, but I like it anyway, for it shows how the birders counter guns with cameras and binoculars:
Just a friendly warning from the birding and wildlife photography community to the Oregon terrorists. We are watching your every move, and we have been watching you for a long time. And yes absolutely you are domestic terrorists of the worst kind, and the truth about your decades of constant poaching of protected wildlife around Malheur and other wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests and BLM lands has been well-documented. For years those of us who are wildlife photographers, birdwatchers and carers of wildlife, have been documenting the activities of you poachers and criminals around many of our nation’s wildlife refuges.
. . . Those of us who are international wildlife and nature photographers regularly face charging elephants, attacking lions and grizzlies, hidden crocodiles, massive storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the hottest, coldest and windiest conditions, and all kinds of poisonous snakes and bugs in our work, and we know the outdoors and wilderness from desert to jungle to sea to mountain to tundra from pole to equator better then any poacher or criminal or yeehaw yokel ever will, and we are not afraid to protect it. We have a just fear of nature from experience, but we don’t fear you gun-toting thugs in the least. You will never see us, but we and our cameras will always see you. We will #takebackmalheur from you terrorists, and will not rest until every one of you thugs and poachers is behind bars where they belong. You may think that your communities support you, but the majority do not and as many as support you, many more despise you, and your every move is being documented in great detail. The birding networks are ablaze right now about everything going on in Malheur. We know the nearby trailer park, who is supplying you with food, and a tourist boycott of them is already in the works for all birders for this upcoming bird season. We know who everyone is coming in and out, and why, and every shred of information is going straight to law enforcement and across every birding network in America.
. . . We are watching you and our years of birding photography have made us endlessly patient and determined.
Well, I wouldn’t yet call the Bundy Gang “terrorists” (though one could make a case that they are, since they’re trying to intimidate people by brandishing firearms and threatening to use them), but I know one thing: I am far more sympathetic to the birders than to loons like the Bundy Gang.
Someone added this cartoon to the comments:
h/t: Diane G
I’ve been to Malhuer NWR. There are no trees there, except planted ones around the buildings (which they would likely cut down.
This is on Maluer NWR:
http://www.berettaconsulting.com/barbarossa/Utah_01/2001-04%20Utah%20Trip%20004%20Malheur%20NWR.jpg
That space has none of my cattle on it and I’m not making a personal buck off of anything pictured. Oh the indignity!
I will get the spelling of Malheur correct one of these times …
Was it an unfortunate speelung mistrake?
Indeed! 🙂
All I can say is that is your misfortune, and none of my own.
Whoopee ti yi yo!
That was what I thought. Bird migration resting places are seldom useful for farming or cattle. (Which is why they are popular refuges among politicians.)
The situation at Malheur fits that description but it is somewhat unique: Big lakes surrounded by sagebrush high desert. They are a critical stopping/resting/breeding spot for the birds of the Pacific Flyway.
I’m very happy that the birders are on top of the nuts.
This is what most of the “Intermountain” US West looks like (this happens to be northern Nevada, on US Hwy 50, dubbed the loneliest road in the US):
http://www.berettaconsulting.com/barbarossa/Utah_01/2001-04%20Utah%20Trip%20014%20No%20NV.jpg
Try El Paso to San Antonio. On occasion, I-10 can go below densities of 1 car / 20 miles.
Indeed, Malheur’s part of what’s known as the Oregon High Desert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Desert_(Oregon)
Paul Krugman puts it like this:
And there was this comment at the NYT op-ed piece:
Very fine piece. So glad to see the wildlife folks speak up and speak the truth. These so-called good guys with guns are no better than the worst examples in our society. The only land they deserve is surrounded by bars of steal.
I would make sure that each one of them gets a criminal record from their actions and that would prevent them from legal ownership of guns.
“Bars of steal” is the new gangsta metal.
LOL!
I liked this part of the NYT op-ed: “Their demands are unclear, but at the very least it appears that by seizing the refuge’s land, which can now be visited by anyone, and returning it to “the people,” some of the people on it would be transformed into trespassers.”
They want to transform public visitors into trespassers, because they want to turn publicly held reserves into privately held farmland.
‘MALHEUR’ (pronounced ‘manure’) is French for ‘misfortune,’ which in this instance one can only hope will drop like a cloudburst of cowshit upon the ten-gallon hats of these bad-ol’-boys.
Oregon doesn’t pronounce it like that! 🙂
The government is in a bind as to what to do to remove the insurrectionists. If it does nothing then Bundy admirers will take similar actions throughout the country even if Bundy and his followers decide at some future point to leave on their own. On the other hand, if they take any aggressive action to remove Bundy, such as cutting off food, electricity, heat and communication with the outside world,then radical right militias throughout the country may resort to violence.
But, since a choice has to be made, even if it is a passive one of doing nothing, my preference is for the government to take about a week to try to get Bundy to leave and then arrest him and his followers. If this doesn’t work then positive action needs to take place. The rule of law must be enforced. If this incident inspires Bundy admirers to engage in similar activities then the government must put them down immediately, even if deadly force is unfortunately necessary. The right wing is dangerous and it must be taught that breaking the law will result in significant consequences. Otherwise, near anarchy may result followed by the emergence of a fascistic strong man.
Right wing militias are a growing and dangerous threat. They believe the laws do not apply to them. Unless they are dealt with promptly whenever they try to take the law into their own hands, we can expect that the social and political fabric of the nation will deteriorate and we will say goodbye democracy.
How long did it take for the government to remove the Occupy Wall Street protesters? And they weren’t armed.
Follow the money.
To prevent rule by bullies: The reason governments were invented.
There’s a whole history of … well, “government” and “civilisation” … that would disagree with you.
Just for starters, I’m remembering some lovely bas-reliefs carved into walls in what is now Iraq, which depict the troops of the Assyrian government peeling the formerly “free” (and currently screaming) citizens of various Middle East city states.
Organising and profiting from managed bullying was precisely what “government” was invented to do. It probably also improved the efficiency of bullying – it takes time to learn how to peel someone who is trying to avoid being peeled. It takes longer to make the peeling last long enough to have a really good effect on the audience. Audio is a one-to-many communication method, where peeling is a one-to-one channel. Training costs time and resources (this was somewhat before the invention of “money”).
I’m not saying humans are good at it necessarily.
The whole period of monarchy in Europe was rule by the biggest bully.
But we’ve gotten better at it.
Really, until the replacement of monarchic government by some form of “representative” parliament, you could make a good argument that all governments were government of the people by the biggest bully around. When you draw that dividing line … well, you could make a case for the Roman Senate or the Greek democracies (but as slave-owning society, that holds problems for the argument). Or you could make a case for the Althing in Iceland (but again, slave-owning). Or for the Swiss Cantonese arrangement. By the time you get to Charlie-1 of England getting his hairdressing problem solved, and particularly after his son (grandson?) James got ousted with minimal violence, you’re on firmer ground. And the concept of government being for “the people” rather than for “the people in charge” spread in fits and starts since then.
Of course, it’s a process that may or may not be continuing today.
Son. Charles 2 and James 2 were brothers.
Yeah, I was trying to remember. I never thought king-lists worth really pushing into my head. I probably have the big-wigs of Imperial Rome closer to hand in my mind than the various inheritors of Guillame Le Batard.
Probably having one bully in charge is better than having a bunch of bullies fighting for control.
Well, then let’s put it that way: The reason we still want government and not anarchy.
Thanks for making my point better than I did!
I’m not so sure. These sorts of movements tend wax and wane due to a lot of factors beyond government response, and the public tends to be short-attention span and fickle in its support. So I’m not at all sure a non-response can or should be expected to increase the rate at which such protests will occur in the future. If the government lets them stay there until they leave peacefully, will we continue to get protests like this at the rate of 0-2 per year? Yeah probably. Is this a major government stability or safety issue? No, not at present. Not any more than the leftist Occupy movements were a major issue when they took over public city land. If a protestor shoots someone, then yes absolutely that’s a major issue. The presence of lots of firepower makes these protests qualitatively different from the leftist Occupy movements. But right now, I’m not convinced we’re on some slippery slope towards more and larger right wing Occupy protests.
I do not think the government is going to give this group the success of releasing the Hammonds from jail or handing federal land over to private ranchers for free. I’m betting the group will get tired and declare some lesser goal a success (‘we made our point and were allowed to leave peacefully!’ Nobody was arrested for trespassing! Success!) And I’m not convinced that that sort of success is going to inspire lots more people to do the same thing in other places.
It is just my opinion, but I think the government’s apparent failure to hold Cliven Bundy and his collection of gun-toting extremist yahoos accountable after their last tantrum very much has led to this event.
Yes but think about protest trends as a big picture: if the USG had gone in guns blazing and arrested Bundy, would there have been zero protests in response, or more than the one we’ve gotten in response to inaction? Or about the same (rate of 1/year-ish)?
I agree this particular protest wouldn’t have happened. I’m not so sure you can justifiably claim that less follow-up right-wing protests would’ve happened.
That’s a bit of a false choice you’re suggesting. “Guns blazing” is not the alternative to doing nothing. People who threaten authorities with guns should not be allowed to simply walk free. They should be charged and arrested at a time and place that makes sense.
You are proposing a bell the cat solution. Ammon and co have already said they will resist arrest with force of arms. So how specifically do you propose these arrests happen in a way that doesn’t involve the police using force? What are they supposed to use man, harsh language?
Just to make sure I understand you… You think that we should never arrest someone who says they will resist with force of arms. Right?
Police make arrests all the time of people who resist or threaten to resist. It doesn’t mean they go in “guns blazing”, it means they treat criminal actions as criminal actions.
This is not some drunk homeowner making boasts. You still have not explained how the police will go about arresting this group in this situation. How exactly do you picture it going down. Police officer walks up to the building without a gun, yells “you’re all under arrest! Come out now!” and they all lay down their arms and come out?
I mean I guess that’s worth a try. But I don’t think its going to work.
Sorry, Eric, but I think that’s insane. Your protocol would demand justice for drunken homeowners making boasts but give a pass to a group of armed men taking over public property.
I don’t need to instruct the police in how best to arrest these guys. That’s their job. It is enough for me as a citizen to demand that justice be served for criminals like this. I’m not advocating that they go in “guns blazing” but I am saying they can’t be allowed to “walk” on this. If that means surrounding and waiting for them to give themselves up, fine. But not serving justice upon them is no way to run a country.
And yet you STILL refuse to answer the question. You shift the argument to demanding I come up with a solution to all possible hypothetical variations on this situation for the simple reason that you have no proposed method.
There are cops in Burns. They’ve been pretty vocal about the fact that they don’t want the protesters there. So they’re on your side and want them gone/arrested. So now you have the floor. What do you order them to do, Police Commissioner GB James? “Go arrest them [handwave toward the door]?” Got anything more specific? Its not enough to identify an ideal end state. You must have a way to get there. What is your way?
I don’t need to answer that question, Eric. I’m NOT the police commissioner. I’m a voting member of the citizenry who expects the police to do their jobs and arrest people who violate the law. In this case, I expect Federal law enforcement to respond.
I don’t expect the police chief in my city to answer questions about how I should do my job, either. But I would expect him to reasonable expect that I do it.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
And I still think it is insane to take the position that people like this are immune to the law because they threaten to use high powered weaponry if law officers act. You’re offering a recipe for anarchy as every criminal with a gun, willing to shoot people, is given a free pass. (Except drunken homeowners, I guess, who are still to be held accountable. Is it the whiskey that makes them accountable?)
I agree entirely. I was disappointed with Obama’s response, but I am unsure what authority he had to handle things differently.
Couldn’t agree more, GB. For one thing, C. Bundy still owes the government–us–a million dollars. Why isn’t he in jail for theft?
“leave peaceably” after being arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, probably spending a night in clink, and being released on bail including conditions of not living anywhere that there are projectile weapons of any sort. With conditions for random inspection.
Don’t like the bail conditions? Back to the jail house until your case is called.
Eric, you recommend the passive approach to resolving the problem. Hope that Bundy will leave out of boredom and that his fellow zealots, in any number, will not emulate him. You may be right, but any action the government takes or does not take is risky. As you indicated, there is a qualitative difference between armed and unarmed protesters. In the former case Bundy is threatening violence if the government moves in. The Occupy Wall Street protesters provided no resistance when the police moved in. This makes the differences profound between the two situations. Right wing militias are many times more dangerous to society than anything the Occupy Wall Street movement did.
Cordoning off the area and ensuring the public doesn’t go there seems to be their current preferred method of minimizing the risk of injury or a fatal shooting. That seems like a reasonable choice to me…for now. Given the circumstances; lots of things could change to make me agree with you that responding to the protestors with force is a good idea (well, let’s say “least worst” option).
But for now, I’m not convinced its needed for public safety. And I’m not convinced that letting the protesters sit there until they decide to leave will result in any sort of trend of increasing numbers of right wing armed occupying protests, so I don’t see that as a compelling argument for intervention.
I suggest that all people interested in this topic should read this article, published in the Washington Post and written by a person affiliated with the Southern Poverty Law Center named David Neiwert. He discusses the negative repercussions growing out of the failure of the government to take action against Papa Bundy in Nevada. Again, violence against those in Oregon should only be the very last resort, but they can’t be allowed to walk out without legal action being taken against them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/07/not-punishing-the-bundys-for-the-nevada-standoff-led-to-the-occupation-in-oregon/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
“These sorts of movements tend wax and wane due to a lot of factors beyond government response”
And how do you know this, outside of anecdotes?
Given that inherently satisfying behavior tends to increase in living organisms with a nervous system, I think the burden of proof should be on demonstrating that this is not occurring in this instance.
Even ignoring that, it’s not a good thing for society to see some types of crimes unequally punished. A black/Hispanic man running around town with a loaded weapon threatening people would be shot dead.
I don’t think you have to even starve them out. Already the press is getting bored with the story… nothing is happening after all. So long as nothing happens they’ll stop being a center of attention, get bored, and go home. Then they can be arrested and sent to prison one by one at the leisure.
I’m guessing they won’t be arrested. After all, the Bundy Ranch folk who left and went home weren’t arrested. But other than that, I agree with what you’ve said.
You’re probably right. And I don’t suppose I care much, so long as they didn’t do any damage. A farce is a farce, no need to make it into something more.
Something is wrong when we think people threatening others with guns is nothing more than farce.
I second that!
From HuffPost: “Ammon Bundy said he prayed about the matter and ‘clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds.’… I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do,’ Bundy said in a YouTube video posted last week in which he appeals to people to join him in Oregon to protest the treatment of the Hammonds.”
Regardless of the LDS church’s statement against Bundy’s actions, they have been teaching their members since the church’s inception to regard their gut feelings as the highest authority in every issue. They also have a long, dishonorable history of antipathy and often outright rebellion against the US governmental authority. This latest escapade is just more faith chickens coming home to roost.
sub
“Well, I wouldn’t yet call the Bundy Gang “terrorists” (though one could make a case that they are, since trying to intimidate us by brandishing firearms threatening to use them), but I know one thing:” …
Let’s not duck the issue; they are using the threat of violence to attain goals that are political or ideological in nature. They are terrorists and should be dealt with and punished accordingly. The use of force would probably be counter productive and more costly than necessary. I like the suggestion of turning off the power and starving them out, with and added incentive making them a national laughingstock.
I agree. They are terrorists. When environmental extremists burn ski lodges during construction we call them “eco-terrorists”. I don’t see why right-wing gun-toting yahoos like the Bundy Gang would get a pass on the label.
This particular protest is more like chaining yourself to a tree…with a gun in hand. They aren’t allowing normal use of the Wildlife Preserve but they aren’t damaging it (yet) either. If they’re still there in the spring, when the birds start to come back and lots more citizens want to visit the refuge, then I’d take action. Probably not before.
I would not be surprised if Ammon Bundy ends up becoming ‘Fred Phelps with a slightly illegal edge and a gun.’ Going around the country, holding occupation protests, in order to get attention for his cause. I would also not be surprised if the public very quickly started thinking of him the same way they think of the Westboro Baptists – as a bunch of out-of-touch, nationally embarrassing d**ks.
Excellent point: That’s an important contrast.
As someone said above: Follow the money!
It’s a fine line, but they’re targeting the government, not civilians, so I’d call them treasonists or, as someone else pointed out in another thread, seditious conspiracists.
So that would mean that the 2009 at Ft. Hood was not a terrorist attack. Could have fooled me.
Didn’t Robert Jay Mathews already give this type of “protest” the old junior college try?
Only in Merica.
I, for one, am glad to see the authorities exercise a little restraint. the yeehawdists don’t seem to be a threat to anyone but themselves at the moment. There is no compelling reason to go in after them, and the last thing the government needs is another Waco. Starve them out, and let them continue to look pathetic. (BTW, yeehawdist is not my term, neither is y’all-qaeda, yokel haram, nor vanilla ISIS, but I find them all hilarious.)
They should be mocked. And the authorities should show restraint since there’s no reason to run in guns-ablaizing. But at the end of the day these yoyos should be charge and tried.
Yes. And continue to increase the pressure gently (cut off more and more as time goes by).
“cut off more and more as time goes by”
Ouch!
But what will they think with?
Y’all-qaeda is my favorite.
From what I’ve seen so far, though, I don’t take them seriously enough for them to even earn that moniker. They just seem like plain old ordinary buffoons more than they seem like crusaders on a holy mission. I could be wrong, but they don’t even strike me as particularly dangerous, despite the guns. I almost feel a little bad for them, even, as they struggle with the unfamiliar task of using words to describe their goals. And you can see the puzzlement in their eyes that there aren’t throngs of thousands joining them there. They are are like lost children with guns duck taped to their hips.
“… as they struggle with the unfamiliar task of using words to describe their goals.”
Teabonics.
+1 Can’t believe I hadn’t heard that one before.
LOL!
Yes, well we’ve seen that before: right-wing demagogues predicting millions of people marching on DC, or the (DC) beltway being shut down with all the protesting truckers. Then what actually happens is that only the organizers and a few curious reporters show up. I believe at their last protest outside the White House in Lafayette Park, there were more reporters than participants. Kinda sad, really.
You can say a lot of negative things about liberals being politically disorganized and fractious, but when it comes to social protests, they seem to be able to generate a lot more involvement from within their own community than conservatives can. I guess the hazard of a social movement organized around “I want mine” is that your own people won’t show up at a protest unless they think its going to get them something.
Don’t forget that the media bubble these people tend to live in is constantly telling them that they are the real Americans, that the people are behind them but being cowed and kept silent by the PC liberal media. They have been intentionally and maliciously fed the delusion that most people think like they do – their confusion when this turns out to not be the case is perfectly understandable.
I also suspect this plays heavily into why these people tend to be so bad at expressing their ideas – they’ve clearly had no practice at informed debate of topics, even in informal settings. They honestly expect their positions to be the common sense ones that most (white) people already hold, and when they encounter the opposite, it confounds them.
I did not know much about how the government works with private ranchers on allowing ranchers to use government owned land. From what I read here for example: http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/ and http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/03/the-bundy-family-and-armed-resistance-to-government-land-grabs-know-the-facts/
The gov. gives them a very good deal, and has been extraordinarily careful about not bringing force upon Bundy senior and his followers. Access to land while charging a LOT less than the going rate, and helping them out with special loans and other subsidies. I was wondering if the Bundies had an even partially reasonable gripe and I have come away with nothing but more resentment for them.
The US “red states” (read: Places where people like the Bundys thrive) get more dollars back from the US government than they put in.
And they have the nerve to talk about Federal Government “overreach” and “handouts”.
Well, yeah. “Handouts” go to brown people. White people deserve their “benefits”.
Exactly!
While it is true that the amount the BLM charges ranchers for grazing is a good price, comparing that rate directly to the rate private landowners charge greatly exaggerates how good a deal it is.
The BLM got the land homesteaders didn’t or couldn’t claim. It was poorer than private to start with. It was also drier — sometimes people claimed all the springs and wet spots, and BLM has no actual water cattle could drink. I believe that ranchers with grazing allotments build their own corrals, cattle ponds, etc., where private landowners would likely build theirs.
Isn’t it true, sedgequeen, that some BLM lands (not necessarily in OR) are now turning out to have valuable oil or mineral resources? I fear that would be all too tempting to the wrong national party, if they get to make the next laws…probably a greater threat to our national lands than a handful of ranchers…
Yes, remember James Watt (et al.).
Sadly, I do.
From what I’ve read, it does seem to me that the government may have gone too far in resentencing the Hammonds to longer prison terms after they’d already served their initial, shorter ones. It is true that the original judge didn’t give them the mandatory amount of jail-time, but what is really gained by putting a 74-year-old rancher back in jail for 5 years? That just seems vindictive.
But as a commenter at the NYT pointed out, it was the right-wingers themselves who were behind the demands for mandatory minimum sentences in the first place.
This is an interesting conservative take on the situation:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
I’m sure that’s quite slanted, but some of it must be factual…
For the record, I don’t support the Hammonds’ actions or the Bundy crew’s; I just thought the Hammonds’ side of the story was interesting–more multifaceted than I’d thought.
I demand that the BLM start charging market prices for grazing — immediately! They like the free market just as long as it favors them and no further.
I’d also wish some poor, freedom-loving beef eaters to come with guns to claim “their” cattle.
I agree that the label “terrorist” applies here if it has to have any use at all.
And TR’s legacy of the parks and such in the US is one of the wonderful things about that country. Environmental movements of sorts are long-rooted, despite what people might say.
I have read that the local Indian tribe (whose land it might have been had a treaty been ratified) has also expressed their opposition to the occupation – the land isn’t theirs but they live near it and regard it as sacred.
And a Washington Post column today calls out a group of Republican Congresscritters for passively endorsing it rather than calling it the sedition that it is.
But, all in all, better to let them become irrelevant than make them into another Waco.
This is correct (the local Native Americans).
A field archaeologist from the area, 1970s said:
“The cattle had pretty much eaten just about all available vegetation there. These fields were merely mud and cow shit. It was ugly. We were not able to survey these fields for prehistoric sites until a few years later when the fields were not used for grazing.”
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/01/06/23350480/my-dad-worked-at-the-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-and-he-knows-what-happens-when-ranchers-get-their-way
The land was taken over, according to the article, because there was interest in saving the land and the Ranchers were not taking care of it. Which is largely the reason for tightening of BLM rules that Ranchers complain about.
As Dan Savage points out, these ranchers think they can win because they won when they last did it. Bundy still has his cattle on government land, grazing for free, contrary to a judges order.
“No charges were brought against the Bundy’s supporters, Kohn points out, after they assaulted federal workers and impeded federal officers—both crimes—and Bundy and his gang did not face legal or lethal repercussions for pointing guns at police officers.”
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/01/04/23340878/about-those-armed-militia-membersterrorists-who-seized-a-federal-building-in-rural-oregon
“That’s what is concerning to a lot of retired federal land managers I’ve talked to who think the BLM’s reluctance to go after Bundy has bolstered this land takeover movement and even helped legitimize it, which might help explain the latest drama right now in Oregon,” Kirk reports.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/05/462022130/as-oregon-situation-unfolds-heres-a-quick-update-on-cliven-bundy
I don’t agree with all the rhetoric by Savage and some others, others in the past have taken over government offices and not been murdered out of hand by police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs_building_takeover
Previous episodes of black people being killed out of hand is not a good reason to force a confrontation now. Decisions should be made with care to save the most lives and prevent bloodshed while still upholding the law. Poor behavior of others in the past in not good reason for poor behavior now.
Those who impede or threaten police and take over public land should be arrested and charged, but in _all_ cases it should be done with as little bloodshed as possible.
Helpful observations there, thanks for the research and links.
I’m not sure whether the layout of this NWR and its buildings would let this work, but a friend of mine suggested the following for Waco in the days before the not-so-grand finale: Build a very high wall around the compound, cut off access in and out, build a couple of well-armored guard towers, and declare it a federal prison. Bundy and company are where they seem to want to be, and the rest of us can watch them enjoying indefinite detention, which makes the rest of the planet marginally better. Not sure how to do this safely? Ask Israel. Or Donald Trump. He seems to be into walls. Hell, I’d even be willing to have it named the Trump Federal Prison.
They would shoot at the builders. Which would create the violent confrontation the solution was supposed to avoid in the first place. Which means it’s just a more expensive and circuitous version of the ‘guns blazing’ solution.
+1
Fun idea, though!
The refuge headquarters is home to USF&W and other scientists who research various aspects of the refuge/high desert ecology. Pictures of the current occupation show their offices, with all their computers, books, lab equipment, etc. These people usually aren’t working with a whole lot of research dollars in the first place, and much of what’s in the headquarters building would be relatively expensive to replace.
BTW, part of the F&W research goes to support hunting on the refuge at certain times of the year on certain tracts; most wildlife refuges operate to serve both hunters and recreational users. Many people aren’t aware of that, but revenue from sustainable hunting does support a large part of our wildlife/wild-area management. Thus there should be a significant number of (generally right-leaning) hunters who’d also oppose losing the land to a handful of private ranchers. It’s not just the eco-freaks. (A term I use fondly.)
Although it’s a stretch to call these folks terrorists, I like the social media meme that calls them Y’all-Queda
The Bundys may be wackjobs and doing all the wrong things, but what the Federal gov did to the Hammond family is disgusting and oppressive, and this is how revolutions start. Massive govt over-reach of power.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2303/here-are-five-reasons-you-should-side-hammond-ben-shapiro
It’s not clear that the BLM was wrong and the Hammonds right. There is more to the story of those fires than the Hammonds have said, for example. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-read-u-s-attorney-statement-on-oregon-standoff-20160104-htmlstory.html
Given that the story you linked to isn’t complete and accurate about the fires, I’d like to know more about the other parts of the story before deciding who I would consider right (or whether they’re both wrong).
Do you cheer the idea of revolution?
“The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. 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.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.”
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
Hammond doesn’t appear to be a reliable source. The article appears to be contradicting sworn testimony given by his own relatives that show the fire was arson.
The BLM has the right to tell ranchers how to treat the public owned properties the BLM oversee. They have the right to buy ranches or leases. They have the right to fine ranchers who ignore regulations setup to protect public resources. They not only have the right, the BLM the has a duty to protect the land for the public who own the land.
The government also has a duty to get the best prices possible for the land they lease out.
The article you cite is highly biased. One of the points are “the Hammonds are good members of the community”. Well, if good members of the community start major fires and try to silence witnesses to crimes.
The second “The hammonds are not interested in violence”. So what? What does this have to do with if they are guilty of the crimes they committed? They nearly killed people, they poached deer and committed arson.
Good info, thanks.
Here’s Steens Mountain, FWIW:
http://www.berettaconsulting.com/barbarossa/Utah_96/1996-04%20Utah%20Trip%2005%20E%20Oregon%20Steens%20Mtn.jpg
http://www.berettaconsulting.com/barbarossa/Utah_96/1996-04%20Utah%20Trip%2006%20E%20Oregon%20Steens%20Mtn.jpg
http://www.berettaconsulting.com/barbarossa/Utah_96/1996-04%20Utah%20Trip%2004%20E%20OR%20Alvord%20Desert.jpg
It’s an amazing spot, overlooking the Alvord Desert. I’ve only been there in winter, so I never went to the top; but it’s 9700 feet high (2967m), which is very tall for that area. 8th highest peak in Oregon.
Thanks for posting those!
Send in drones armed with tear gas and sedatives … lots of it. (I’ll leave the technicalities and logistics of such an operation to the govt. experts.)
I’m probably more upset by this incident that I should be. Emotionally I want the government to go in there with guns blazing. Rationally, I’m glad the government is taking their time. I don’t want these people to become martyrs. A peaceful resolution would be good. I do want the protesters arrested and charged with something, because I think the lack of consequences in Nevada contributed to this event.
You speak for me as well.
Matt Taibi has a well-written piece in Rolling Stone called “The Dumb and the Restless” that is well worth a read.
Try taking a long view of the FBI’s restraint: The Bundy outlaws are being allowed to “build the ticket.” By the time they try to leave their list of crimes will be so long and well-documented that it should be pretty easy to put them away for a few years.
Malheur is starkly beautiful, for those of you who have not seen it. It is not prime cattle country