The escapades of American militiamen · 2:45am Jan 7th, 2016
For those of you who haven't been following a rather amusing story, a group of heavily-armed militiamen from the Mountain West decided it would be a great idea to come occupy a federal wildlife refuge in Eastern Oregon to protest a local farmer being put in jail by my former t-ball coach. His crime? Setting fire to his own land, causing a wildfire that spread into federal lands and required firefighters to come out and put it out.
Naturally, these militiamen demanded his release. The man in question promptly noted that he didn't want their help, and asked them to leave and stop trying to help him in this way.
Not to be deterred, the militiamen changed tacks, demanding that the land be returned to the control of its rightful owners.
Today, the Burns Paiute tribe - a local Native American tribe which views the sanctuary as holy land - demanded that the militiamen leave and stop desecrating their heritage.
Sadly, the militiamen still are there.
Apparently, they didn't mean owners who were that rightful.
Makes about as much sense as Occupy Wallstreet....
Thanks for letting us know.
Do they have any new demands, or are they just being mad on principle?
3669575
Haven't heard of any... yet.
fuck you, Militiamen. you have multiple people, from the actual owner of the land to a native american tribe, saying you should leave. thanks for turning my state into the next ground for crazies. we didn't need this.
If the Indians that consider it sacred land aren't the rightful owners then its the government. That land has been managed by Land Management for along time won;t get into the issue of good or bad management. Basically they want the right to use the land as they see fit rather then as the government sees fit.
3669524 Occupy wall street made more sense well at least to me
derpicdn.net/img/view/2014/7/5/668019__safe_princess+luna_princess+celestia_animated_upvotes+galore_smiling_magic_hat_sitting_grin.gif
Wow I guess people can't handle the wait between MLP-Fim. Hopefully season six will come pretty fast.
¿Why speak in euphemisms? These are terrorists. If anything, we should give the land to the Burns Paiute who can then shoot these terrorists for trespass.
Ah, glorious irony. Although 'heavily' armed is a bit of a misnomer. They have a few more guns than Eric Holder and his crew did when they took over buildings on the Columbia University campus, although they're just as annoying. Somehow I doubt Mr. Bundy is in line to become the USAG though.
There's a good writeup on the whole mess at the ConservativeTreehouse site, as well as some background on controlled burning as a regular method of pasture weed control over at the BLM site for OR/WA states.
(In short, the two ranchers being sent to jail were tried on Federal felony arson and terrorism (?!) charges for doing a controlled burn and an emergency backfire to stop an *un*-controlled fire that was headed towards their home. Yes, they were burning weeds. Whoopie.)
3669845
If you're talking about civilians, generally speaking I'd say "heavily armed" is "openly carrying at least two weapons", which appears to be the case from the pictures I've seen (long guns + hand guns).
Incidentally, trusting the Conservative Treehouse is a bad idea, and their page is full of factual inaccuracies. For instance, the overall count of militiamen appears to be about 20, not "100-150". And, alas, they mindlessly repeated the Hammonds' story. If you look at news reports about the trial:
TL; DR; they deliberately started a wildfire which burned out of control onto federal land, before asking for permission to set a fire at all, and they started a fire, at night, while there were firefighters fighting fires nearby, without notifying anyone that they were doing it.
The latter is extremely dangerous, as setting a backburn behind firefighters can result in the firefighters being trapped between the fire and the backburn. Fortunately, the firefighters managed to get out, but it could have easily resulted in several deaths.
According to allegations, the Hammonds had previously set fires under cover of them being "lightning fires" as well:
Also, contrary to the far right crazies, they were not convicted of being terrorists. The crime they committed was arson of federal property, which is, obviously, a federal crime; it was included in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, but it is not a terrorism charge. Rather, the 1996 act modified federal arson charges and gave them a mandatory minimum of five years. This is not uncommon, nor is it surprising that an act dealing with terrorism also altered federal arson charges, as many terrorists commit arson - in fact, it is the most common form of terrorism in the US. Actual terrorism charges, however, are distinct from arson charges.
Whether or not mandatory minimum sentences are a good idea is a legitimate question, but is much broader than this case in particular, and the Hammonds were not sentenced to prison for terrorism, but for arson (which they undoubtedly committed in setting fire to federal lands).
The Hammonds, obviously, are going to claim it is all a conspiracy, man. That doesn't make it true.
Moreover, the idea that (and I quote from the Conservative Treehouse here):
Is sheer nonsense. The reality is that mandatory minimums are just that - mandatory minimums. Prosecutors obviously are going to push for the law to actually be applied, and that is precisely what they did - they appealed, saying that Judge Hogan's sentencing decision was in clear conflict with the law, and that he had no right to overrule Congress on the law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the Supreme Court refused to receive the case, letting the lower court's decision stand (which isn't surprising - arson is a serious crime and can put human lives in danger (and apparently, did in this case), so arguing that the sentence was a violation of the 8th Amendment is fairly dubious - they didn't have much of a case as far as the sentence being obviously unconstitutional goes). The law isn't unconstitutional, or at the very least, the Supreme Court didn't feel that this case was strong enough to be worth them listening to. If you don't like it, the proper venue is to petition Congress to lower mandatory minimums. Frankly, given the circumstances, I don't think that the original sentences were unfair - a $400,000 fine for dealing with the fires is hefty but not unreasonable given the allegations, and I think that the jail sentences they served were not unreasonable in conjunction with the fine. But the reality is that the judge did not have the right to assign such short sentences because of the law that Congress wrote, and it isn't his place to reinterpret the law as he sees fit.
I will note that I have very limited sympathy for them, though. Firebugs are a problem in Oregon, with people setting fires in wilderness areas for all sorts of reasons, many of them financial in nature. They're very dangerous and put land and people at risk, and people setting fires because they don't like government regulations is unacceptable.
I personally live in a rural area, and am somewhat familiar with agricultural burns, though my own family only owns a few acres and the only thing we burn is a log pile.
Speaking as an Oregonian born and bred... starve these fuck wits out, then charge them with treason and trespassing.
'We can stay for years' turned into 'we were really hungry' in four days. I give them a week, tops.
... besides, it's Burns, in the winter. There ain't shit out there at the best of times.
A good laugh and a half.
Y'allqueda.
Was going to say: over on Twitter, they've earned the hashtag #YallQaeda, which amuses me greatly. Though 3671274 beat me to it.
Either way, thanks for the update. It's a complete trainwreck, but, y'know. Trainwreck.
3671758
"Oregon militiamen are willing to be martyred for their cause. And if they die, they will receive 72 cousins in the afterlife."
"Next thing you know, Shania Law."
EDIT: Apparently one of their members who has been soliciting donations took the money, decided to rent a motel room, and has been going on a drinking binge. one of the other militiamen said that his compatriot's betrayl "is like finding out there is no such thing as Santa."
These people are really bad at this.
3671758 Don't mock their calls for Yeehawd.
3669746 The farmer in question's rights were violated. You can't order someone back to jail it violates the principle of double jeopardy. (I have a degree in Political Science)
3678028
What happened in this case was not double jeopardy. They were not convicted of the same crime multiple times. Rather, what happened was that they were convicted of the crime of arson of federal property, and the judge on their case gave them sentences far below the mandatory minimum of five years - he gave them a three months and one year long sentence, respectively.
This is obviously against the law - the judge had no right to give them sentences of less than five years. As such, the prosecution appealed, arguing that the judge was violating the law by applying sentences below the mandatory minimum. The higher courts agreed, and the people in question were resentenced to five years in prison - the mandatory minimum sentence.
They were not retried for the same crime, they were merely resentenced according to the law at the time of their initial imprisonment. Resentencing people is not unconstitutional - their original sentences were illegally lenient, and they were brought into accord with the law. They were credited with the time they've served so far, but they have to go back to serve the rest of their sentences.
This sort of thing isn't terribly unusual, and the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. They refused to hear the Hammonds' appeal for this very reason.
3678036 In my country, the blood of the martyrs that fought and died for the founding of our Republic is still fresh-indeed it has not even dried yet and we still remember what tyranny looks like. Honor these men fighting against tyranny. I've visited the United States. I'm not trying to be critical, but I am. You have grown complacent (and my country is beginning too as well.) It starts small, it always does. Tyranny does not pop up over night. The Normans brought order to tribal warfare-and then enslaved my ancestors. Hitler restored dignity to the German people, before murdering millions. Maybe one day Bush and Obama will be recalled in similar terms. Tyranny needs to be crushed, root and branch, before it can flower. There is no such thing as extremism in defense of liberty-no price is too high.
3678048 Furthermore, it's still cruel and unususual punishment. And you shouldn't be punished for setting a fire on your own land.
3678048
This isn't government tyranny at all - it is the government enforcing the law.
The law is that if you commit the crime of federal arson - that is to say, you destroy federal property - you must serve a minimum sentence of five years in jail.
The judge in the Hammonds' case unlawfully gave them overly lenient sentences. He was not allowed to do this under the law. The law said he had to do one thing, and he did something else.
In a civilized society, the law must be applied equally - in fact, it is a fundamental tenant of American law, that all persons are equal before the law, and that it is applied equally to all. If one judge has the right to change the law capriciously - as this judge claimed the right to do - they are acting like a tyrant.
To not resentence the Hammonds would say that judges are allowed to do whatever they want.
Do you think that's okay?
No, of course not.
The protestors are violent, uncivilized savages who lash out at civilization. They want to steal everything they can with their guns, and they resent the government saying that, no, they cannot take other peoples' land and make it their own.
3678055
It is most certainly not legal to set fires on your own land willy-nilly, nor should it be.
Laws about fires are there to protect everyone - if someone sets fire to their own property, and it spills over onto someone else's property, that's very bad for the other person. It is very dangerous to do this, and many areas in Eastern Oregon are very dry and vulnerable to wildfires.
Moreover, fires create a great deal of smoke and ash, which is obviously something that everyone else has to breathe in.
On top of that, one of the fires was set while firefighters were fighting a fire nearby, very nearly trapping the firefighters between the fire they were fighting and the fire that the Hammonds started; it forced the firefighters to pull back out of the fire that had been set.
On top of THAT, if you set a fire on your own property, and then it burns out of control on your own property and destroys your own stuff, you'll come begging to the government to save you instead of being homeless because of your own stupidity.
3678065 It was the law in Nazi Germany to put Jews in ovens. Just because something is "law" does not make it right. The land BELONGS TO THE RANCHERS. Just like the land me and my family own BELONGS TO US and if any government thugs came to take it my father would shoot them dead (if I didn't get to the gun first). And this is from your constitution-"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" To put this in modern language, no one can be punished for the same crime twice. (Political Science degree, remember?)
3678077 Granted. They were punished. They should not be punished again. Imagine if you committed a crime, were jailed for it, got out and were re-sentenced to jail for the same offense. Would that strike you as fair? The issue is not whether they should be punished-the issue is the violation of their rights. I don't mean to be short about this and it isn't my business, but I am quite passionate about human rights. (And there have been quite a few Americans who have regaled me with their opinions on certain contentious issues in my country's long and storied history.)
3678083
3678109
This was not a surprise to the Hammonds; they knew that the court case was ongoing and there was a good chance they'd be going back to jail, and indeed, they had appealed their case up to the Supreme Court.
It wasn't like this was some out of the blue thing, and it wasn't a violation of their human rights - such re-sentencing in light of the law is not rare and is entirely in accord with the Constitution. Typically speaking, it is in favor of the defendants, but that is because judges seldom stray from the minimum sentencing guidelines. They always should have been sentenced to five years in jail, and the resentencing was simply correcting something which was incorrect.
Moreover, the land that they were being charged for burning did not belong to the Hammonds; the crime they committed was specifically setting fire to federal lands because they set (illegal) fires on their own property which spread to public property (and endangered firefighters).
If you set your neighbor's house on fire because you set an illegal fire in your own yard, that's arson.
3678028
Actually one can:
One cannot retry on cases after an acquittal is unconstitutional, but resentencing is. Indeed, resentencing is common, but usually happens in the direction of leniency:
Resentensing
You also claim that the land burned rightfully belongs to the ranchers. If you want to play that game, then here we go:
0. The Burns Paiute owned the land.
1. The Federal Government seized the land.
2. The Federal Government gave the land to the ancestors of the ranchers as a landgrants in accordance with the Homestead-Act.
3. The Federal Government used eminent domain for acquiring the land.
It seems to me that, by your logic, the rightful owner is the Burns Paiute. Indeed, not only should the Burns Paiute get the Federal Land, but also all of the land the ranchers currently own. By your logic, the Burns Paiute should evicted all ranchers in the area.
3678961 Actually, I DO think that Europeans should return the land to Native Americans. That will-unfortunately-never happen.
3686361
That'd be deeply wrong. After all, the Native Americans conquered that land from other Native American tribes. The US was merely the last in a long line of conquerors. The entire idea of "this land belonged to us two hundred years ago, so it totally should be ours now" is intrinsically morally flawed.
Update:
Several arrested when found off the grounds: one dead by gunfire. Remaining group declares their intent to continue stay.
The occupiers claim the deceased had his hands in the air when he was shot. Other eyewitnesses say he charged the police.
The dead man wrote a book.
It doesn't seem to be a very good book.
3715968
One of the militia supporters was actually livestreaming when they were arrested last night. They dropped the camera and it continued to tape a wall for several hours afterwards while people expressed confusion in the chatroom.
The guy who got killed had said that they'd rather die than go to jail. Apparently they weren't bluffing.
Good thing all of his friends were, otherwise it might have been quite messy.
3716033
I will wait for the first genius among them to blame the Blair Witch.
It may be a very long wait.
So I happened to stumble across this post, and I followed the link to Ann Aiken. Ann Aiken, your old T-ball coach, who, according to that article, just so happens to have left office on the very same day I learned of her existence. What a coincidence!
3725061
I don't think she's leaving office at all; at least, I can't find any newspaper articles to that effect.
3725088 Yeah, I didn't turn up anything either, but the Wikipedia article not only mentioned Jan. 31, 2016 as her last day in office, but referred to her occupancy of that post in the past tense. It didn't seem funny enough to be a prank or damaging enough to be an attack, so I assumed it was true despite the lack of corroboration. If you, who are more familiar with the area, think it's false, I believe you, but I am very confused about how the article came to be written thus.
3725158
Someone edited it today to say that. Seeing as Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, this sort of thing happens sometimes. It is possible it was vandalism, or possible someone didn't understand that we actually do write articles in the present tense/don't claim that everyone's term of office is through the present day.