It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

page: 14
87
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blindmancc

The judge was wrong, he didn`t have the legal authority to reduce the 5 year mandatory sentence.
If they had a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence they should be allowed to change their plea since the court doesn`t have the authority to make such a deal and impose a lesser sentence.


edit on 3-1-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
In the western US there is a saying...

Whiskey's for drinkin'...and water's for fightin'!

Much of this dispute between the Hammonds and the federal government originally started over this very premise. BLM and NWS authorities came onto land Hammond was using for raising cattle and erected fences which fenced the cattle out of the water. This was the very beginnings of the bad blood. From there the situation has progressively escalated over the decades.

Who's right and who's wrong, again, is a very complex issue with no easy answers. But at the end of the day the fundamental underpinnings boil down to who has jurisdiction over federal land.

Things are not always what they seem...and seldom does the media ever give anyone even remotely close to the REAL story.

edit...in the days of the old west native American Indians referred to whiskey as 'fire water'. There is more than just a little irony contained in the fact that this whole dispute began not over 'fire', but rather 'water'.




edit on 1/3/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Blindmancc

The judge was wrong, he didn`t have the legal authority to reduce the 5 year mandatory sentence.
If they had a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence they should be allowed to change their plea since the court doesn`t have the authority to make such a deal and impose a lesser sentence.




A lot of you are condemning away without actually trying to understand what's going on. Here's the judges view from the transcript on the 2006 fires and the minimum 5-year Antiterrorism sentence.


THE COURT (THE HON. MICHAEL R. HOGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING): I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here. And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute. When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don't think that's what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be -- would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word "fairness" in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don't do that. But this -- it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.


If you read through the transcript of 2012 it is agreed upon that Steven and Dwight Hammond are very well-respected within their community. All of you voting to give them max sentence would like to shock this man's conscious, a judge with 39 years of experience sentencing.

This is a landgrab. Leaving the wives alone to fend for themselves for 5 years, during the proceedings making sure that when they sell the ranch it has to be to the BLM, the double jeopardy, what's not clear about this?

As for the militia getting involved, again the Hammonds are not involved probably out of fear of additional penalising on top of the 5 years, to me too it sounds like they just want public attention. There's no harm done so far, all they've done is occupy a well-out-of-the-way little unmanned station, that hardly hurts any taxpayers or seems very ominous. I do hope authorities deal with them peacefully because it doesn't take much to ignite anything in a camp full of guns.
edit on 3/1/2016 by Balans because: added link



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

I would hope his superiors would not be wrapped up in his mod status so i guess we agree.

By the way i agree with everything he said, in case you missed it.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Balans

The authorities should deal with it as it is, domestic terrorism.

How many other times does a militia group of over one-hundred people infiltrate Wildlife refugee centers, citing their reasons being that "they don't agree with the sentence," and hold off under the pretense that the "Feds are going to slaughter them?"

What a group of precious little snowflakes... go and seize a Federally owned building, and then cry out victim because "they gonna kill us."

I have no love for my government, but crap like this - as well as the madness that is BLM - makes "activism," look like an absolute joke.

Everyone is in over-drive defending these people as "not being terrorists," lol. So, what are they exactly?

Peaceful protesters? If that's the case - why are they saying things such as, "We will kill and be killed if necessary?"

Now... if one-hundred and fifty Muslims were to take infiltrate and seize a Federal building with weapons... lol, the media would be spinning something entirely else.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

I don't have TV I turned it off years ago, so if you can, will you tell me which channels are not calling them extremist or domestic terrorist?
What are the television news folk calling them?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: freemanwalking

Thank you for a reply.

I agree with everything you stated...


On topic. I personally feel this will not go to the point of creating martyrs. It would be very bad for TPTB to flex it's muscle during Obama's gun grab agenda.

I predict it will be a long standoff with no clear winner on either side.

Des



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Those 150 Muslims would have killed numerous people on the way in.

I don't see the local Walgreen's or convenience store or liquor store on fire. I don't see cars lit on fire with random acts of violence destroying store fronts. I don't see 100's of people wearing black balaclavas saying they are going to kill the pigs that try to stop them.

It anything, I equate this to an 'armed' sit in. It will end peacefully and these guys will do their time. What we should take away from this is that the Federal Government would rather harass some ranchers while they send the DOJ in to investigate local police forces to make sure they are black and Muslim tolerant while 3000 have been murdered in Chicago in 2015.

These are going to happen more and more and eventually there will be another Ruby Ridge.

and finally, this is a perfect time to show that crazy white people with guns should be controlled with the new EO coming down....or how they can take your firearms now in California....stay on target people...stay on target


edit on 01pm31pmf0000002016-01-03T12:47:02-06:001202 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)

edit on 01pm31pmf0000002016-01-03T12:48:17-06:001217 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
So....the answer is to have arbitration by a third party....going back to day 1 about any BLM changes of fences or intent to annex private land.....back to day one.......instilling the school of thought....the ranchers are not terrorists and are not criminals...and then the communication during the wildfires is all that reveals the truth.

I'll set everybody straight....what was malicious intent on the part of the ranchers.....that results in disruptive legal action to the degree that would make a girlscout want to slap her MOMMA !!!!???? Is there another remedy.......oh hail yes
edit on 3-1-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one

edit on 3-1-2016 by GBP/JPY because: last minute thought there....yezz



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

This is not even making the news.

Doesn't fit "the narrative"....



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

but I thought they plead guilty to the arson charges?



They must have had one lousy lawyer to do that.

There is another angle also, that the threat of losing the case if they plead not guilty to the charges, would mean they would have ended up with the fullest of possible penalties and punishment. The lawyers may have known they couldn't win a case in a kangaroo court, so a plea bargain to a lesser charge would enable some escape of those severe penalties.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: freemanwalking
a reply to: Punisher75

This is not even making the news.

Doesn't fit "the narrative"....


FOX Cable news is giving this story a good amount of coverage. They haven't brought in the talking heads yet. And, they are covering Obama's gun grab agenda at the same time.

It's interesting to see the 2 stories being almost woven into one.

Des



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

I guess i will check out foxnews.com

Yes..... Interesting....Scary?




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
For those debating whether this is "domestic terrorism" here is a paste of the us law view.

(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.



First of all the reading of that would imply any one they see fit can be deemed a domestic terrorist. Therefore when it suits the narrative it and the media will spew the headlines.
Secondly I just don't see the difference between a domestic and international terrorist. Do they really need to be labelled differently?
Or is a use of wording in ored to instill fear in the community. Domestic really makes it feel personal. Right in your living room.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

Maybe the Bundy Bunch is being blackmailed into this by the government agencies?

The right moves by both sides could set some long term precedents.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: InMyShell




Secondly I just don't see the difference between a domestic and international terrorist. Do they really need to be labelled differently?

Read Item C).


Domestic really makes it feel personal. Right in your living room.
Does the term "domestic air travel" feel like airplanes in your living room?

edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Anyone who believes this blog is clearly predisposed to the underlying objective of these militia groups. They are trying to start a race war. Anyone who listened to Tom Metzger for the past 30 years knows they are carrying out his orders to the letter. It's call RAHOWA. And the only reason "Black Lives Matters" has even been transformed into some imaginary threat is because RAHOWA stands for RACIAL HOLY WAR and that's the ultimate aim of militia groups. The 2nd Amendment narratives are a ruse. And I genuinely hate all the people who know this deep inside but pretend that it's not the case.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

That is your solution? You don't want to talk to them, find out what their grievances are? You don't want to find a peaceable solution? You just want to kill other human beings?

This stand off is just a continuation of the BLM/ranchers confrontation. The BLM (Bureau of Land Management) has been claiming land that has been lease to these ranchers for multiple generations, and with out any notification to the lease holders they are barring entrance to the land and seizing any, and all, cattle on the lands and selling them.
it came into the national spotlight when the Bundys stood up to them. This got the attention of militia groups and the Oathkeepers. That stand off ending with the BLM being forced to stand down.
After that the BLM started controlled burns on the leased lands to "Prevent wildfires". However they did not notify the lease holders and some cattle were killed by these fires when their corrals got caught up in the fires. The they started a controlled burn on the property leased by the Hammonds, again not noticing the lease holders.
Father and son said they did not know about the controlled burns, they thought they were fire caused by lighting so they started some back fires to make a fire break, and it works. They saved property ( Both corrals and Cattle) and they say their home. The BLM did not like that. They went and talked to the sheriff, and convinced him that the son had commited a crime. The local prosecutor didn't think there was a case, so he dropped the charges. The BLM then turn turned to the Federal Government to deal with the problem and presto a cattle rancher doing his best to save his property is now an Arson Terrorist. The Judge didn't agree but they were found guilty so he gave then a lighter sentence ( His right to do so). After Father and son served their time the federal prosecutor went to court and demanded they serve the complete minimum sentence of Five years.
Father and son said they would go back and serve out the rest of their time. However the militia groups and some Oathkeepers saw this as yet another example of Government overreach/abuse of power. So they are protesting and you want to just fire a missile into the crowd,kill people and, end it that way? I am so glad your not in any position of authority!



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InMyShell



Domestic really makes it feel personal. Right in your living room.
Does the term "domestic air travel" feel like airplanes in your living room?


Oh Phage! You always make me chuckle.


IMHO, the term terrorist is one of the most overly used terms/words globally and because of this is has lost much of its seriousness in the eyes of many citizens. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a better word/term, but it would have to be something that hasn't been said so many times, and in so many different contexts, that it no longer shows how serious a situation is.

Rev



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: RomeByFire

Those 150 Muslims would have killed numerous people on the way in.

I don't see the local Walgreen's or convenience store or liquor store on fire. I don't see cars lit on fire with random acts of violence destroying store fronts. I don't see 100's of people wearing black balaclavas saying they are going to kill the pigs that try to stop them.

It anything, I equate this to an 'armed' sit in. It will end peacefully and these guys will do their time. What we should take away from this is that the Federal Government would rather harass some ranchers while they send the DOJ in to investigate local police forces to make sure they are black and Muslim tolerant while 3000 have been murdered in Chicago in 2015.

These are going to happen more and more and eventually there will be another Ruby Ridge.

and finally, this is a perfect time to show that crazy white people with guns should be controlled with the new EO coming down....or how they can take your firearms now in California....stay on target people...stay on target



You took my bait, and demonstrated my point more efficiently than I could have.

I mentioned Muslims - which isn't the case here.
How do you respond?
"They would have killed numerous people on the way in."

How do you know this?

Anyway, I absolutely agree with you on the BLM madness - I just don't see this as any different.

But you really did drive home my point for me. Not my words, "We may have to kill and be killed," "The Feds are coming to slaughter us."

Yeah. Sounds like a real "peaceful sit-in." Its funny how you (and others) vehemently defend this - yet in a COMPLETELY THEORETICAL SITUATION REGARDGING MUSLIMS, you attack them with "they'd kill numerous people in the way in."

Clearly, you have no bias on the matter. Terrorism is terrorism, it doesn't matter if you're green or purple, believe in Cthulu or Kraken.

They sound like a bunch of little precious snowflakes that didn't get their way, and are resorting to violence and intimidation to get their way. Not saying that it is bad and/or good, I'm just not one to whitewash the acts of the mentally-unstable as "peaceful," when it's far from peaceful as possible.

If it was peaceful, why couldn't they have written to their local representatives? Why couldn't they stage in a PEACEFUL sit-in?

If these are peaceful Consituents protesting peacefully, why even bring weapons? After all - it's a peaceful protest.

I've protested many of times, and never once - have I "peacefully protested," by infiltrating and seizing a federally owned building with over 100 armed militiamen.

Honestly, they sound like a bunch of entitled snowflakes who didn't get their way and are resorting to militia-like action to get their way.

That sounds AWFULLY familiar...
(take my bait again).




top topics



 
87
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join