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: 17
87
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
These guys are just a cult.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
How much can we trust our Government to tell the truth. Multiple agencies coverup stuff, we have proven DRUG dealers in the CIA, we have LIES coming from NSA, FBI, police agencies all the time. Mayors and Governors cover stuff up to advance the Government line.

And BLM wants ALL the action it can get, no matter who goes to jail, especially a couple of 'examples' to send a message.

Seems like the Government wanted their "terrorists".



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
They picked a terrible spot to "take a stand".


1. Surround the building with a 1000 yard perimeter to ensure no one in or out.

2. Cut electricity. ( they may have generators, but a finite amount of fuel)

3. Most importantly of all......... kill landlines and use a cell phone jammer to prevent any outside communications.

4. Bar the media from anywhere closer than 10 miles, urge media not to report the story.


I give em less than a month before they give up peacefully.
edit on R292016-01-03T17:29:14-06:00k291Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The punishment they gave these 2 men after the 'arson' charge wasn't enough. The Government needed them to be "Terrorists" so they added another charge.

That's what really sparked this stance.

I have to ask though, are these Militia abiding by the LAW? State Laws? Federal Laws? '

We have to be a nation of laws, and if they are taking this stance because they don;'t agree with the law, I cannot support them.

If they are taking this stance because they can prove nefarious activity and abrogation of the LAW, by the FEDS....then I support them. If you do not have fair REPRESENTATION...then conflict is a MUST. Sorry
edit on 3-1-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

All great points.

It will end in violence. They know not peace.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The Government needed them to be "Terrorists" so they added another charge.
Which charge made them terrorists? As far as I know, the only ones in legal hot water right now are the Hammonds, who do not support the occupation and are not charged with terrorism.


I have to ask though, are these Militia abiding by the LAW? State Laws? Federal Laws? '
It would seem that, at the least, they are trespassing on federal property.
edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paschar0
I simply want to voice my support for this effort. We watch daily how police murder citizens, steal property, abuse after abuse and absolutely nothing is done. Police mock citizens when they mention the constitution, they laugh at you filming them (or much worse). This has been a long time coming and I hope thousands show up to put government thugs in their place.

A federal judge wanted to make an unfair example out of the ranchers by extending their sentences...really? What a piece of garbage.


I'm with you.

Sad, they did their time, but the government, can stick them back in jail, that upsets me,

I pray no one gets hurt.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777




I'm with you.

The Hammonds aren't.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Stormdancer777




I'm with you.

The Hammonds aren't.


I realize that I read the topic and other articles on the net, funny how we want someone to take a stand on issues they deem unfair then when they do we vilify them, at least they are doing something, anything.

In my eyes it is unfair.
i thought this is what ATS was all about .



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The Government needed them to be "Terrorists" so they added another charge.
Which charge made them terrorists? As far as I know, the only ones in legal hot water right now are the Hammonds, who do not support the occupation and are not charged with terrorism.


I have to ask though, are these Militia abiding by the LAW? State Laws? Federal Laws? '
It would seem that, at the least, they are trespassing on federal property.


1) The argument is that the Feds are carrying out 'double jeopardy' by charging these men again with "Terrorism" after the arson charge and demanding they serve more time. I haven't researched the issue enough to know if legally the Feds were in the wrong. I'm still looking.

2) They are definitely trespassing, and possibly more.

The more I am looking into this, the more this actually looks like the "Militia" acting as agents provocateurs when something of this magnitude didn't need to exist.

I have to say, if this were any other class of people than I have to wonder if the Government would be this tolerable. These are basically armed men taking over Federal land and buildings.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
For all the crap I talk about the Black Lives Matter movement, I have to say, this is even worse as these men are armed and actually occupying Federal property.

Not good. Can't support it.....for now.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I remember Waco, that was a travesty too.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The argument is that the Feds are carrying out 'double jeopardy' by charging these men again with "Terrorism" after the arson charge and demanding they serve more time.
They were not charged with terrorism. And there is no double jeopardy because they were not retried for the same crime. Resentencing is not double jeopardy.

And again, it is the Hammonds who were convicted and they do not support the occupation.

Here:
www.justice.gov...

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



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The argument is that the Feds are carrying out 'double jeopardy' by charging these men again with "Terrorism" after the arson charge and demanding they serve more time.
They were not charged with terrorism. And there is no double jeopardy because they were not retried for the same crime.

Here:
www.justice.gov...


Yes, I said that the 'argument' they are using is "Double Jeopardy"

Didn't say they were correct.

Thanks for the link though
edit on 3-1-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
These people have no idea what they are in for if the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team gets called in. Those guys train for scenarios like this and have tons of support behind them.

The only thing going in their favor is that Lon retired in 07 or 08, can't remember now, and I seriously doubt if they will make the mistake of Ruby Ridge again.

Send in one of HRT dogs, they shoot it, it is the same as shooting a police officer.


I still say this will end peacefully unless the people inside decide to start shooting.
edit on R172016-01-03T18:17:31-06:00k171Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The argument is that the Feds are carrying out 'double jeopardy' by charging these men again with "Terrorism" after the arson charge and demanding they serve more time.
They were not charged with terrorism. And there is no double jeopardy because they were not retried for the same crime. Resentencing is not double jeopardy.

And again, it is the Hammonds who were convicted and they do not support the occupation.

Here:
www.justice.gov...


This article goes into the case a bit deeper. They were in fact convicted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, that is what the increase to 5-year minimum is all about.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Could you imagine the media sh#^storm this would be if they were any other group doing this? BLM? Occupy Wall Street? Muslim's? Armed 'protestors' making goodbye videos to their families because they expect to die?

I understand that these people view the government, the federal government, as no more than 'shoot first, ask later' type of people...but they're not so much like that. They break in on a holiday weekend and they don't bat an eye when innocent people are being murdered on a regular basis by the police.

I'm so flabbergasted I can't even think straight.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Been following this story now for about 24 hours.

The main scream media has been predictable - those involved are criminals. The ranchers going to jail for scorching their own land, are criminals. The people occupying that federally occupied log cabin, are criminals.

I'm not going to take sides, yet... but in most instances when the media plays out like a gathered, controlled stage play, it becomes much easier to make a decision.

This nation is already in deep doo-doo. This may be a critical point in what comes next.

May God have mercy upon us before it's too late.

best to all.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Balans
I'm having trouble loading that website but according to the DOJ no "enhancement" was required:

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

www.justice.gov...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: redoubt

Well the ranchers were charged with a crime, there is no debate about that. And they didn't go to jail for scorching their own land, I know that is what they say, but that doesn't make it the truth.
The people seem to be trespassing, you know breaking into a federal building, which is a crime.

I for one don't much care for the black and white labeling of some one a criminal just because they have committed one crime, but then again I have been told over and over again that is the way it works. Especially if it is a inner city kid or a someone that came over the border illegally.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join