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: 7
87
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Nobody is hurt, so excuse me, but i think it is f*ing funny!
Just leaving a comment to find it later. I really want to know where this is going. Hopefully they let'em occupy in peace.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
I don't think they have a right to seize and occupy a federal building.

Also, let's call this what it is - terrorism.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

bad vector
edit on 3-1-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Headline on Daily Mailnow:
'Bring your guns and come': Militiamen including Cliven Bundy's three sons take over Oregon federal building and call 'U.S. patriots' to arms in protest at pending imprisonment of two ranchers

Video included: As shared on YouTube

Militia group Outlines Oregon Building takeover Strategy



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AmethystWolf
King George felt the same way, but to each their own.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Re-reading i think we actually were in agreement. If so my apologies.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I just read through some of the Twitter posts on ABC about this topic. There are so many people willing to call this group terrorists, but are unwilling to call our government out for its corruption and terrorism. It's sad there are so many people willing to condone heavy handed and corrupt government actions. It's just a shame that for most people it takes the hammer coming down on them before they wake up and realize what's going on.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Well I won't be one to shy away from a definition. By definition they are terrorists.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I just read through some of the Twitter posts on ABC about this topic. There are so many people willing to call this group terrorists, but are unwilling to call our government out for its corruption and terrorism. It's sad there are so many people willing to condone heavy handed and corrupt government actions. It's just a shame that for most people it takes the hammer coming down on them before they wake up and realize what's going on.


One would think that when the Courts send two men to prison twice and don't even have the good grace to charge them twice there would be a little outrage and a little ore concern. I mean whats to keep them from doing it a third time? Maybe a fourth? Or even a fifth?
Will this become a life sentence? Who knows, apparently the court has not made up its mind yet.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That's true. However, you have to take a look at who has the most to lose. Anything that threatens the power of those in control will be labeled a terrorist. Who's the real terrorists? The government that's controlled no longer by the will of its people or those who seek to expose that corruption?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
While the story of the militia occupying the National Forest HQ building is the main news story, it's important to understand the backstory. This is based on how these people view the way their fellow citizens were treated by the Federal Government.

Vector 99 provided a link earlier to the actual transcript of the sentencing hearing. Even at 34 pages, it's an interesting and relatively quick read.

First off, my opinion is that these fires might have gotten out of hand based on a "hold my beer" moment. These guys are your quintessential country boys who've been farming and ranching for generations. It's a different mindset.

1. The transcript was of the initial sentencing hearing held before an old country judge who knew about his community and how business was done there. He retired the day he issued his ruling.

2. The prosecutor asked the judge to delay his ruling. But that would have meant that another judge would have to adjudicate the sentence. So the judge handled the entire hearing and pronounced their sentence in 1 day.

3. The defendants more-or-less acknowledged that they set a few fires. So they weren't really contesting the verdict.

4. The allegation that the defendants started the 2001 fire to hide their illegal hunting activity was shown to be unlikely given that they were within their right to hunt on BLM land because of their use permit.

5. The grandson, who was only 13 at the time of the 2001 event, was the star witness for the prosecution. However his testimony was questionable due to his age at the time of the event, conflict in his testimony with regard to the event, and the possibility he was seeking revenge for some apparently brutal behavior of his uncle Steve Hammond with respect to a tattoo.

6. The main issue at this hearing was whether the minimum 5 year sentence would be imposed. The law was open to some interpretation and the judge, to some extent, imposed his sentencing based on whether the acts were terrorism in nature.

7. The judge questioned the amount that the government calculated as the cost of their fire suppression activities. As someone who is familiar with the community he realized that the 2001 fire burned up some sage brush and a few Juniper trees. And that by now nature had taken care of fixing itself and no further costs were indicated.

8. They discussed at length some number of points, etc. etc. that had something to do with their sentencing.

9. He determined that Steve Hammond had some minor legal infractions in the past and that affected his sentence, making it longer than his father's sentence.

10. The judge ruled that he did not see any terrorist intent in the actions of the defendants. He ruled that the spirit of the immense Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 did not prescribe the minimal 5 year sentence for infractions of the type that the defendants were convicted.

11. The Court ordered Dwight Hammond to 3 months in prison, $200 fine, 3 years probation.

12. The Court ordered Steven Hammond to 12 months in prison, $200 fine, 3 years probation.

Everybody seemed to be okay with this except the Federal Prosecutor Frank Papagni. Apparently he appealed the sentencing to a higher court that agreed with him that the actions of the Hammonds rose to the level of terrorism and thus sentenced them to the minimum 5 year sentence.

Regular folks are upset about this because nobody believes these good old boys are terrorists. The prison sentences and fines will essentially bankrupt their business. Without their men, Steven's wife and Dwight's wife (who's 74) will have to manage the business without them for the next 5 years. The vindictiveness of the prosecutor went far beyond what was necessary for this conviction.

Now here's where I have to check to make sure that I'm properly interfacing to reality-space. I'm almost ready to believe that I somehow woke up in Bizarro World. With respect to this particular case, I'm on the same side as Cliven Bundy. I can't even believe I just said that...


-dex



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I would venture to say b definition both the militia AND the state fit this definition.
However that being said I would add that the double jeopardy fiasco puts this series of events primarily at the states feet.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

The government is equally guilty of terrorism by not granting grazing rights to these farmers, and especially for using the means they have to achieve it.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   
So there appears to be a large issue with the BLM, also it sees unfair what has happened to these ranchers. This -"call to arms of all patriots" thing is going to bring out people who have no idea what this issue , or maybe any issue, is even about. It seems as if the organizers are more about creating a scene and seeing how much trouble they can cause then actually helping the Hammonds. I mean, this is ATS and people on this thread are commenting without even reading about the issue lol. I'm glad to be safe in my great Canadian north right now with everything going on for y'all south of the border on many fronts at this moment in time!
edit on 3 by tiredoflooking because: blooperz



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

I didn't think you would read it. THANK YOU!



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Wondering why you are having difficulty with that? I mean what is it that he has done that you disagree with in the past? Not being contrarian here at all and I won't even reply just curious.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: tiredoflooking

When a cause, or injustice, is blacked out by MSM, and ignored by the general public, sometimes it takes making a little noise to get the issue noticed. We really are an apathetic society anymore. Which is why I'm pleased when people finally make a stand and say enough is enough.

At this point in time I don't believe that we're at a point where full blown violence against the government is called for. I'd be opposed to that completely. That said, every once in awhile the people have to "show their teeth" to get the point across that we won't be trampled on.




edit on 1/3/2016 by EternalSolace because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

Not paying grazing fees, while also profiting from it. The Bundy's are a case in point of welfare ranchers. I don't like them because of that. I do respect their knowledge of the law in this case though.

Right or wrong, law is in favor of these guys this time. 100%. I could defend them in a court of law.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

*sigh*

The guy sounds like a little kid who doesn't understand how society works. He sounds like some little kid throwing a temper tantrum because *he* thinks he knows what's best and *he* knows what the people want/need. So *he* is going to take what he wants with guns and whatever.

A lot of this "tyranny" is self-imposed-psychological. It's another version of the victim complex, a "poor me, we're so oppressed!"...So instead of hiring lobbyists, or running for office, writing letters, picketing, circulating petitions or sit-ins...they're going to break into a government outpost (even if it is unmanned) with weapons and lay siege to it?

Is this guy and his fellow "patriots" mentally ill?

I wasn't sure, but after watching that video I think there's something off with that guy.
edit on 3-1-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

Let's just say that I'm a bit more moderate than Mr. Bundy. At least from what I know of him.

But in this case, we are firmly on the same side. At least from what I can tell based on the documentation I have read so far.

-dex



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join