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.
Q: What sparked the militia takeover?
A: The answer here is complicated. In short, the militants are outraged about a mandatory minimum sentence received for arson by a local rancher and his son.
The ranchers, Dwight Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son Steve, 43, were convicted of federal arson charges, stemming from a pair or fires on federal land near their ranch. The first was reportedly set in 2001 to cover up their illegal poaching of a deer on government property. It burned 139 acres. The second was reportedly set in 2006 as a defensive measure, to protect the ranch from an approaching lightning-sparked wildfire. That arson reportedly endangered volunteer firefighters camped nearby. The government would seek $1 million in damages. (For a deep dive of the backstory read this piece in The Oregonian.)
Q: So some Oregon ranchers got busted for arson. Where's the tyranny?
A: The ranchers' case became a cause celebre in the patriot/militia movement because the pair were sentenced for their arson crimes under a provision of a law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And they were oddly sentenced twice.
The federal law in question doesn't just deal with terrorism. It created a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence for arson on federal land: "Whoever maliciously damages or destroys... by means of fire...any...real property...owned or possessed by...the United States...shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years…"
The first federal judge to handle the case concluded that the mandatory sentence was too stiff and gave the pair far lighter sentences, which they served. But the U.S. attorney in the case called foul; the federal government took the rare step of appealing the sentence. In October 2015, the Ninth Circuit imposed the mandatory minimum, ruling that: "given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense." The ranchers are due back in federal prison Monday to serve out their five years each.
But this odd re-sentencing, under a statute that makes it sound like the cattlemen were being prosecuted for terrorism, inflamed the paranoid passions of the anti-government patriot and militia movements, and brought the militants to Burns for a rally on Saturday.
Q: What do the militants want?
A: In a phone in interview with The Oregonian, another Bundy son, Ryan, laid out the militants' demands: that the Hammonds be released and that the surrounding federal lands be ceded to local control.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area... will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," Ryan Bundy said. He added, "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
The Harney County Court released a statement this week in response to the group’s request that its three members — a judge and two commissioners — resign along with Ward, saying: “All four individuals decline the request.”
The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, which has publicly supported Ward, said Thursday that it did not stand by people who it described as arming themselves, breaking into publicly owned buildings and intimidating and harassing local residents and officials.
“These men and women are asking for change, and we support their right to challenge our government to make change,” the association said in a statement. “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen
Anything?
www.cnn.com...
"Due to escalating tensions, the cattle have been released from the enclosures in order to avoid violence and help restore order," the BLM said in a prepared statement.
This is an example of backing up a claim made.
originally posted by: Informer1958
The cost
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen
Anything?
www.cnn.com...
"Due to escalating tensions, the cattle have been released from the enclosures in order to avoid violence and help restore order," the BLM said in a prepared statement.
This is an example of backing up a claim made.
I knew the official MSM reports would cloud your thinking.
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Informer1958
Now these idiots want people to pay for their legal fees? Did they not know what they were getting into because it sure doesn't seem like it. From asking to send supplies and now money for their legal fees, why do you take them seriously? What have they accomplished? One man dead, two men still in prison, and now they have friends coming soon. They've cost the taxpayers over 250k so far and soon they'll be forgotten.
When they asked for supplies some people sent them adult toys and gallons of lube.
............
However, there was a problem with that plan -- few in Nevada would touch Bundy's cattle for fear of being blacklisted.
"The sale yards are very nervous about taking what in the past has been basically stolen cattle from the federal government," Nevada Agriculture Commissioner Ramona Morrison said.
Documents show the BLM paid a Utah cattle wrangler $966,000 to collect Bundy's cattle and a Utah auctioneer to sell them. However, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert refused to let Bundy cattle cross state lines, saying in a letter: "As Governor of Utah, I urgently request that a herd of cattle seized by the Bureau of Land Management from Mr. Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada, not be sent to Utah. There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being, if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah."
..........
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Informer1958
Now these idiots want people to pay for their legal fees? Did they not know what they were getting into because it sure doesn't seem like it. From asking to send supplies and now money for their legal fees, why do you take them seriously? What have they accomplished? One man dead, two men still in prison, and now they have friends coming soon. They've cost the taxpayers over 250k so far and soon they'll be forgotten.
When they asked for supplies some people sent them adult toys and gallons of lube.
originally posted by: CB328
The whole thing is smelling like a classic blackmail/false-flag set up
No, it sounds like retarded Tea Partiers to me.
Thanks to right wing politics and propaganda (like talk radio) and TV and other laziness, America is now full of idiots who believe stupid things like paying a few hundred or thousand dollars to graze a herd on gov't land is tyranny, but spending $40,000 on a monster truck is smart.