portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements oregon & cascadia

community building | police / legal

Oregon Farm Bureau On Sentencing Of Steve and Dwight Hammond

Statement by Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue on sentencing of Steve and Dwight Hammond to five years in federal prison

October 7, 2015
SALEM, OREGON, October 7, 2015 - "Today two Oregon ranchers were sentenced to five years in federal prison under terrorism statutes for setting preventative fires on their own land. We are gravely disappointed at this outcome.

Elderly Harney County rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, a former OFB Board member and Harney County Farm Bureau president, have already served time in federal prison for their mistakes and paid their debt to society for the less-than-140 acres of BLM land that was accidentally impacted by the fires.

This is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.

Today's verdict is also hypocritical given BLM's own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked on this case quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.

This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the BLM, and undermine the cooperative spirit most ranchers have brought to the bureau in helping the health of the range.

Please join Farm Bureau and declare your support for Steve and Dwight Hammond. Join over 2,600 other citizens from across the country and show BLM that this extreme abuse of power will not go unnoticed and is shameful. Sign the petition at www.savethehammonds.com. This must never happen again.

OFB will continue to work to bring public and policymaker attention to this case."

homepage: homepage: http://www.oregonfb.org/2015/10/07/statement-oregon-farm-bureau-president-barry-bushue-sentencing-steve-dwight-hammond-years-federal-prison/


Indy Enabling Terrorists? 04.Jan.2016 23:34

chicken roost

Someone needs to get their facts straight....

 link to www.justice.gov

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out "Strike Anywhere" matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to "light up the whole country on fire." One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several "back fires" in an attempt save the ranch's winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.


*******************

This could be the end of the Portland Indymedia wire. Free Speech covers opinions about people convicted of terrorism.
Free Speech does NOT cover soliciting people to help convicted terrorists.

Y'll-Quaeda and Vanilla-ISIS will not be treated with kidde gloves forever...

RE: Fire , "terrorism" 05.Jan.2016 00:59

Lol

So....

These ranchers set fires on their own land which escaped onto federal lands. The damage was a couple hundred acres of sagebrush steppe that burned. They were convicted of arson.

That much is understandable but why were they prosecuted under a terrorism extension of the statute?

The prosecutor stated that they were not terrorists so this seems very odd.

It appears to me that the government wanted to make an example of them. I would say that the original sentences might have been reasonable but sending them to prison for five years because they burned 200 or so acres of sagebrush on federal land is clearly excessive.

And this was done by the disgraced Amanda Marshall who lost her job because she was stalking one of her employees. The whole thing looks very questionable.....

Looks like 'chicken roost' is a STATIST

" Indy enabling " ?? 04.Jan.2016 23:34 more like OREGON FARM BUREAU 05.Jan.2016 01:05

_

Did this topic posting about the southeastern Oregon rural shenanigans,


Rustle Someone's PDX IMC Jimmies ?


As you can see, the original posted statement is sourced from the Oregon Farm Bureau. oregonfb.org


So you can take your butthurt, over there.

? is that the Rustling of Jimmies, I hear ......

Case "facts straight" for the Judicially Impaired 05.Jan.2016 01:59

_

Way back in the 90s, ranchers burned some Federal land. Federal law is lacking in that area, as there is only a Federal law against burning marine-related property and an arson law covering all other burning of Federal property.

Burn some land, burn down the White House, it's all covered by the same law. This law carries a 5 year minimum sentence.

Ranchers pleaded guilty to arson charge. Prosecutor and judge both think the 5 year minimum is too much for the crime they committed, judge sentences them to 1 year instead. Which is actually illegal, given the minimum sentence legislation.

Feds come back many years later and appeal the sentence, on the grounds that it was illegal. Feds are right, of course, and the win the appeal. Ranchers are sentenced to serve the remainder of the sentence they legally should have gotten.

more on the ranchers' Plea Deal 05.Jan.2016 02:06

_

These ranchers never actually 'plead guilty', outright. The plea deal was reached after the conviction on the arson charge, but while the jury was deliberating other charges that could have carried additional penalties. The Hammonds agreed to be sentenced on the arson charges and waived their right to appeal.

First, the arson charge that the Hammonds were being tried for was the year 2006 fire. From reading the case documents there were multiple fires that the Hammonds illegally set, including two that burned onto a neighbors private land. According to the testimony of Hammonds' neighbor before the grand jury, the Hammonds had used nearby wildfires as an excuse to set "cleanup" fires on at least two occasions. One of those had burned about 25 acres and the other burned over 1000 acres of the neighbors land. The government's bitch seems to be that the Hammonds set fires knowing that fire crews were working in the area with a complete disregard for the crews safety, especially when the Hammonds told the .gov that they should get their crews out of there.

Second, the prosecutors never agreed that the Hammonds should serve less than the minimum term. Before the U.S. government submitted the sentencing memorandum, it submitted a letter to the Hammonds letting them know that it would seek the statutory sentence.

The appeal proceeded within the appropriate time frame as the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure requires that an appeal must be filed within 30 days.

Except There Was No Crime 05.Jan.2016 06:31

blues

It's not murder if nobody actually dies. Even if a court says it is.

If your car computer goes haywire and crashes your car into a pole and a big fire results, you have not committed arson, even if a court says you have. Reality is what is real.

All the information so far makes it look like these ranchers were simply using fire to clear land for ranching purposes. That's not the same as causing deliberate destruction.

Maybe they are guilty of negligence, or perhaps of some sort of irresponsibility, but it doesn't sound like arson, never mind "terrorism". Of course reality doesn't matter anymore, since we've gone beyond that.

Wrong place; wrong time, wrong isse 05.Jan.2016 11:05

shaker

Did anyone consider that with its serial nature the Hammonds were intentionally setting fires and making trouble to make some point that, in all honesty, without the Gov land intervention years ago wouldn't exist?

We hear all this talk about how these people are great 'stewards' of taxpayer property, and they make 'improvements' (like a cattle tank or stringing some barbed wire). I read over at zerohedge one of the occupiers offered a reporter a BLM sign from the place as a 'souvenier' saying the reporter should take the sign because it belonged to 'him'. Oh, really? And where in that 'his' is my piece as a taxpayer? The man's a jerk and his rationale is faulty.

I'll admit that I'm not totally familiar with Oregon so much and the problems with the feds, but I am familiar with ranchers' stewardship in the Southwest and areas guys like Bundy manage. For the most part, they preserve what they do of the land because its their life. C'mon. That's a given. Anyone who doesn't manage well just doesn't manage to stay very long. But if guys like these and their kin had been managing the land without intervention of the feds the land would have long ago been stripped of its forests and watersheds would literally be ruined or diverted. You'd have unbridled resource extraction in high gear. You'd have range wars. Or the big-rancher, cowboy-booted, 'I speak as commonly as you do but it's obvious to me that I, personally, am not common' governments as NM was until the late 90s. You'd have these same guys selling out to extraction because what they could be offered would be so much more in one offer than the family could make in generations running a few head of cattle. Even if they were so environmentally friendly, you may still find restrictions to hunt, or to fish, if just because some private entity would 'own' the land. The habitat would be more or less gone, or the 'hunt' would go to the highest bidder, guys like Dick Cheney who'll then drink a few and shoot their likewise rich buddies in the face. Besides, you would be at the whim of the property rights of single individuals for which, in their logic, there would be no recourse, either. If you think I'm full of shit, just turn back a couple of pages and look at the Dust Bowl era and at the environmental damage and suffering that was facilitated by the homesteading that had people ripping up whole states with the newer, more modern 'farming' practices.

Ask yourself historically what leads to this beyond the hyped-up 'property rights' bullshit to begin with. How'd this happen? Well, indigenous genocide, wholesale intentional slaughter of the buffalo, basically lack of recognition of the rights of those who had lived here for millenia...Now, look, the feds are full of shit. Policy made over lunch on some plush lawn. One wonders if they've ever really looked at how people live when they step out of their contrived urban environments. And, yes, many, many (outside of corporations, I would say the majority) of the BLM leaseholders are responsible land-managers. They're also acting as the fed's police on that land, so it kinda kills two birds with one stone. Besides, land of the 'commons' has quite a history, also. It's in your city parks. Do you own the extraction rights from even the land you occupy (which are mostly truly owned by some segment of finance). How'd you like to see Pioneer Square given over to a mining company?

There is a lot wrong; there has been injustice. I'd just like to see the rehtoric brought down and some real thoughts by these kinds of people that I can feel isn't tainted by what I feel is more 'I want to do what I want' attitude. They're tough people, leading what can be a difficult life, but it is their choice. Come into the modern world grossly overpopulated and increasingly abused. They've hardly thought this through in relation to what it means overall, that their idea of a living constitution, in American cultural progression, must change to meet current demands and protect what is 'common land' from others that are just like them, and I would guess that if I could go back to the origins of the ideas of 'common land' it's senior to personal property rights in seasonal tribal claims. I'm telling you, and you see it so much today, their sort would have ruined it some few generations ago all things being equal. If they've trouble like down in the SW making their lease payments through running the few cattle that the land will support, I would be occupying factory farms, not some obscure BLM office. Their living isn't being challenged by the BLM, who could be more compromising for their plight in today's environment, but by financial people whose mischief is so much more damaging and obvious.

Now, personally, I have all kinds of philosophical problems with land 'ownership' by anyone except the commons, the feds or these. Doesn't matter which to me. And I think that the feds are too heavy-handed and bone-headed with how they deal with it. I agree with those protesters that the law has degenerated to grammatical criticism and BS. But they intentionally isolate themselves from the mechanisms built into their constitution for change (as over 50% of voters do in even Presidential elections; so why doesn't the constitution work?). Those, and those like them specifically impacted in this instance, are a distinct minority of the population and they should feel lucky that we were more connected to the land and considerate of their problems years ago to sidetrack the greed that is broadcast throughout the world for all to see.

Think about it. The issue sounds huge, doesn't it? Really, it's just another small dollop on the pile beneath Amerca's ass of an outhouse that needs to be moved wholesale. Seems the stink is all that moves the masses, not real critical thought. Someone needs to manage it, thopugh there is the rightful question of how it's managed. Those people aren't doing you a favor, unless you spend your day in distraction. More 'Huxly's Heroes', fostering the distraction pushing the wrong buttons.

These Oegon guys burned YOUR LAND. GET IT? Or is that too simple. Seems it's less than 140 characters, so what's the problem?

Portland Indymedia Explodes OH NOES !!!!1111!!!1!!!! 05.Jan.2016 19:01

ur kidding, right?

No one comments the entire first day about these poor patriot "martyrs". Only when the facts are corrected do the tea party loons ooze out to object.

"As you can see, the original posted statement is sourced from the Oregon Farm Bureau. oregonfb.org "

You must be new here. The entire point of Indymedia and the reason people publish is to agitate and convince people to get into political "activism". Once that meant liberal and social justice causes. The last few years it's Tea Party light conspiracism.

Progress! /sarc

Indymedia/Portland Indymedia probably have noth8ing to worry about....unless the people who run it or their close associates are the ones who published this article. Because that would mean they DO support domestic terrorism.

" The entire point of Indymedia " 06.Jan.2016 00:06

?

And,


what precisely have the

" liberal and social justice causes / activism "

accomplished during, oh let's say the years since 2008 of the Obama administration.


( ......... crickets ............ )



Get out of here with your concern troll (<-- look it up) disinformation.




Yes -

the original article is indeed sourced from the Oregon Farm Bureau oregonfb.org

Take your rustled jimmies OVER THERE, to THEM.

Not sure I understand.... 06.Jan.2016 12:06

?

"the original article is indeed sourced from the Oregon Farm Bureau oregonfb.org

Take your rustled jimmies OVER THERE, to THEM. "

You're saying the OFB posted this to Indymedia? Why? They have their own website and I really doubt the OFB considers IMC a credible media outlet. Just sayin.

If anyone hasn't heard Vanilla ISIS is apparently running out of supplies

"Oregon 'terrorists' don't plan siege very well, put out plea for snacks and supplies
Posted 2 days ago by Bethan McKernan in news"

 link to i100.independent.co.uk

This is a joke to the rest of the world.

 https://twitter.com/JohnHulsey/status/683693841421963264

"#YallQaeda waging #YeeHawd on America and we're still calling it a "peaceful protest." It's domestic terrorism and we need to shut it down.
8:58 AM - 3 Jan 2016 "

Dunno why indy users are defending this.

@ Second ? 06.Jan.2016 15:04

Here to Help

Second '?' wrote: "Dunno why indy users are defending this."

You're confusing two issues: the BLM conviction of the Hammonds and the current stand off with the Bundys inspired by those convictions.

That said, readers defense of the Hammonds is misguided at best, and ignorant at worst. The fact that the Bundys are using that case as an excuse for domestic terrorism undermines the assertion the Hammonds actions were innocent. They appear to be part of the same militant reactionary circles.

Then the Bundys threw a seige but failed to bring sufficient supplies. That is funny. 'Yeehawd', indeed.

" why indy users are defending this. " 06.Jan.2016 12:06 06.Jan.2016 22:32

"defending" W H A T ???

Lol,

so anyone who defies the federal government, in any fashion is somehow 'beneath contempt' for "typical Indymedia users" ?





what the **** is a "typical" Indymedia user in the first place?




the Hammonds are a joke?


or, the (#BLM-and-other-fostered/supported) denigration of the **BUNDY**-instigated takeover of the Malheur refuge?


Which is it?

do you know the difference between the two?

Do you even comprehend what is being discussed here?


is Twitter and hashtag-distributed "activism" all that you comprehend or participate in exclusively?






QUOTE:
"Not sure I understand...."

NO, you _absolutely_ do NOT understand either the topic of this post/thread, or the issues raised by the Hammond / Bundy case.

i.e. STFU and back to your regularly scheduled hoodie-anarchy programming.

@"defending" W H A T ??? 07.Jan.2016 12:48

???

"i.e. STFU and back to your regularly scheduled hoodie-anarchy programming. "

And where would that be? Cuz is shore ain't on Portland Indymedia.....

" Cuz is shore ain't on Portland Indymedia..... " 07.Jan.2016 16:01

Already Asked (and no-one answered) —

Portland Indymedia's Newswire has become a promenade for the mostly European-sourced 'Political Theory' / 'Economic Inequality' Re-postings of:
marc1seed _at_ yahoo dawt com


Brent Herbert and his unhinged "satellite imagery interpretations" / 'Unusual Weather on the Sahara'


along with some weekly A-Radio and Shortwave Radio
( these of course are entirely appropriate for and inline with PDX IMC's makeup and mission )


and the random, infrequent 'Portland Police Officer Murderous Brutality' demonstration-protest announcements.


( plus just now, the 100%-in-line-with-corporate-mass-media "Oregon ranchers = terrorists" meme )


did I miss anything?

@AA 07.Jan.2016 16:34

correction

>( plus just now, the 100%-in-line-with-corporate-mass-media "Oregon ranchers = terrorists" meme )

No one said Oregon ranchers are terrorist. But the forcible occupation of a federal property(public land) by the Bundy gang(who aren't even from Oregon), with threats to stay for months and use lethal force "if necessary" while armed to the teeth IS terrorism.

If they weren't lily white Vanilla ISIS, they would have been dragged out in cuffs already.

So, nice strawman. Maybe you should go join #YallQaeda.

" No one said Oregon ranchers are terrorist. / nice strawman. " 07.Jan.2016 16:41

indeed

Origins of Rancher Terrorism in Burns, Oregon
Jeffrey St. Clair

 link to www.counterpunch.org

During the spring of 1995, shortly after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, James Ridgeway and I spent a couple of weeks traveling across the West for a series of stories in the Village Voice that chronicled the rise of militant new rightwing movements of militias, white supremacists, Christian Identity sects and anti-government groups, including a profile of central Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond, who had repeatedly threatened refuge officials with violence over an eight year period. On one occasion Hammond told the manager of the federal refuge that "he was going to tear his head off and shit down his neck."

On August 3, 1994, a Fish and Wildlife Service crew turned up to complete the task of fencing off the marsh. They found the fence destroyed and a monkey-wrenched earthmover parked in the middle of the marsh. While the feds were waiting on a towing service to remove the Cat, Hammond's son Steve showed up and began calling the government men "worthless cocksuckers" and "assholes." Hammond then arrived at the scene, according to the government's documents, and tried to disrupt the removal of the equipment. The rancher was arrested.

Oregon Ranchers Declared Terrorists and Sent Back to Prison 07.Jan.2016 16:44

Thursday, October 08, 2015

SALEM, OREGON, October 7, 2015 - Today two Oregon ranchers were sentenced to five years in federal prison under terrorism statutes for setting preventative fires on their own land.


Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists’? — The Fix 07.Jan.2016 16:48

By Janell Ross January 3

As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And the Associated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them."

Not one seemed to lean toward terms such as "insurrection," "revolt," anti-government "insurgents" or, as some on social media were calling them, "terrorists."


AS



SOME



ON



SOCIAL



MEDIA



ARE



CALLING



THEM




...


Whatever's Going on in Oregon, It's Not Terrorism 07.Jan.2016 16:52

Tuesday, January 05, 2016

Terrorism is the use of violence against noncombatants for a political purpose. That's not what's happening here.


A key to understanding the political world lies in realizing that the words terrorism and terrorist are inherently political terms. This has been clear in international affairs, but we now see this in domestic matters, specifically the case involving ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond and the takeover of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service building in Harney County, Oregon.

The Hammonds have been imprisoned under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, an ostentatiously get-tough bill -- passed after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building -- favored by congressional Republicans and signed by triangulating Democratic President Bill Clinton, who was seeking reelection that year and whose wife, the hawkish Hillary Clinton, is seeking the presidency today. Among other things, the Act limits habeas corpus relief in federal courts for those claiming to have been unlawfully imprisoned.

The words terrorism and terrorist are also used to describe the people now occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in sympathy with the Hammonds. CNN reports that "progressive" opponents of the occupiers refer to them as "YallQaeda" and "vanilla ISIS." Some urge government violence against them.

Is this description fair? One can answer this question regardless of what one thinks of the Hammonds and the occupiers. If terrorism has any reasonable referent, it is the use of violence against noncombatants for a political purpose. The point is to terrorize by killing or injuring noncombatants, or destroying their property, in an effort to effect change.

Nowhere do we see such violence in either the Hammonds' case or the occupation of the government building. The actions that brought criminal charges against the Hammonds consisted in setting two fires on their own land in 2001 and 2006, the first to destroy invasive vegetation, the second ostensibly to protect against a wildfire on adjacent land controlled by the central government. On both occasions the fires unintentionally spread to the government-controlled land. The Hammonds put out the first fire; the second fire reportedly endangered government firefighters, whom the Hammonds knew were in the vicinity.

Even if we grant the worst allegations -- that the Hammonds wrongfully declined to inform the government that it would be setting the fires and that one fire was allegedly set to cover up poaching -- the actions look nothing like terrorism. No one was intentionally threatened, and no one was injured or killed. So why were the cases prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years? (The trial judge refused to impose the mandatory minimum, but the government appealed after the Hammonds had served their terms and they were returned to prison, sparking the protest.) Even if we make the dubious concession that the Act was a good-faith attempt to fight bona fide terrorism, what does it have to do with the Hammonds?

As for the occupiers of the government building, who now call themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, again, where's the terrorism? Yes, some occupiers are armed. But the building was unoccupied when they entered it, and no one was threatened, much less harmed or killed. It's reported that roads around the building are open. The news media come and go at will.

In neither case was anyone terrorized. To be sure, the occupiers have a political objective, to pressure the central government into giving up control of its massive land holdings. Terrorism, however, requires a particular kind of violence along with a political motive. Critics describe the occupiers as white supremacists. I don't know if they are, although John Ritzheimer, a spokesman for the occupiers, is an anti-Muslim activist. But regardless, their conduct in Burns, Ore., does not constitute terrorism, and no constructive purpose is served by promiscuously throwing that inflammatory word around.

I'll leave for another time the controversy surrounding the government's landholdings except to say that one need not regard all governments as illegitimate (as I do) to see something wrong in the U.S. government's control of so much land, especially in the West, holdings acquired through forcible preemption. While white ranchers and anti-U.S. government activists claim that their rights and the state of Oregon's "rights" have been usurped by the central government, largely overlooked is the solid claim of the Northern Paiute.

According to the Indian Country Today Media Network, "Ironically, the 'legal' basis for [the occupiers'] starting a fight with the federal government is that sovereignty 'really' belongs to Oregon rather than the Paiutes, who have seen their federal trust land shrink from over one and a half million acres to a tiny remnant of 760 acres in Burns, Oregon, where this current armed standoff began." It adds, "President U.S. Grant established the Malheur Indian Reservation for the Northern Paiute in 1872.... White settlement nibbled at the Malheur Indian Reservation until the Bannock War in 1878, which ended with surrendered Paiutes and Bannocks on the reservation being removed, officially to the Yakama Reservation in Washington Territory." (See more on the Northern Paiute claim here, here, here, and especially here.)

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom is right that the national government should vacate the land. But it's wrong about who should have it. It was stolen from the Northern Paiute, and therefore it should be returned.


As for the occupiers of the government building, Where's The Terrorism? 07.Jan.2016 16:56

( from ^ above article )

As for the occupiers of the government building, who now call themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, again, where's the terrorism?

Yes, some occupiers are armed. But the building was unoccupied when they entered it, and no one was threatened, much less harmed or killed. It's reported that roads around the building are open. The news media come and go at will.

In neither case was anyone terrorized.

To be sure, the occupiers have a political objective, to pressure the central government into giving up control of its massive land holdings.

Terrorism, however, requires a particular kind of violence along with a political motive.

Critics describe the occupiers as white supremacists.

I don't know if they are, although John Ritzheimer, a spokesman for the occupiers, is an anti-Muslim activist.

But regardless, their conduct in Burns, Ore., does not constitute terrorism, and no constructive purpose is served by promiscuously throwing that inflammatory word around.


@indeed and others 07.Jan.2016 17:02

correction

The reply was to this comment >"Oregon ranchers = terrorists" meme

Any reasonable person can see claiming the mass media is saying Oregon Ranchers = terrorists is a strawman and untrue

Which is completely different from SOME ranchers who happen to reside in Oregon being convicted of terrorism, which is true.

You're welcome.

>Why aren't we calling the Oregon occupiers 'terrorists'?

Short answer: no good reason. They are armed, illegally occupying Federal property, and have stated they will use force if anyone tries to remove them. Using threats of force for criminal activity is terrorism.

Shorter answer: they're white.

@( from ^ above article ) 07.Jan.2016 17:07

Yeah sure...

"As for the occupiers of the government building, who now call themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, again, where's the terrorism? "

They are illegally occupying a federal building using the threat of force to scare people into letting them get away with it(so they hope).

And if you think there's nothing wrong with that, publish your address so the next time you go on vacation users can occupy your house as long as it's "unoccupied when they entered it, and no one was threatened, much less harmed or killed." And then not leave when you ask them to.

Somehow I doubt you'll be that okay with it.

" mass media strawman " 07.Jan.2016 17:20

indeed

"Oregon ranchers = terrorists" meme —

is being regurgitated (via Corporate-Owned Social Media) willingly and profligately by 'social justice' activists, including some on PDX IMC.

Your pathetic after-the-fact dance of semantics absolutely does not absolve you from complicity.




QUOTE:
"claiming the mass media is saying Oregon Ranchers = terrorists is a strawman and untrue"

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/01/431356.shtml#445233
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/
--
Some on social media were calling them "terrorists."

And PDX IMC, lately anyway (particularly after the "rise" of #BLM) happens to be particularly addicted to Corporate-Mass-Media-owned Social Media.



you "Quoted"
" >Why aren't we calling the Oregon occupiers 'terrorists'? "

That ^ is from the (above) Washington Post blog article.

It is not a statement of the PDX IMC liar-commenters/Disinformationalist Trolls,
nor is it "your own" position/statement.




QUOTE:
"Which is completely different from SOME ranchers who happen to reside in Oregon being convicted of terrorism, which is true."

"convicted of terrorism" — Wrong.

The Hammonds were convicted (of some of the charges against them, not others) under a terrorism extension of the existing statute.

The prosecutor even stated that they were not terrorists.

It was simply a case (that had been dragged out over many years) in which the federal government decided to machinate the legal system's prosecutory options in the most egregious manner. I.E. "stick it to them real good."

the most that the Hammonds were guilty of, was (some form of) arson. They were specifically prosecuted by the federal government under a specious, terrorism extension of the arson statute(s).

i.e. they were guilty and convicted of arson.



QUOTE:
"Using threats of force for criminal activity is terrorism."

Wrong. That would be (some defined-in-legal-system form of) 'criminal activity' i.e. murder, arson, rape, robbery etc.

Terrorism is the use of violence against noncombatants for a political purpose. That's not what's happening here.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/01/431356.shtml#445234



QUOTE:
"Short answer: no good reason."

This is the correct answer.



QUOTE:
" Shorter answer: they're white. "

And so are you.

You're welcome.

Latest: Sheriff sez go home 07.Jan.2016 17:21

DN

"Outside of a few self proclaimed constitutional experts and anarchist nobody wants those militants in our wildlife refuge. Locals, Indians, & Americans want them gone. What the people really want is to throw them in jail where they can ponder what freedom and rights really are."

Hmmm..was sure there was a comment to this same effect here: the locals want the militia to GO HOME.
Maybe it was in the other thread...

@indeed 07.Jan.2016 17:22

whatev

tl;dr

07.Jan.2016 17:07 07.Jan.2016 17:39

yeah ri-ight...

QUOTE:
"They are illegally occupying a federal building using the threat of force to scare people into letting them get away with it(so they hope)."

Have they killed or injured noncombatants, or destroyed property, in their efforts to effect political change?

Not yet. Ain't terrorism.




QUOTE:
"And if you think there's nothing wrong with that,"

Doesn't matter what my thoughts are, on the "rightness" or "wrongness".


Terrorism (and specific U.S. federal government penalties pertaining to it) requires a particular kind of violence along with a political motive.

Conduct of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge building occupiers in Burns, Ore., does not constitute terrorism.

Throwing the inflammatory "T" word around in relation to this building's occupation has no basis.




QUOTE:
" publish your address so the next time you go on vacation users can occupy your house as long as it's "unoccupied when they entered it, and no one was threatened, much less harmed or killed." And then not leave when you ask them to."

What is the point of your nonsensical, hypothetical situation stated ^ here?

If no one was injured or killed for a political purpose, it ain't terrorism.

If, in fact, my home was occupied by 'someone' when I was "gone on vacation" —
and then, upon my return they "didn't leave when I asked them to",
I'd just call the cops and have them arrested for breaking and entering.
And the judge would convict them under local-state statutes.

But they absolutely wouldn't be "terrorists" and neither would there be any chance of them being convicted/punished under such laws.

p.s. My address (and almost everyone else's) of course is already published online at multiple venues.
No one needs an address a priori in order to 'occupy' a particular residential home anyway. Just pick a home and 'do it' (prepared to accept consequences, natch).

you should STFU now before semantically digging it any deeper

RE: " locals want the militia to GO HOME " 07.Jan.2016 17:44

.

No doubt that many "locals" (people who live in this part of Harney County, many of whom work for federal or State government) do not welcome the outside-state Bundy occupation.


Nor did they, or even Oregon militia members ask for it.

here's a militia activist explaining it —

Bundy Invades Oregon


They still need snacks lol 07.Jan.2016 20:00

YUM!!!

 link to www.reddit.com

"To be fair- I always stocked up on ammo and never stocked up on food when playing Oregon Trail too. "

So true.

Reddit, hashtag Corporate-Owned Social Media memes are your sum total 07.Jan.2016 20:16

.

.