SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NPR is reporting on this tale of direct action:
A self-styled militia in eastern Oregon grabbed national headlines Saturday when they broke into the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There the armed group remains Sunday, occupying the federal building in protest of what it sees as government overreach on rangelands throughout the western United States.
"We stand in defense," Ammon Bundy, the group's apparent leader and spokesperson, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "And when the time is right we will begin to defend the people of Harney County, [Ore.,] in using the land and the resources."
Ammon's brother, Ryan, has reportedly used harsher rhetoric, saying members of the militia are willing to kill or be killed.
Their last name may ring a bell. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are sons of rancher Cliven Bundy, who notably took part in an armed standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in Nevada in 2014.
Ammon Bundy now is part of a group of 15 to 150 people — depending on which source you believe — who are protesting the arson convictions of two Oregon ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven.
Also at Oregon Live, NYT, and the Associated Press.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday January 04 2016, @09:48PM
Uhhh, no it is not. Moreover, I don't think anybody disagreeing with me believes the government can do wrong. I certainly know you're not a blind cheerleader for government.
Let's back up a minute....
Yeah, I'm still with you. Not a reason to violate the law.
Starting to lose me. I thought you were bringing an actual solution, but I'll still play along.
I'm supposed to be surprised right? Well, golly gee willickers, look at that.... Politician didn't represent us. Huh.
You are aware of the reasons business outsource specific tasks? Becoming a politician isn't my core business, and it's more than little ridiculous I need to become a politician to prevent other politicians from stealing my land or property. According to you, we all need to be politicians in the same way everybody should own guns. We would be safer and left more alone right?
That's HOGWASH. I shouldn't have needed to drastically alter my life away from a career around computing, just so that I could keep Glass-Steagall in place, just to keep Wall Street well regulated, just so that I could prevent the near economic collapse and raping of America. It's my fault I lost multiple houses to such regulatory failure, because I forgot to become a politician, and be a King of Thieves.
No sir, we should not all be forced to be politicians. The legislative branch simply needs more regulations, accountability, and severe punishments . We need 20 year prison sentences for certain offenses when you're an elected official. Not the apathy and apparent support they get now.
I would start to speak of campaign finance reform, but that would be a belief the system can be salvaged. That's not a belief that I have either.
Not liking what your government does, and how it *doesn't* represent you, is not equivalent to not liking government at all. I'm a huge fan of representative government that serves to create a viable foundation upon which an advanced society can thrive. It would be super nice to live in one before I died, but I've long accepted that the government I alluded to isn't here, or coming any time soon.
So is this statement. At some point, civil disobedience is greatly required in order for freedom to be maintained. Armed men taking over a federal building is a bit past civil disobedience, but then again, we did need to go to extraordinary lengths (a civil war) to decide if the law granting me ownership of a nigger was ethically appropriate and in keeping with our Constitution. Of course, at this point in our history we celebrate it as evidence of how we evolved and got "better" as a country.
Enforcing corrupt laws isn't a protection against accountability. The Bundy family was correct in pointing guns at government agents. That argument goes back all the way to the 1800s, and evidence of political thievery of land. In my own family history, I'm sure we've actually killed bankers at some point coming for us. When people are coming for you and your land, there really is only one response: Rifles and bullets. I've got multiple experiences with that in my family history too, including the Oklahoma Sooners. We shot an entire family of brothers dead because they came to our farm a month after the race to run us off with rifles. Shooed their horses off after burying them in three graves on the property. Even shot them in the backs after we graciously kowtow'd and said we would leave so they dropped their guard :) My family takes the whole "live free or die" motto very seriously.
The land, and cattle, belong to the Bundy family, and this has been true for generations of their family. I've not heard the arguments about Oregon, but if it is anything like Nevada, the federal government is quite firmly in the wrong. I don't believe these are valid issues of emminent domain either, and I've not heard any arguments for public safety and well being mandating that land or animals be taken away from farmers and ranchers.
I'm trying to find out more about the specific arguments against federal government here before I simply conclude these men are terrorists. I'm not doing that until I hear the arguments. For that matter, you will find out how good the arguments are if hundreds of thousands of riled up men start pouring into Oregon like they did with Nevada. In that case Nevada acted correctly, by backing down to the Bundys and giving them back their cattle. If these men are truly stupid and without any valid arguments, then we will see far less support appear for them. Meanwhile, I'm still looking to see exactly what is going on, and why they feel this is the only way for government to listen to them.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:21AM
Might makes right? Screw rule of law?
Wow.
Just. Plain. Wow.
You have convinced me: the entire lot of you are as batshit insane as rabid dogs. Thanks for clearing that up.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday January 05 2016, @02:15AM
The rule of law only exists when all men are ruled by it equally, and the laws themselves are fairly and equitably drafted. When the law itself fails, then the law itself is subject to massive regulatory and political capture, then the rule of law you so highly cherish doesn't exist. The federal government has lost all moral authority in their claims that their laws are just, impartial, and for the sole benefit of the citizenry. In almost every meaningful way, the federal government only exists as an arm of special monied interests, and shareholder concerns.
In the case of the Bundys, they actually owned the rights to the land decades ahead of the "laws" that took it away. "Might makes right" is actually a term that defines the actions of the federal government WRT Clive Bundy and his family ranch owned and operated for many generations since the Wild West came into existence. It was the federal government, specifically the environmental organizations, that unilaterally rezoned the Bundy's property as new federal land. I've yet to hear an argument that justifies such seizures by eminent domain, and I can't blame a ranch family for one second fighting the stealing of their long held ancestral lands by government. You know, there are no federal buildings, no research buildings, no highways, nothing justifying the land seized by the federal government in that case. Just a weak argument that the government owns it, which is quite weak indeed.
The Bundys only had to bring out guns, after decades of bureaucratic maneuvering caused federal government to steal and hold their cattle for destruction (they were preparing to kill thousands of cattle to send a message). While the government may want to spin it as the Bundys refusing to accept government mandates, but that would be transparent corruption and bullshit. The truth is that the federal government finally ceased their arguments (incorrect arguments) and decided to start seizing property (the cattle on federal land in name only) to strong arm the Bundys into giving up land. Due process wasn't going the federal government's way, so then they needed to bypass due process entirely.
That's not proper government, and *THAT* is Might Makes Right. The Bundys had every reason, and legal right, to continue their battle with the federal government for as many decades as it took. Quite frankly, anytime the government is seizing land, that should be up for a vote and a heck of a lot more transparent.
You forget. The Bundys were pushed to physically protect their cattle with armed guards after arguing about the government seizing land originally held by their great-great-great-great grandfathers. Screw the law? Hardly. The Bundys are practically a model of restraint given their specific circumstances.
I'm not a rabid dog. I'm a citizen that realizes when his government fails him, it needs to be reminded of who it truly serves. All of your vapid protestations and appeals to emotion overlook the instances in my country (possibly ours) where the citizenry needed to fight (up to and including civil war) to ensure America's freedoms remain untainted.
I would agree with you, only if the government was impeccable and beyond reproach (at least in the majority). However, starting with the Patriot Act, its become ever more apparent that a civil war is entirely necessary for us to get back on track, and yes, that will involve guns being pointed against various agents-of-the-state.
Ironically, it is I fighting against Might Makes Right. We agree on that, and both wish for rule of law. The major salient difference between us? You think rule of law still exists, while I'm trying to bring it back......
As for Oregon? It will depend on the arguments. Given the amazing situation in which the federal government has horrendously abused the Bundy family for around a 100 years, I refuse to see these "terrorists" as the rabid dogs you claim we are, until I hear exactly what the argument is about. I don't rule out the federal government being wrong here too, or the need for a massive standoff just to get proper due process back in government.
Government is not automatically correct, and I now give the benefit of the doubt to the domestic "terrorists". Especially, since increasingly more and more, being an activist and against government corruption and overreach gets you categorized that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:16AM
*Sigh* I'm not even sure this is worth the effort, but here goes...
And where the hell is your evidence that the Bundys et al are not being treated just the same as everyone else under the law? They already had their day in court. The lost their case and BLM showed up to confiscate their cattle for not paying their taxes. Don't like the court's ruling? Don't think they rendered the correct verdict? I got news for you: just because you and Cliven Bundy et al don't like the verdict does not mean that they were not treated just like everyone else under the law. And you and Cliven Bundy do have remedies for laws which you feel are not "equitably drafted". You are still allowed to petition your government for redress of grievances, just like everyone else. This is what equality under the law actually means. It doesn't mean that you get to take whatever you want whenever you feel that the government didn't rule in your favor.
I realize that "regulatory capture" is now the favorite catch phrase of libertarians and conservative republicans but this is utter bullshit. Here, we live in a representative democracy, flawed though it may be. You seem to actually be advocating for anarchy. The government has always had authority to regulate public lands. If you don't like this, go find a deserted island to live on.
Oh, Puleeze! Stop draping yourself in the flag! You ain't the hero you apparently suppose yourself to be. You are actually advocating for anarchy. If you were actually the champion of rule of law, you would be fighting this in the legislatures and the courts, not advocating for armed insurrection.
While I agree that government is not automatically correct, I think your conflation in this case of activist with terrorist is highly overwrought. While I disagree with the terrorism label, the reason why some are characterizing them that way is not because they are engaging in civil disobedience. It's that part about threats of violence that has linked them in the minds of some to terrorists. The fact that you view them as misunderstood heroes speaks volumes about your (poor) judgement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:11AM
Go do a wikipedia search for unpopulated islands and laugh in amazement.
Every deserted island in the world is claimed by the British, French, US, or others. The US specifically claimed them under the 1800s era Guano Act, which was used to secure the guano covered ones for saltpeter reserves. Any islands that might have been missed have since been claimed under Nature Conservation/Preservation acts, even if they are grossly outside of national boundaries.
The Islands surrounding Pitcairn are another example. Only one out of 4-5 is populated (Pitcairn), but the Crown claims all of them, including EEZs (which only 2 of them COULD qualify for, and only Pitcairn actually does, since it is populated.)
As another example: Go read about Minerva. That is what happens if somebody tries to colonize a deserted island. The politicos do not want anyone new coming to the game.
For further reading, see UNICLOS. The index should make the relevant articles easy to find.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:33AM
So just when are the Bundys going to give the land back to the Native Americans?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:42AM
They're dead. Might makes right,
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:59AM
EdIII? Meds, bro! Meds! Get back on 'em! These guys are pirates, wanting to use public land as their own fiefdom. I say "fie" and "charge them double!" Anyone who cannot make money ranching under these terms must either be an incompetent business person, or a fundie Mormon with no future. So which are you, edIII? We already know that you are almost singlehandedly responsible for race-based slavery in the Americas. What other sins is your White ass responsible for? Huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:38AM
Wow, just wow. It's 2016. I can't even.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:34AM
No sir, we should not all be forced to be politicians. The legislative branch simply needs more regulations, accountability, and severe punishments . We need 20 year prison sentences for certain offenses when you're an elected official. Not the apathy and apparent support they get now.
I would start to speak of campaign finance reform, but that would be a belief the system can be salvaged. That's not a belief that I have either.
What we need is for people to do their duty as citizens, become informed and vote. That is what the system requires to function. We won't fix things in one election, it took far longer than that to create this mess, but we can start. It is the apathy of the American public that is at fault. If everyone eligible to vote took an interest and voted, hopefully voting out the corrupt, the inept, the liars and the thieves (in short, our current Congress), but even if nearly everyone was re-elected 100% participation would frighten the politicians more than anything else. But no, voter participation is pathetically low and despite a roughly 10% approval rating, 90% of Congress is re-elected, over and over, despite failing over and over to govern as they should. Of course, it all comes back to being informed. If one gets their knowledge of current issues from Facebook shares, or Fox News, or MSNBC, or pretty much any single source, one is not informed, which, ultimately, is why the current situation exists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:36AM
In my own family history, I'm sure we've actually killed bankers at some point coming for us. When people are coming for you and your land, there really is only one response: Rifles and bullets.
Okay, so, if I'm reading this right, your ancestors defaulted on their mortage, then murdered their creditors when they came to lawfully take possession of the agreed-upon security for the debt. And you think this is not only okay to do, in general, but also the only option.
That is LSD trip-level battiness.