Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday January 04 2016, @04:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the seeds-of-revolution dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:21AM (#284891)

    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.

    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

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday January 05 2016, @02:15AM (#284908)

    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.

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:16AM (#284930)

      *Sigh* I'm not even sure this is worth the effort, but here goes...

      The rule of law only exists when all men are ruled by it equally, and the laws themselves are fairly and equitably drafted.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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......

      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.

      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.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:11AM (#287132)

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:33AM (#284936)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:42AM (#285068)

        They're dead. Might makes right,

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:59AM (#285028)

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:38AM (#285067)

    Wow, just wow. It's 2016. I can't even.