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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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.