An unpredictable new chapter in the wars over federal land use in the West unfolded Sunday after a group of armed activists split off from an earlier protest march and occupied a national wildlife refuge in remote southeastern Oregon.
The activists, led by rancher Ammon Bundy, set themselves up in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 30 miles southeast of here, defying the organizers of a rally and march held Saturday in support of two local ranchers set to report to federal prison Monday to serve a sentence for arson.
Some of the occupiers said they planned to stay indefinitely. Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said authorities from several law enforcement organizations were monitoring the situation.
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Ward said in a statement Sunday. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”
The occupation revealed deep divides among some Western ranchers who want freer rein over federal lands but are split on whether to achieve those goals peacefully or more confrontationally.
This group is part of the Cliven Bundy clan who felt they could cheat us of their rent money on federal lands. Back in 2014 their followers shut down traffic on interstate 15 and vowed to shoot federal marshals. It seems that the feds caved.
Organizers of Saturday’s rally said several hundred protesters marched through Burns, a ranching town of fewer than 3,000 residents, in a show of support for Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, who after decades of clashes with the federal government were sentenced in October to five years in prison.
But, at the rally’s end, Ammon Bundy and an estimated dozen supporters declared they would take up arms and occupy a federal refuge building in protest. Amanda Peacher, a reporter for Oregon Public Broadcasting, reported that the men had entered a building at the refuge that was unstaffed over the weekend.
“We’re out here because the people have been abused long enough, their lands and their resources have been taken from them to the point that it is putting them literally into poverty,” Ammon Bundy, clad in a brown rancher hat and thick flannel coat, told reporters Sunday morning, his breath forming small puffs of cloud in front of him as it hit the cold Oregon air.
Someone needs to explain the difference between these clowns taking over a federal wildlife refuge and someone taking over the State Department. Both are acts of terrorism. Period. Here in Virginia, if you want to raise a herd of cattle, you let them graze on YOUR land. Can you picture some farmer bringing his cattle onto the Manassas Battlefield property?
They should all be arrested and charged with domestic terrorism. You don’t just take over public property. Shades of OWS.
The Hammonds started wild fires that burned 140 acres of Federal Land – putting untold numbers of people at risk, including those that need to fight the fire. Why should they go unpunished for their actions? Where is the rule of law here?
The Bundy’s – even Clive, the dad, is wondering why they are in Oregon. They are hot head idiots.
Just another group of terrorists that won’t be called terrorists because they are right wingers. Being white doesn’t hurt either.
I agree these people are idiots . Completely. That said, sometimes I think it is important to step back and try to understand why they are so angry. My guess is, and this is going back more than the recent administration, the Federal government has affected a way of life they once knew. There may have been understandings about how they could use the Federal lands for their livelihoods that that were either changed or reneged on. They may have been having trouble financially since these changes have taken place and feel they have nothing to lose. They may feel powerless to get other people to listen and see their position. In contemporary culture they may be completely in the wrong regarding the use of Federal lands and who actually has rights to them and what Federal lands represent, but my guess is this had changed from what it use to be in a less populated and less connected world.
Do the ends justify the means in my opinion, no. They almost never do when I ask that question. But maybe the question should be how we can help them, because they are obviously pretty desperate.
Watching, that is good of you to ry to see the other side. I know that people in the west, especially rural people all seem to hate Bureau of Land Management. I had never even heard of the agency until about 20 years ago.
Those guys burned over 100 acres of federal lands. I can’t believe that Ted Cruz almost sounds normal on this subject. Holy cow.
These are the same people who would probably vilify The Weathermen.
@Pat.Herve
Funny how the courts originally disagreed and stated that no one was in danger.
The Hammonds are supposed to be terrorists because they were protecting their homes?
How is it justice when they are sentenced and then, when the gov’t disagrees, arbitrarily puts more time on them.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
The Hammonds burned over 100 acres of federal land. That sounds like arson to me.
Why am I not surprised. I don’t think I would go to the conservative tree house for my sources.
The Bundy Group is merely Occupy Cowboy.
@Cargosquid
they burned 140 acres of federal land – 139 of them to stop an invasive plant. The other acre was to ‘save their home’ when they lit it on fire, without a containment plan and while fire fighters were involved fighting the flames. The younger Hammond was walking around dropping matches to start the fire.
The Judge wanted to give them a lenient sentence and was overruled on appeal.
This is the rule of law that I hear about – but in practice, the Conservatives want rule of law except when I want to do something else. They had their days in court – why is it ok for them to damage property and I cannot rob a bank?
After reading the conservativetreehouse version of events I have less compassion for the Hammonds. They are in trouble because the world was changing around them and they refused to accept it. The fact they went back on their land after they had left it is just a “bite off your nose to spite your face” kind of move. There is the saying “You can’t fight city hall” and it exists for a reason. So much of this has been created by their own inability to accept the world changing. I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t one or two resentment prone drinkers among them that just like a dog with a bone, couldn’t let it all go. Imagine if they had just moved and settled somewhere else. They hadn’t been there for generations like I assumed, they were relative newcomers, all in my lifetime in fact. Why the heck they would move back in 2001 is beyond explanation, except their own mental illness to chew on that nose some more.
Perhaps the companion read along should be the Esquire article on American rage.
There are just some people that have to be pissed off. They aren’t happy if they aren’t.
@Watching
“The fact they went back on their land after they had left it is just a “bite off your nose to spite your face” kind of move.”
What part of THEIR land did you miss? They “left” nothing. IT was traded, becoming some else’s private property, and then it returned to them. It is THEIR land. The govt is abusing them.
So, if the gov’t comes up to you and takes your home and business…you will just accept it because the “world is changing.”
@Pat.Herve
So…they actually helped the BLM on that 127 acres of grass. NOT 139.
The backfire did not hurt the efforts, and actually assisted the firefighters.
The point is that the BLM wants no private property, but is not authorized to take it….so they abuse the ranchers.
Here’s the funny part….the “occupied building” is closed for the winter.
They are idiots.
Another ISIS on our hands. Another group using arms to carve out land where their religious views rule supreme and invites other terrorists to join in their jihad–err I mean religiously based defiance of government authority. This is a perfect illustration of what gun activists say is the reason for the 2A…to overthrow a democratically elected government and replace it with fascism by mob whenever a group doesn’t like the rule of law.
I caution against repeating Ruby Ridge or Waco. There needs to be a non-lethal response since no innocents are in danger. I want to see them all alive and in jail for years over this. Otherwise we’ll have claims of martyrdom.
What happened to the real Moon-Howler?
She had 2 PCs croak in 2 days. I couldn’t get in the account as Moon-howler. I finally went in on my phone but…no way I can post much of anything from that thing. I used it to set up new accounts for myself so I could wing it.
@cargosquid Yeah, they got “their” pig in a poke land back. Buyer beware. What were they thinking? I think they just wanted to get into the fray again. Some people like the feeling of being upset and jacked up. They thrive on the anger and indignation…….
@Watching
OR…they wanted THEIR land back.
They didn’t do anything wrong and they are being railroaded.
@Ed Myers
Right…by occupying an abandoned building in the wilderness.
Check your meds. Your delusional paranoia is showing up again.
@Cargosquid
and what about the poaching (on federal land) testimony that came out at trial? They do not think laws apply to them.
You are on the wrong side of this cargo. The Bundy boys are just a bunch of bully’s – Clive nor the Hammonds think they are doing the right thing.
I’m not on the wrong side of anything.
I’m merely reporting that OCCUPY Cowboy is camping out around a closed building in winter….and reaching for my popcorn.
I don’t know anything about poaching. Haven’t seen any reports of them hunting out of season, on fed’l or state land.
I don’t care what happens to them. They’re idiots.
As I said upthread.
I think the Hammonds are being railroaded.
Even though they went in and burned over 100 acres of public land with out permission?
By whose authority should this have happened?
So I can just go burn anything I think needs it? I always thought that was arson.
Cargo said: “OR…they wanted THEIR land back..”
It isn’t THEIR land.
Ok folks…take a deep breath, and ask yourselves if there is a difference between what these people are doing to protest the actions of government, specifically, the BLM, and what those of the Black Lives Matter (the other BLM), or its previous (more inclusive but less hygenic) incarnation: Occupy____! Have they destroyed property, assaulted any law enforcement, committed arson or looting, as we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore? No. Beyond their being armed, and perhaps making some bold or provocative generic “pro-liberty” statements, all they have done is trespass on public lands.
Now I am not going to excuse any “lawlessness” or physical violence committed by either side, should that occur, nor would I excuse their damaging the public property that they now occupy, but none of this has happened yet.
Cut the power. Let it get cold. Let them get hungry. Let some people they trust talk to them, and point out to them where they may have miscalculated. They are out in the middle of freaking nowhere, and can’t harm anyone, who isn’t first trying to harm them. De-escalate.
No one has suggested killing them. I am all for starving them out. But they are still taking over government property. That is what makes this case a little different.
I have almost no sympathy for the other groups you have named, in particular, the other BLM. OWS probably has the right idea but the wrong methodology. I am agreeing with them a little in spirit without approving of their actions.
The “war” that the Bundy followers are staging has really been going on since the west was settled. People there have strong feelings about the BLM. Hell, I had never heard of it when I first started discussing it with my friends in Utah. DUH. We don’t have “public lands” here in the east, to my knowledge. Land is either owned by corporations, individuals, groups or the government as in parklands. Its hard to wrap my head around their anger.
Example, I was once talking with one of these yahoos online who was part of a circle of friends. He was all pissed off over now not being allowed to go cut cedars off of public lands to build a fence. My response was, why don’t you go to Lowes like the rest of the world. He didn’t like that. He felt those trees on public lands were his for the taking.
I obviously disagreed. I have seen way too much stuff just crapped up.
@Moon-howler
Moon said: “It isn’t THEIR land.”
Sure it is. It’s public land. It’s yours, mine, and theirs, and should be open an generally usable, without exclusivity.
My understanding is this is about a failure of the Department of the Interior to properly manage the public land bordering what was clearly private land of the two ranchers, who took it upon themselves to conduct a controlled burn, to eradicate invasive, non-native plants that were encroaching their property. They were convicted of “arson”, sentenced, served and released, only to be re-sentenced for longer terms… Whether or not their “re-sentencing/re-incarceration is constitutional is a matter to be settled in the courts, and not through force of arms. Mostly because they’ve reported to prison, voluntarily. Therefore, the point is moot.
However, the militia protesting federal overreach is constitutional, under the 1st amendment, and their going about armed, also constitutional, under the 2nd amendment…unless and until they damage or otherwise destroy public property, or engage in unjustifiable use of arms. Let’s try to remember that.
In 1985 some black folks take over an abandoned building to make a political statement. They are named a terrorist organization and BOMBED. 11 people, including 5 kids were killed by the government because they were using a building that was empty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
In 2016 some white folks take over a federal building to make a political statement. But they aren’t declared terrorists and they sure as hell aren’t going to be bombed.
But there’s no racism anymore, right?
@Moon-howler
“I am agreeing with them a little in spirit without approving of their actions.”
And I am agreeing with the Bundys a little in spirit, without approving of their actions.
“But they are still taking over government property. That is what makes this case a little different.”
So, when the Occupy Movement took over public parks, urinated and defecated, littered, heaped trash, blocked rights of way, and trespassed into private buildings adjacent to the area, urinated and defecated in the lobbies of these buildings, and while “occupying” engaged in illicit drug-use and sexual assault, this was a “little different” or at some level more acceptable than a bunch of guys who’ve probably listened to Hank Williams Jr.’s “Country Boy Can Survive” or Skynard’s “Gimme Back My Bullets” a few too many times, occupying a closed building in the middle of winter, 30 miles from the nearest inhabited structure?
You are correct in that this is a long-standing issue between those who’ve earned a living dependent upon access to grazing, water, timber, or other minerals, and the Federal Agencies whose authority is based on a mishmash of statute, and regulation, and the reluctance of the higher courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of any taking of claimed property, or breaking of any contractual agreements between parties, hasn’t helped alleviate the tensions.
We do have National Forests, east of the Mississippi, in which commercial timber interests are granted leases (for fee) to conduct logging, and private citizens can obtain permits for collecting “dead fall” timber for firewood. I think the issue isn’t a problem in the east, stems from the fact that our agriculture is more compact, less dependent on broad grazing, more out of a wetter climate, more reliable ground and surface water sources. and less agrarian lifestyle, than anything else. But we do see issues regarding “wet lands”, and retention ponds, where the government tries to regulate the use of private property, and is often hauled into court and successfully sued to block. Let there be a sustained drought here, and I am sure the tensions would increase. Just look at the San Joaquin Valley, and you will get some idea of what could happen here.
Maybe they just needed some “room to destroy”. Pity there wasn’t a CVS drug store or Nike shop they could have looted, prior to the arson.
@Moon-howler
Actually, their ranch IS their land. That is what we were talking about. They have not claimed any BLM land. In fact, the BLM has lied about owning the land and they have restricted access to it.
As for killing the “Bundy militia,” that actor, Montel Williams suggested that the National Guard be sent in to kill them.
As for the burning, it was ruled that it was not improper. They did not “burn anything.” They did a standard burn to control invasive species and improve the land……and it was declared so.
They did a back fire to PREVENT a wild fire from spreading…..and it was also declared to be proper.
It should be easy to prove what is their property and what is not. It is my understanding that they burned public lands–over 140 acres.
I don’t know anything about Montel Williams. I am going to suggest that he is irrelevant to the issue.
I have been reading about the refuge. It was established by Teddy Roosevelt. Since when do people take arms to a wild life refuge? [stern look] That is unacceptable. What they are doing is not peaceful protest. It is acting as a terrorist.
Had these people been black or brown, they would have been labeled terrorists and shot dead by now.
Incidentally, the Bundys were never held accountable for their actions a few years back and they are still using federal land for free. You and I are picking up their business xpenss. They are the ultimate welfare recipients.
Like they were in Ferguson and Baltimore?
Got the slow clap going, down here in the commo-bunker. When faced with a fact-based argument, the lib will always resort to race.
Or granted an amnesty, given some made-up legal status, preference in college admission, and a hiring preference. Have you ever stopped to think, prior to succumbing to the e-version of tourette’s that seems to so afflict you?
You do not know the facts of the case to state that they have been railroaded.
@Pat.Herve
I know enough to have an opinion…thus..I said “I think.”
It is so nice that you are taking the word of the BLM for everything in the face of the recitation of the history.
The BLM vs terrorist?
@Moon-howler
The extra acreage was burned by mistake. The ruling on that was that the burn actually improved the refuge acreage.
The refuge founded by Teddy was smaller. The BLM has become notorious for abandoning their mission to manage the land in conjunction with the ranchers and destroying ranches…getting them cheap, and then selling the land to favored industries.
So what if the original refuge was smaller. Why do these toads have anything to do with it? They don’t. They aren’t the keepers of our national treasures.
The land hasn’t been sold. The refuge has been altered because of the introduction of carp, nearly a century ago. Those terrorists need to get the hell out of there. They can’t invade the wildlife refuge any more than I can take over the building near the Stonewall Jackson statue at our battlefield. That acreage isn’t the same either as it was in 1861. Maybe I should use that as an excuse during the hostile take over. How long do you think I would last before I was arrested. If I came there armed, that might hasten my arrest.
Maybe the other BLM could come take over the Stonewall statue. Maybe they should start tearing it down, claiming it is “racist.” How long do you think that would last?
The ‘unhinged’ Oregon protester that the FBI has been tracking for months
Jon Ritzheimer, a well-known anti-Muslim activist who has been monitored by the FBI, is among the armed protesters occupying a federal building in Oregon. (Jon Ritzheimer)
Most of the men who joined the Bundy brothers in occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are relative unknowns.
There is, however, a glaring exception: Jon Ritzheimer.
But unlike his new compatriots in the standoff in eastern Oregon, nobody seems to have known that Ritzheimer — a patriotically tattooed Marine from Arizona with a penchant for posting melodramatic videos online — was passionate about federal land disputes.
What he has displayed extreme passion for is Muslims. Namely, expressing his contempt for them and their beliefs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/05/why-a-notorious-anti-islam-radical-turned-on-the-federal-government-in-oregon/
Nice company they keep
His two interests seem incompatible.
.
I find it amazing that people just assume land is there for the taking. Must be western thinking.
@Starry flights
Starry,
I’ve read your comment, and the link you’ve posted. Please direct me to where this individual has committed anything more than a “though-crime”, in your estimation. So the FBI is “watching” this individual. I’ll bet they’ve been “watching” the Bundy brothers too.
Isn’t this guy occupying the refuge?
You do not know about the poaching testimony at trial, so you also do not know that the Hammonds plead down the other more serious charges while the jury was deliberating and had found them guilty of the arson charges (not guilty on others). The more serious charges are what was plead away. So, go ahead and have an opinion without knowing the facts of the case.
The second burn almost trapped the fire fighters in between blazes – they are the ones (fire fighters) who reported the incident.
The first fire caused one of their own to have to hide in a creek to avoid death.
Thanks for bringing real facts to the table. Meanwhile, the wildlife is being terrorized by this invasion.
This refuge is a stop over for all sorts of migrating birds and waterfowl.
Eric Holder wasn’t shot dead when he and his armed group took over an ROTC office demanding that it be renamed “Malcolm X Lounge”. Holder was the leader of a group called the Student Afro-American Society and he lead an armed group which occupied the ROTC offices at Columbia for 5 days.
Is Eric Holder a domestic terrorist?
@Jackson Bills
“Is Eric Holder a domestic terrorist?”
Considering as AG, Holder was leader of a group that broke federal firearms law by aiding and abetting the illegal purchase and transfer of what the administration refers to as “assault weapons”, with the full knowledge they’d be taken across an international border, and used by a criminal enterprise, resulting in the deaths of almost 100 foreign nationals, not to mention a US federal agent, I’d say he graduated to “international terrorist”.
Now there’s a stretch…..
@Steve Thomas
+1
Stretching what? The facts, or my sarcastic conclusion?
@Moon-howler
“Meanwhile, the wildlife is being terrorized by this invasion.”
Doing some stretching yourself, I see. It’s the dead of winter, and these guys are hanging out in a couple of buildings, eating Ramen Noodles and canned tuna. How’s that terrorizing the Elk, Caribou, bears, wolves, badgers, and birds that live there?
I don’t think it is a refuge for larger animals but it is for water fowl in particular. 100 people camping out when the place is usually virtually uninhabited does disturb the “natives” or the fly bys.
@Moon-howler
Starry is attempting to engage in guilt by association. In his estimation, the guy is guilty of being (in his and the WaPo’s opinion) an unsavory character, and since he’s also occupying the refuge, the others are tainted by his presence. I simply asked Starry to educate me as to what unlawful actions Jon Ritzheimer had previously committed, prior to joining the Bundy’s, which rise to criminality, in Starry’s book? Sure, the FBI is “watching”. They are “watching” a bunch of people.
The others shouldn’t be there either…any more than we should all go take over Mason Neck or the Manassas Battlefield.
They aren’t supposed to be there. Period.
@Moon-howler This time of year, there won’t be flybys. It’s winter.
Did you say the same thing about the other Occupy demonstrations…that they aren’t supposed to be there?
If the Bundy idiots want to camp out in the snow…let them. Ignore them. They will go away.
So you are an expert on migratory bird patterns in the Pacific Northwest? How about that Japanese current that keeps things a hell of a lot warmer there than here. The birds are active there all year round. Some actually winter there from Canada. (not necessarily there but along estuaries in both Washington and Oregon and Vancouver Island.)
Don’t give me that winter time crap.
Bottom line is they are trespassing and they are a threat to the wildlife there. I want them arrested and removed.
From Wikipedia:
Wildlife in the area includes as many as 320 species of birds and 58 species of mammals in desert, grassland, marsh and rimrock habitats. Malheur serves as a Pacific Flyway stop for the northern pintail and tundra swan, lesser and greater sandhill crane, snow goose and Ross’ goose. Ducks, grebes, pelicans and trumpeter swans are drawn to the numerous ponds, marshes and lakes. Deer, antelopes, ducks, pheasants, thrashers and quails can be found in the upland areas in sagebrush, greasewood and wild rye.[4]
You know, when you stage an armed protest on government property, you risk getting shot.
Why are they being allowed to go to town to resupply? Absurd. Who is running the show? Armed protest = domestic terrorism, regardless of how many excuses are made for these ass-hats.
Another point of view…the Natives:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/07/tribe-to-protesters-occupying-oregon-wildlife-refuge-we-were-here-first-get-the-hell-out/?hpid=hp_no-name_morning-mix-story-f-duplicate%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Where is the kill switch on that video? It’s peskier than a zombie.
I will see if I can fix it.
Why veterans look at the Oregon occupation and see ‘loose cannon clowns’
Resize Text Print Article Comments 441
By Dan Lamothe and Thomas Gibbons-Neff January 6 at 10:26 AM
Patches on the sleeve of one of the occupiers at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., on Jan. 4. (Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Jon Ritzheimer sat down in front of a video camera last month and aired a series of grievances about the federal government, the media and the way he saw the United States changing before his eyes. With a red, white and blue flag representing a resistance group known as the Three Percenters draped behind him, the Marine Corps veteran expressed frustration that a colleague had been arrested by federal investigators.
“History belongs to those that write it,” said Ritzheimer, a slight glare shining off his shaved head as he furrowed his brow. “And I for one do not believe we should allow this government to write our history — labeling myself and other honorable veterans out there as terrorists.”
Ritzheimer, 32, is an Iraq war veteran, former truck driver and staff sergeant in the Marine Corps. He said the federal government had just “illegally kidnapped” a “fellow brother,” Schuyler P. Barbeau, another Marine veteran. Barbeau was arrested in Washington state for possession of an unregistered firearm.
[Meet the veterans who joined the Oregon militia movement]
Three weeks later, Ritzheimer is a central figure in the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge near rural Burns, Ore. He’s hardly the first veteran to become involved in armed groups that say they fight for the rights of private citizens, but the involvement of people with a military background there has prompted renewed interest in the “patriot movement” and the role of veterans in it.
While veterans, like most of the country, are split in their opinions on militias, the organizations often rely heavily on veterans for training and leadership roles. One prominent group called the Oath Keepers was founded in 2009 by a Yale Law School-educated Army veteran, Stewart Rhodes, and is open primarily to first responders and those who have served in the military. Its members swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution but refuse to follow any order that they interpret as deviating from that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/06/why-veterans-look-at-the-oregon-occupation-and-see-loose-cannon-clowns/
Even other veterans don’t approve
@Moon-howler
Moon,
I can appreciate your love of wildlife. But think about this for a minute: These are buildings, with a road, water, lights…all the things you’d expect in a permanent structure. How are the current occupants “terrorizing” the birds any more than the regular occupants, when they are present?
I get it. You want these tresspassing militia-types to leave. They aren’t a threat to the birds.
I would think any disruption would be a disturbance. Birds fly over. They look down. One says to the other….”who the hell are those assholes?” They keep on moving.
I have never heard of a bird refuge that allows guns but apparently this one might be a hunting preserve also. I am not going to spend the time it would take to research it. They don’t belong there. An armed protest to me spells hostile take over. They need to be arrested and prosecuted. I believe the Native American guy was right. If it were them…it would be treated differently.
After all is said and done about BLM, this refuge center falls under United States Fish and Wildlife Service, not the BLM.
It shares an under-secretary with the National Park Service.
There are animals, water fowl and birds that live there all year round.
How do you all know they aren’t being disturbed and yes, terrorized? You don’t.
Not punishing the Bundys for the Nevada standoff led to the occupation in Oregon
David Neiwert is a freelance investigative journalist based in Seattle and the author of several books, including “And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border.” He is also a correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Ryan Bundy outside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters near Burns, Ore. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
It has become a familiar scene: a cluster of armed “patriots” gathered at a rural locale in the West, protesting federal land-use policies and disputing the legitimacy of the government back in Washington, while nearby, law enforcement officers act stunned into submission.
That all unfolded again this past week in Burns, Ore., as a group of activists with guns seized a federal building on a wildlife refuge and demanded freedom for a couple of ranchers convicted of arson and sentenced to mandatory minimum prison terms, in what they claim is another example of extreme federal overreach.
The local school district shut down, since it couldn’t guarantee the safety of children traveling to and from school. Burns residents expressed agitation and exasperation with the standoff, since most, if not all, of the participants appear to live outside Harney County. The sheriff requested that the two dozen or so men holed up at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge pack up and leave town.
If the news from Oregon seemed like deja vu all over again, that’s because it was: At the head of the protest were Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Back in April 2014, Cliven grabbed headlines by holding Bureau of Land Management officials at bay in an armed standoff on his ranch in which bloodshed was, by all accounts, only narrowly averted.
So why do federal officials once again find themselves in this position — awkwardly wringing their hands in hopes that the radicals’ demands and willpower will erode with a little time and cold weather? And facing the same cast of characters who humiliated law enforcement officials less than two years ago?
The answer, to a large extent, lies in that Nevada canyon where Bundy’s compatriots aimed their weapons at the federal agents and police officers who were there to enforce a court order requiring the confiscation of the ranch’s cattle, after Bundy refused for years to pay federal grazing fees for using public lands. When those guns were brandished, multiple violations of federal and state law occurred: It is a felony to point a weapon at a law enforcement officer and a federal felony to take aim at a U.S. government agent.
And yet there were no arrests that day. Moreover, despite the FBI’s assumption shortly afterward of the investigation into weapons use at the Bundy ranch — along with vows to hold the people responsible for the standoff fully accountable — no meaningful action has yet been taken against anyone involved.
That includes, of course, Cliven Bundy himself (who still hasn’t paid the fees and fines he owes the government) and his sons — who have now turned up in Oregon, threatening again to take over public lands, in defiance of the local community and the wishes of the people on whose behalf they’re ostensibly protesting, all in pursuit of their campaign to destroy the federal government’s ability to administer land policies.
[The complicated history of who “owns” public land in Oregon]
Bundy explained his rationale, such as it is, in a press release shortly before the occupation began: “The United States Justice Department has NO jurisdiction or authority within the State of Oregon, County of Harney over this type of ranch management. These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce, they are not article 4 territories, and Congress does not have unlimited power.”
The men leading the protest believe in an arcane interpretation of the Constitution that radically limits the reach and scope of the federal government — in their alternate universe, the county sheriff is the highest authority, while the feds are limited to regulating overseas trade and waging war. Derived from the racist swamplands of far-right extremism, their version of “constitutionalism” reflects a paranoid culture in which government officials are believed to be trading away Americans’ freedom on behalf of a nefarious New World Order that seeks to enslave all mankind.
If federal law enforcement authorities had taken their roles as stewards of the rule of law seriously, many of these players would be facing justice in federal courts right now, instead of opportunistically raising hell out in poverty-stricken rural areas. Certainly, there is no small irony in the fact that the tepid response from federal authorities demonstrates how little resemblance they have to the tyrannical thugs the Bundys say they are. But it also shows how just that accusation, when wielded by white conservatives, can cause federal law enforcement to back down.
Ore. sheriff to protesters: ‘Go home’
Play Video1:13
Cheers erupted at a community meeting in Burns, Ore., on Jan. 6, when Harney County Sheriff David Ward said he’s asking the armed group occupying a federal wildlife refuge to “go home.” (AP)
Ever since their April 2014 standoff, Bundy and his associated “patriots” in such movements as the far-right Oath Keepers have been attempting to force further armed showdowns over Western land policies. Last spring, they tried to organize a confrontation with BLM officials in southwestern Oregon over mining rights, but that effort eventually fizzled out. Another attempted showdown in Montana with the U.S. Forest Service, also over mining rights, wound up being overshadowed by the massive forest fires that hit the state this summer.
None of that should have been possible: There should have been a number of arrests after the nonsense at the Bundy ranch. That there were none not only emboldened these right-wing radicals — and encouraged them to believe that their bizarre misinterpretation of the Constitution has some legitimacy — but, in the case of the Bundy brothers, directly empowered them to carry on as they did before.
“We believe these armed extremists have been emboldened by what they saw as a clear victory at the Cliven Bundy ranch and the fact that no one was held accountable for taking up arms against agents of the federal government,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project.
The failure of federal law enforcement to adequately respond to this kind of threatening behavior has also become a source of low morale in agencies the Bundys and their ilk like to demonize, such as the BLM and the Forest Service. This is particularly the case among federal field employees, who, according to those I’ve spoken with, are encountering increasing incidents of radicalized (and armed) “patriots” claiming that the agencies have no jurisdiction on federal lands.
That’s not to suggest that federal law enforcement should respond immediately with tactical units and guns blazing. That approach was attempted in the 1990s at two armed standoffs with far-right extremists — at Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho and at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex. — to disastrous effect. Those incidents inspired a fresh wave of far-right radicalism (including the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995) and were seen by many on the right as omens of looming government oppression.
It’s understandable that federal law enforcement might be reluctant to act precipitously after those disasters. A failure to act in any way whatsoever, though, just invites more of the same and certain escalation, as the Oregon standoff demonstrates.
The brass back in Washington and agents in field offices throughout the West should look back to a different, less infamous siege from 20 years ago, one that offers a more helpful model for responding to these situations. In 1996, a group calling itself the Montana Freemen — which operated a number of money-making scams and made armed threats against county officials in Jordan, Mont. — similarly defied the federal government in an attempt to create its own homeland out on the prairie.
It took 81 days to wait them out, during the harsh Montana winter and into the muddy Montana spring, but rather than rush in, as in Waco and Ruby Ridge, FBI negotiators eventually persuaded all the people inside the Freemen compound to surrender peacefully. Several of the chief perpetrators wound up doing extensive federal prison time for a variety of bank, wire and mail fraud charges, as well as for making threats against county and federal officials.
“https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/07/not-punishing-the-bundys-for-the-nevada-standoff-led-to-the-occupation-in-oregon/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory”
Yep
@Pat.Herve
In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
See this part…..
The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
Oh look….. the backfire was fine.
In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
So…apparently, the fire was not an actual problem. This is pure railroading.
As per my link higher in the thread, the railroading is detailed.
He said/she said…or both he saids. Seriously, now, does that give a group of people who aren’t even from the area the right to take over federal lands?
What it Native Americans were involved? Peta? Green Peace? My guess is, you wouldn’t be quite so sympathetic.
My only issue is that the individuals on the wild life refuge are behaving like terrorists. Armed protest? Bull crap. They should all be arrested.
@Moon-howler
It doesn’t. My comment didn’t apply to OCCUPY Wilderness.
I’m not sympathetic. Did you miss all my comments calling OCCUPY Cowboy idiots?
I’m of the opinion that they should be soundly ignored and left to camp out in the snow around a building that is literally closed for the winter. Arresting them and giving them press just helps them become martyrs to the cause.
Bill the Bundy’s for damages since they are the leaders. Put a lien on their properties.
I would take everyone one of them to court and fine them.
Cargo’s suggestion is what the FBI has decided to do. Good on them. Last thing we need right now is another Waco or Ruby Ridge. The FBI learned a few things out of those debacles, and employed different, less aggressive tactics to successfully end the Montana Freeman stand-off…peacefully.
As far as “taking” that would involve involuntary custody. Exactly what went wrong at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Were the “Occupy Wall Street” or Occupy DC, or any of the other Occupiers “taken to court and fined”? I don’t think so.
I think the current “occupiers” are naive and have an over-inflated sense of their own efficacy. If Bundy fancies himself the 21st Century John Brown, he should look at how things didn’t end too well for Mr. Brown. Is he really ready for Martyrdom? In his defense, there has been a renewed discussion on private vs. Federal land use. He just might have an impact, as long as the situation is eventually resolved peacefully. Best way to do that is to wait them out. Let them get cold, hungry, and homesick. Let the birds nest elsewhere for a time, if they are truly impacted. Better than the alternative.
And that alternative is to make martyrs out of some misguided knuckleheads. The tinder has already been piled high, with all of the actions on gun-control, etc. etc. Lot’s of angry, disaffected people. Blood gets shed out there, Donald Trump will get elected.
@Cargosquid
and what about the charges that why plead down – and the testimony the poaching testimony?
During deliberation, they agreed to move forward with the arson charges (the verdict was guilty on them) and a 5 year recommended sentence – if the other charges were dropped. The Hammonds were not just on for the arson charges. You still do not know the facts. The back fire – there were fire fighters between the back fire and the lightning fire – anyone starting a fire that can potentially trap a fire fighter should be charged with arson at a minimum.
Cargo can bellow about justifying the Hammond behavior till the cows come home. The point is, he can’t justify the take over of the wildlife refuge.
I don’t think we know enough about the Hammond fire. My guess is their past behavior has some bearing on the outcome of their sentencing.