Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon

[Pookie]

I understood that pages ago. Glad people are catching up.

...

So you were just playing politics. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Where is this "terrorism statute" nonsense coming from?

Here is the text of the section of the statute they were charged under, and found guilty of:

(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title XI, §1102(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 956; amended Pub. L. 97–298, §2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1319; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §1014, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2142; Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6474(a), (b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4379; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, §3522, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4924; Pub. L. 103–272, §5(e)(7), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1374; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60003(a)(3), title XI, §§110504(b), 110509, 110515(b), 110518(b), title XXXII, §§320106, 320917(a), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), (K), (L), (N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1969, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2111, 2129, 2147, 2148; Pub. L. 104–132, title VI, §604, title VII, §§701, 706, 708(a), (c)(3), 724, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1289, 1291, 1295–1297, 1300; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §603(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3503; Pub. L. 106–54, §2(b), Aug. 17, 1999, 113 Stat. 399; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, §§1112(e)(3), 1125, 1127, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2276, 2285; Pub. L. 108–426, §2(c)(6), Nov. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2424.)

...

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §604, amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Any person who violates subsections (a) through (i) of section 842 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–132, §§708(a)(1), 724, substituted “interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” for “commerce” and “10” for “five”.
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 104–132, §708(a)(2), amended subsec. (f) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (f) read as follows: “Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned, possessed, or used by, or leased to, the United States, any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,, or both; and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not more than 40 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.”


The Statute was enacted into law in 1970, and the section in question was amended in 1996 to reduce the penalty.

No one is arguing what they were charged under.

Hell, no one is even arguing what they were sentenced under. (ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1996)

You talk about charge.

Unless you mean to suggest that the government did not appeal their sentence, (years after the case and after they did their time, saying the mandatory minimum of 5 years under the anti-terrorism act of 1996 should apply?

Is that what you are trying to suggest?

 

[Sean]

No one is arguing what they were charged under.

Hell, no one is even arguing what they were sentenced under.

You talk about charge.

Unless you mean to suggest that the government did not appeal their sentence, (years after the case and after they did their time, saying the mandatory minimum of 5 years under the anti-terrorism act of 1996 should apply?

Is that what you are trying to suggest?

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is it the law? Was it the law when they committed their crime? Yes or no, Barney?

drunky is awake!!!!!!!!

 

[Ishmael]

But, but - the Hammonds are irrelevant to the occupation of the Refuge.

The so-called Militia are not acting for them, or in support of them.

So any discussion about the Hammonds' convictions is a diversion from the thread.

True enough. While I'm in sympathy with the sentiments of the protesters/occupiers, I believe this particular action on their part to be stupid and counter-productive. There is a political/public relations disconnect between the plight of the Hammond's and the continued use of extortion, etc. on the part of the federal government to continually grabbing private land, and where they are actually staging their action/protest. Without some fairly detailed knowledge on the part of the reader/observer what they are doing makes no sense. It has the appearance of just a random act of civil disobedience.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Ishtard and the whelp's basic argument here seems to be: The law shouldn't have to apply to white people.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

True enough. While I'm in sympathy with the sentiments of the protesters/occupiers, I believe this particular action on their part to be stupid and counter-productive. There is a political/public relations disconnect between the plight of the Hammond's and the continued use of extortion, etc. on the part of the federal government to continually grabbing private land, and where they are actually staging their action/protest. Without some fairly detailed knowledge on the part of the reader/observer what they are doing makes no sense. It has the appearance of just a random act of civil disobedience.

Ishmael

I would go further and suggest that the Bundy's are simply publicity hounds and care little for the cause.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Ishtard and the whelp's basic argument here seems to be: The law shouldn't have to apply to white people.

Which one of your fake degrees led you to that brilliant conclusion truck driver?

 

[Ishmael]

I would go further and suggest that the Bundy's are simply publicity hounds and care little for the cause.

I wouldn't discount that. Too bad they aren't a little smarter.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Oh dear fucking lord.

Oregon militia leader Ammon Bundy compares himself to Rosa Parks

 

[Sean]

And some actual history of the area:

By the 1930s, after four decades of overgrazing, irrigation withdrawals, grain agriculture, dredging and channelization, followed by several years of drought, Malheur had become a dust bowl.

Ranches failed, livestock starved, homesteaders went bust and the primary occupation in the valley became suing one’s neighbor over water rights.


Conservationists won a major victory in 1934 when French’s former cattle empire was sold to the refuge, ensuring it had the water needed to flourish. John Scharff, the refuge manager from 1935 to 1971, worked closely with ranchers to establish grazing leases that funded the restoration of former wetlands and won public support for the effort. By 1968, cattle use was nearly as intense as during the days of the cattle barons. Ranchers still imagined themselves as the rugged individualists of their romantic past, though they had become heavily subsidized, grazing their herds on refuge meadows for fees that were often lower than those on private lands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?smid=tw-share

 

[Sean Renaud]

You are pretty damn dense, aren't you? Poachers get caught in commission or in possession. Forget about your 'burning land' cover-up.

Ishmael

Without knowing the history of every poaching case in history I call bullshit. You have now way at all of knowing that. And it may not have been the bodies. For all I know they could have been destroying flim.

 

[Disgustipated]

Oh dear fucking lord.

Oregon militia leader Ammon Bundy compares himself to Rosa Parks

Isn't the bus bigger than the rest stop they are crashing like moronic frat boys? Oh. Now I get why VatAss is so bent out of shape. Fucking frat boys.

 

[Ishmael]

Without knowing the history of every poaching case in history I call bullshit. You have now way at all of knowing that. And it may not have been the bodies. For all I know they could have been destroying flim.

Of course I have the means of "knowing" that. Film? Destroying film? Burn several hundreds of acres to destroy a film. That is indeed straw grasping.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

Of course I have the means of "knowing" that. Film? Destroying film? Burn several hundreds of acres to destroy a film. That is indeed straw grasping.

Ishmael

I said I don't have the means. I assume you do. But I have no idea what they were destroying with the fire but I know they were accused of poaching and that's all I need to know. They weren't found guilty which means there was insufficient evidence. Either they never did it or they successfully covered it up. Why precisely does it matter?

 

[CyranoJ]

Presumably the point of setting fires to destroy evidence of poaching was that a) it would effectively cremate the carcasses and make the proof poaching had taken place impossible to locate, and b) that this would therefore make the only likely suspects for miles around difficult to charge with poaching. And it seems to have worked.

None of which is even slightly relevant to Captain Moron and his fellow fuckheads, who have long since lost the Hammonds as any sort of excuse for their douchebaggery, so why all the hairsplitting about poaching or no-poaching is still going on I have no idea.

 

[phrodeau]

As far as I can tell, the allegation of poaching came only from young Dusty Hammond, years after the fact. He also relates that they used sandpaper on his skin to remove a tattoo, and he has the scars to show for it.

Going from sandpapering tattoos to burning poaching evidence isn't a huge mental leap.

 

[Sean]

Bear Grishmael says there was no poaching, how dare you doubt his esoteric knowledge. He talks to the trees, you know!

 

[allateup]

Bear Grishmael says there was no poaching, how dare you doubt his esoteric knowledge. He talks to the trees, you know!

Sucks doesn't, seaniepoo, to know that pops and his frat boy pup hold just as much objective GB cred as you?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Under the circumstances they aren't holding up much. I admit that I have no idea what you would use to convict for poaching only that people have made the allegation that was the purpose for the fire.

 

[Queersetti]

You want the real story? Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOzCbfX1mOw

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You want the real story? Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOzCbfX1mOw

I liked the version I saw in the theatre better.

https://www.facebook.com/Shaitansmuse/photos/a.198935843520155.50587.197615803652159/970061106407621/?type=3

 

[NeverEndingMe]

lets face reality, you obama kind are mentally fucking retarded. sad thing is, you fools do it by choice

 

[Pookie]

I'm gonna wait for "Yeehawd Dark Thirty" to come out.

You know, if Osama had stocked up on snacks instead of porn, he likely still would be jihading and shit.

 

[Ishmael]

Once again sean get's it wrong.

I never said poaching didn't occur. I merely said that the grass fire wasn't used to cover-up any poaching.

Ishmael