terrorist ‎(pluralterrorists)

1. A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals.

A few groups would meet that definition:

1. Liberal media organizations like nytimes and msnbc, when they called for prosecution and inprisonment of people who disagree with them on global warming;
2. Those student protestors on campus on equality and microagreesion;
3. Those anti-wall street protestors in Zucatti park and in DC encampment;
4. Those rioters in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago, New York, Detroit, ...;
5. Black lives matter folks;
6. Black panthers;
7. Sharpton and its followers;
...

Surprisingly, those ISIS nutjobs and 911 hijackers, and those people who enslaved and raped women, don't meet that criteria as those guys are religious nuts, not political nuts.

So what a nice definition you have there.

 

The leader is Clivan Bundy's son. The guy that had the armed standoff last year, for not paying grazing fees for use of federal land. So it seems to be OK to take things that don't belong to you if they do belong to the Dept. of the Interior. Guess that gives them the right to use armed resistance to things they want. Must be in the Constitution some where.

The media gives these dimwit idjits way too much coverage.

Arther and his group entered the compound Wednesday night, hoping to convince a female acquaintance to abandon the standoff.

That's when the trouble started.

Arthur said Cooper punched him in the back of the head, then attacked his comrade, who goes by the name of J Dog. The group retreated, and J Dog went to the hospital.

By Thursday morning, the counter-protesters were back at their post across the street. Animosity from last night's fight remained intense. Conservative radio host Pete Santilli, arguing the outside group "escalated" things, traded harsh words with Arthur.

"I'm about to (expletive) your day up!" Santilli yelled as he stormed away from the outsiders' tent. "You (expletive) with the wrong person, you (expletive) crackhead!"

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...cart_most-read_pacific-northwest-news_article

Start "Operation Deep Freeze"
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...shut_off_power_at_far_e.html#incart_big-photo

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fghanistan-Iraq-boost-combat-credentials.html

While 'Fluffy Unicorn' might be Cavalier's code name for the armed occupation, we can reveal his real nickname is in fact 'Booda' or 'King Booda' due to a large Buddha tattooed across his belly.

 

A few groups would meet that definition:

1. Liberal media organizations like nytimes and msnbc, when they called for prosecution and inprisonment of people who disagree with them on global warming;
2. Those student protestors on campus on equality and microagreesion;
3. Those anti-wall street protestors in Zucatti park and in DC encampment;
4. Those rioters in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago, New York, Detroit, ...;
5. Black lives matter folks;
6. Black panthers;
7. Sharpton and its followers;
...

Surprisingly, those ISIS nutjobs and 911 hijackers, and those people who enslaved and raped women, don't meet that criteria as those guys are religious nuts, not political nuts.

So what a nice definition you have there.

Go read the dictionary and tell us what it says.

 

Fear the birders, they are coming for you.

and they will take pictures!

@dannyf , you are are very close to getting this thread closed, just like several others lately. Can you keep it real please, or take it to a forum that likes rhetoric?

 

From what I have gathered form the "liberal" media, this started over a father and son, named Hammond. They were jailed for arson, started the refuge on fire to get rid of a type of plant they thought would start growing on there property. In court they got a sympathetic judge that gave them probation rather than the % years in jail the law recommends, for arson. On appeal they were sentenced to the 5 years.

They turned themselves in to jail. Then Ammon Bundy got his message from GOD! And he took over the refuge to get the refuge land put back into the 'rightful' owners, the families that sold the land to the feds. Guess God forgot that the land was originally stole from the Indians. So now that Bundy is on orders from God, one of dannyf's terrorist qualifications have been met. So that makes him a Radical Christian Terrorist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...020_6184922562462300272&kvcommref=mostpopular

And he's only against the federal government when they are giving him a $530,000 loan. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...sf/2016/01/ammon_bundy_his_history_and_a.html

 

From what I have gathered form the "liberal" media

I would encourage you to do a better job comprehending the facts, from both sides.

A shorter version of the story on the Hammonds goes like this:

1) the Hammond side of the story: they had invasive species on their land and they set up the first fire to control it; the fire went over to the adjacent federal land; the 2nd fire was started to contain a fire that was approaching the Hammond property. It also went onto the federal land. The Hammonds never disputed that the fact that the fire on the federal land started on their land - they even reported the fire to BLM.

2) the government's story: the Hammonds purposefully set up fire on the federal land to conceal illegal hunting. No evidence of the hunting was actually ever recovered by the feds.

During the initial trial, the Hammonds were sentenced to a few months of jail terms, as the judge on the case deemed the 5-year mandatory minimum to be unconstitutional - cruel and unusual punishment for the crime. The Hammonds went to jail and were released in 2014, having served their sentences.

An appeal was filed in the middle of 2014, one of the litigants being the manager of the wild life refuge being occupied by the armed men now, alleging that the original sentences were unlawful. They won the appeal and the Hammonds went to jail for the 2nd time on the same crime.

From a legal perspective, the case has a lot of interesting things going for it. For starters, the minimum sentencing guidelines are routinely not followed, and many attorney generals, state and federal, for example have encouraged judges to not followed them on certain categories of cases, like drug possession cases involving minorities. I think someone down the road may make a disparate impact case for those cases.

The only connection between the Hammonds and the Bundy case is the manager of that wild life refuge. The occupation is for a different cause actually.

 

From what I have gathered form the "liberal" media, this started over a father and son, named Hammond. They were jailed for arson, started the refuge on fire to get rid of a type of plant they thought would start growing on there property. In court they got a sympathetic judge that gave them probation rather than the % years in jail the law recommends, for arson. On appeal they were sentenced to the 5 years.

The father and son both served jail time already but the feds got the original judge sentence overturned so they must complete 5 years for the crime they were (over)charged under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The father is 73 so 5 years could be a death sentence for him. The clowns holding the birds hostage are not helping the Hammonds case for leniency.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/c...n-terms-say-oregon-ranchers-are-a-reason-why/

Gill said the law was primarily intended to punish terrorism offenses, as the law’s name suggests, but it also defines how the government deals with arson on federal property.

The law’s scope of punishment has probably gone farther than its writers intended, and the Hammonds’ case shows the disconnect that can occur when the federal government creates criminal law, Gill said.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/

Alas, the Washington Monthly author is hardly alone. “The Oregon men are domestic terrorists,” a CNN opinion article declares. On Twitter, folks on the left have dubbed the Oregon activists “Vanilla ISIS,” “Y’all Qaeda,” and “YokelHaram.”

Criticizing the armed occupiers is perfectly fine. They are acting irresponsibly, illegitimately, and based on some bad premises. They should abandon their counterproductive, doomed protest right now before they do harm to innocents or themselves, and instead pursue their grievances through civic persuasion. But all they’ve done so far is occupy a federal building in the wilderness when no one was using it. It is at least possible that in doing so they are calling attention to real misbehavior by the federal government. No tribe that customarily extols civil disobedience should first condemn them without taking the time to investigate the accuracy of their claims about that misbehavior.

 

For starters, the minimum sentencing guidelines are routinely not followed, and many attorney generals, state and federal, for example have encouraged judges to not followed them on certain categories of cases, like drug possession cases involving minorities.

Sorry but I'm having difficulties seeing what it has to do with this case.

 

This reminds me of another problem that John Oliver covered.

Bail.

 

The only connection between the Hammonds and the Bundy case is the manager of that wild life refuge. The occupation is for a different cause actually.

No. The Bundy case took place in Clark County, NV and the Hammond incident and occupation is in Harney County, OR, hundreds of miles away. Nobody associated with the wildlife refuge under siege had anything to do with the Bundy standoff. The residents of Bruns, OR don't want the Bundy clan and have demanded they leave. And no, the manager of the widlife refugee wasn't a litigate in the case.

 

The Hammonds were prosecuted, some would say persecuted, under 844(f)(1) - intended for the Oklahoma city type of attacks. Thus those guys were widely quoted in the main stream media as "terrorists".

Ironically, the Hammonds were never "politically" motivated, thus they would have failed the quoted definition of "terrorist" discussed earlier,

You may also find it interesting "terrorist" was never a term defined in the statute - maybe by design.

As someone put it, "truth is the new hate speech."

 

It is interesting. On the surface 5 years seems like a long time. On the other it sounds like he thought he would get away with it.
In either case it was a jury that found them guilty so we can pretty much discount their story.
I don't think the judge can ignore the minimums, but if the prosecutor is careful about how he presents the case he can avoid them.
In this case he probably didn't have much room to do that as he might have with a drug case where for example he might not mention how many ounces were involved.

They may have been lucky they didn't get 7 years.

This shows how the case was presented.
http://kval.com/news/local/backgrou...-releases-on-hammond-case-in-october-december

Having said that, I guess it doesn't pay to fight with the Feds. Their rules are pretty tough.
Can't imagine getting 5 years for burning my neighbors grass even if I did it on purpose.

 

The Hammonds were prosecuted, some would say persecuted, under 844(f)(1) - intended for the Oklahoma city type of attacks. Thus those guys were widely quoted in the main stream media as "terrorists".

Ironically, the Hammonds were never "politically" motivated, thus they would have failed the quoted definition of "terrorist" discussed earlier,

"

How about Bundy?

 

I've found no instance of the main stream media calling the Hammonds terrorists, let alone any widely quoted instances of such. I only found a false report from Brietbart that claims they were resentanced under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penality Act, which is of course, absurd. That's most likely where the rumor of wide spread quotes of terrorist started.

 

They may have been lucky they didn't get 7 years.

They're lucky nobody was injured or killed, as could have happened as in both cases, people were in the area of the fires. They could have been facing fourty to life. One person who was nearly injured was Steven Hammond's nephew.

 

They're lucky nobody was injured or killed, as could have happened as in both cases, people were in the area of the fires. They could have been facing fourty to life. One person who was nearly injured was Steven Hammond's nephew.

I agree they are guilty and arrogant as sin but I'm troubled by the US governments appeal case on this matter and in general.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/07/12-30337.pdf

At sentencing, the court found that the guidelines range for Steven was 8 to 14 months and for Dwight was 0 to 6 months. Yet their convictions carried five-year minimum terms of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The government accordingly recommended five-year sentences of imprisonment and argued — both in its sentencing memorandum and at sentencing — that the court lacked discretion to impose lesser sentences. The court, however, concluded that the Eighth Amendment required deviation from the statutory minimum. Observing that Congress probably had not intended for the sentence to cover fires in “the wilderness,” the court reasoned that five-year sentences would be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the Hammonds’ offenses. The court then sentenced Steven to two concurrent terms of twelve months and one day of imprisonment and Dwight to three months of imprisonment.
...
Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under California’s three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under California’s three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs);

I would like judges to be able to judge and not be a rubber stamp for some rigid one size fits all federal "War On ...'' law.

 

....
Surprisingly, those ISIS nutjobs and 911 hijackers, and those people who enslaved and raped women, don't meet that criteria as those guys are religious nuts, not political nuts.

On the contrary, they are totally political nuts, using religion as a justification for political actions that would otherwise be random, disjointed, and meaningless.

 

I agree they are guilty and arrogant as sin but I'm troubled by the US governments appeal case on this matter and in general.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/07/12-30337.pdf


I would like judges to be able to judge and not be a rubber stamp for some rigid one size fits all federal "War On ...'' law.

I agree, but the other way is not without it's problems either.
The rich just have more "justice". - Think "Rent a Judge".
As I said above, I think their mistake was burning federal land. Had it been another ranch it might have just been a fine - at most. But then that wasn't their motive.
The Feds just used what they had available and somebody held them to it. I guess it would be easy enough to change just like all the drug ones. but nobody seems to have the will to do it. Wonder why?

 

I guess it would be easy enough to change just like all the drug ones. but nobody seems to have the will to do it. Wonder why?

Google "disparate impact": the left figured out that the racial profile of those punished by those sentences does not mimic that of the general public, and claimed that as a basis of bias, culminating in Obama's latest pardon of criminals convicted under those guidelines then. Obama didn't directly quote "disparate impact" but instead, "non-violent crimes" as basis of his pardons. Except he couldn't answer why other countless "non-violent" criminals did not receive such favors.

BTW: Many of those cases are the very foundation for the disregard of federal minimum sentencing guidelines, from "mandatory" to "advisory", except when it is the Hammond's turn.

 

This sums it up -