Image Courtesy of [Don Barrett via Flickr]
Politics
Terrorists, Not Protestors: What’s Going on with the Oregon Militia Standoff?
Chances are you’ve heard of the “protest” currently underway in Oregon involving a couple dozen ranchers armed with guns insisting on the end of “government tyranny” by “any means necessary.” Well for starters they’re not just protestors, they’re terrorists–and here’s why.
Terrorism, by definition, is the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Therefore, the armed anti-government occupation of a wildlife refuge building clearly qualifies.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s try to decode the motivation behind this vague showdown.
Where are they?
The militants are holed up at the HQ building of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is operated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The 187,000 acre refuge is known for its extensive marshland and large bird populations. Since the occupation, the facility has been closed to the public until “further notice.”
Who are they?
The ring leader of the group is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had his own armed confrontation with the federal government over grazing rights in 2014. The rest of the group is comprised of mostly male protestors and militia members, all of whom are presumably armed and claim they’re willing to defend themselves if forced is used against them. Reporters estimate there are over 100 members.
Who the Hell is Ammon Bundy, the Oregon Militia Ringleader? https://t.co/mYIAL77vOH #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/edcGe54B6R
— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) January 3, 2016
What do they want?
Well this is where it starts to get a little confusing.
When a CNN reporter asked Bundy what the purpose of the occupation was, he responded with a series of vague statements, claiming he wants the “government to abide by the constitution” and “play by the rules.”
But when you delve a little bit deeper, everything seems to come back to the Hammond family and their legal troubles.
Who are the Hammonds?
Dwight Jr. and Steven Hammond are local father and son ranchers, who were convicted of setting fire to over 130 acres of land in 2001 and 2006, supposedly to cover up illegal deer poaching on federal land. The Hammonds, however, claim the fires were meant to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property against wildfires.
They were convicted three years ago and already paid $400,000 in fines and served time–the father three months and the son one year. But the ranchers are mad because the pair was sentenced again and ordered to turn themselves in Monday afternoon.
Why were they sentenced twice?
According to Rolling Stone, the pair was sentenced under a law known as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This law requires a five year minimum sentence for individuals who “maliciously damage or destroy” by fire any property owned by the United States.
How will this end?
That is the big question on everyone’s mind.
Bundy himself doesn’t even seem to have a clear set of demands or exit strategy for the occupation. So far most news organizations covering the standoff are wary even to call it “domestic terrorism,” and the federal government hasn’t made any visible moves to dispel or arrest the militants.
The anti-government agenda has also already turned into campaign fodder among the crowd of Republican presidential candidates, with some calling for an end to the “lawlessness,” while others lend their sympathy. Either way it will be important to see how the government reacts if it continues, especially on the heels of President Obama’s proposed upcoming gun control executive orders.
Comments