As people recovered from New Year’s Eve and went back to work, attention returned to the challenges facing the United States, from Russia to the Middle East. However, while Americans continue to fret over ISIS sleeper cells, an armed, anti-government group occupied a wildlife refuge in Oregon. While the group’s specific demands remain unclear, this type of armed insurrection is nothing new in the United States.  Starting with the nation’s inception to the present, with several high-profile cases in the 1990s, anti-government rhetoric and militia type groups have been and remain a major issue.  This article will look at the specifics of this incident, the history of these types of groups, similar organizations, and the impact all this has on the United States.

A Wildlife Refuge under Siege

The catalyst for this most recent incident was the conviction of father and son ranchers, the Hammonds, on charges of arson on government land. While they claimed to be merely clearing dangerously flammable brush and invasive species, the pair was convicted of starting the fire to cover up poaching activities in 2001. Although the two men turned themselves in and ended up receiving the minimum sentence for the crime they were convicted of, this was not enough to stem the controversy that has since ensued.

In response, a group led by Ammon Bundy, whose father led a similar stand-off against the government in 2014, held a rally and protest, then seized control of a federal building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group, now dubbing itself the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, has remained in the buildings, which were unoccupied, since the night of January 2. While the group’s demands are still unclear, their complaints seem to center on people having greater access to federal land and the release of the convicted ranchers.

While their exact motivation also remains uncertain, what is clear is that Citizens for Constitutional Freedom is not the first group of its kind. While the group has had previous run-ins with the government, movements protesting federal control of land have roots that go back decades, even centuries. For much of that time, the debate has been between those who wish to conserve areas and those who wish to utilize the land for resources. In the 1970s and 80s the idea that the land should be controlled locally gathered steam and became what has been dubbed the Sagebrush Rebellion.

That movement’s primary complaint–and one of the complaints offered by the group in Oregon–is that the government controls too much land and is not using it appropriately. While the methods being used by the Bundy family are certainly illegal, the protesters may have a point. In total, the government owns roughly one-third of all land in the United States and 53.1 percent of the land in Oregon respectively. Regardless of the validity of these claims, the Oregon group’s inability to articulate its specific complaints have made dealing with it a challenge.  This challenge is only exacerbated by how the group is viewed and portrayed by different people and organizations.

What Do We Call Them?

Much of the debate over this group and why they are protesting concerns how they should be classified. More specifically, is this domestic terrorism?  While many people were quick to denounce the group’s tactics as unpatriotic, there was a noticeable lack of coverage and condemnation of their methods. In fact, many argue that the media coverage of the occupation–which some have even called a peaceful protest–is unfair and biased. Critics contrast the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom’s efforts with other protests, such as the ones in Baltimore and Ferguson, which were called riots and met with armed confrontation from authorities.

So what is this group, then? They are clearly protesters speaking out against something they view as unfair. But the presence of weapons and their vague demands over land use rights, freeing the Hammonds, and fighting against government intimidation appears to make them something more. In fact, the group’s actions do seem to fall more in line with the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism, which includes any action that is “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” The key to identifying this group then ultimately appears to rest with their intent. Since their actions appear to be based on specific perceived injustices and are tied to specific demands, we can differentiate them from mere protesters.

For context, other examples of the importance of intent in defining an act as terrorism concern two of America’s most recent and deadly shootings. In the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza’s actions were not technically domestic terrorism because there was no ideological intent aside from killing; whereas the shootings by Dylann Roof at a Charleston Church were an act of terrorism as the intent was racially and politically motivated. In other words, although the occupiers in Oregon have not yet used force, the threat of force remains and when you couple that with their intentions they appear to be domestic terrorists. For greater clarity the accompanying video gives another voice to the domestic terrorist debate:

Militia Groups in the United States

Historically, one of the primary perpetrators of domestic terrorism in the United States has been militia groups.  Like the definition of terrorism, the definition of a militia is also vague. The general consensus is that a militia is an irregular military force made up of citizens that are called upon only in the event of an emergency. Once again the protesters in Oregon do not fit neatly within this definition; however, many of them are members of a self-styled militia group known as the Patriot movement. This movement began back in the 1970s and was originally concerned with protecting the United States in the event of a foreign occupation. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the group has refocused its attention to standing up against perceived threats from the government, particularly fear of the government taking away their guns. While the protesters, or domestic terrorists, in Oregon are the latest example of this type of group, they are by no means the only one.

In fact, the number of anti-government groups has mushroomed since 2008, coinciding with the election of President Obama. The number of these groups went from 149 that year to an estimated 1,360 groups by 2012 according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Again, the extent of the threat that these groups actually pose is up for debate. Some counter that their numbers and danger are overblown by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who compiled the numbers as means of drumming up donations. However, others view them as a far more serious concern. The Southern Poverty Law Center also notes that during the 1990s only 858 such groups were identified, almost 500 less than 2012. Even with population growth factored in, that level of increase is concerning. It is especially troubling given the number of high-profile conflicts between the government and anti-government groups during the 1990s.

History of Discontent

The 1990s were a time of numerous conflicts between the government and anti-government groups.  The government standoffs and civilian deaths at Ruby Ridge and Waco raised the specter of government repression, especially among militia-type groups. This culminated with the Oklahoma City Bombing, which left 168 people dead when an anti-government sympathizer blew up a government building. While this attack greatly reduced support for militia groups, particularly for the Patriot movement, it was certainly not the end of the violence or domestic terrorism.

In fact, the American Prospect compiled a list of bombings from 1867 to the present. The list includes attacks from anti-war groups, anarchists, foreign separatists, lone wolfs, and the Boston Bombers to name just a few. In addition to bombings, mass shootings in the United States also involve an element of domestic terrorism, such as the recent San Bernardino shooting.

Currently, the protestors in Oregon have stated that they will only resort to violence if forced into a confrontation by authorities. So far, the authorities have aired on the side of caution, letting the group be in an effort to wait for the occupation out.

Even if the protesters in Oregon leave peacefully, the threat of right-wing militias remains. In fact, in a survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum last year, the number one threat identified was these militia-style groups, even relative to the threat of foreign terrorism from groups like Al-Qaeda. The protesters’ biggest impact may come in the form of shedding greater light on these groups. The following video gives a look at the militia movement in the United States:

Conclusion

As of right now, much of what is going on in Oregon remains unclear. Even how the group should be classified is debated; are they protesters, terrorists, a militia, or something else? About the only thing that is clear is that what they are doing is unpopular. Already the town has come together and asked them to leave. The Paiute Indian Tribe, which can trace its lineage to the area back 9,000 years, believes they have no legitimate complaint and they should leave. Even the Hammonds–the two men convicted of the crime that supposedly sparked the protest–have distanced themselves from the protesters.

While the debate rages over how to treat them, the specter of FBI assaults on seemingly similar groups in the 1990s lingers. Additionally, figuring out how to deal with groups like these takes on ever-increasing importance as their numbers swell and they become increasingly well-armed.

As of right now, it is too early to know exactly how the events will ultimately unfold in Oregon. In all likelihood the protesters will run out of steam, most will likely leave and the masterminds, such as Ammon Bundy, will be held accountable. It could also go the other way if cooler heads do not prevail.

Resources

CNN: Armed Protesters Refuse to Leave Federal Building in Oregon

Al Jazeera: Double Standards Cited Amid Armed Protest in Oregon

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 2332b – Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

Merriam-Webster: Militia

USA Today: Record Number of Anti-government Militias in the USA

The American Prospect: A History of Terrorism on U.S. Soil

Time: This Is What It Takes for Mass Murder to Be ‘Terrorism’

National Geographic: Why Federal Lands Are So Wildly Controversial in the West

The Blaze: Ammon Bundy Says There’s Only One Scenario in Which Armed Protesters Would Resort to Violence Against Authorities

The New York Times: The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat

CNN: Native Tribe Blasts Oregon Takeover

Politico: What Do the Oregon Ranchers Really Believe?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on in Oregon? Domestic Terrorism in the Beaver State appeared first on Law Street.

Today in the category of “news I thought was a joke but actually is real” we have people watching a puddle in the UK via Periscope, a Canadian company that sort of solved that debate about how dogs wear pants, and Oregon terrorist Ammon Bundy compared himself to Rosa Parks. Happy Wednesday, everyone.

In case you aren’t caught up on your crazy people in Oregon news, here’s the skinny. Over the weekend a group of armed men took over a wildlife reserve in Oregon. Fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans wrote a good rundown of exactly what’s happening there, but long story short: there’s a standoff in which the armed “militia members” are demanding vague things about the Constitution and federal land and no one really knows when this is going to end (although law enforcement is developing a plan to deal with the situation.)

The entire thing has been bizarre and upsetting to say the absolute least, but it got even more bizarre and upsetting last night, when the ringleader of the group Ammon Bundy tweeted this:

We are doing the same thing as Rosa Parks did. We are standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom.

— Ammon Bundy (@Ammon_Bundy) January 6, 2016

That’s right–he compared their armed takeover of a federal building to Rosa Parks, who is basically the poster lady for peaceful resistance. Bundy’s group has made it clear that they’re willing to be basically the opposite of peaceful, given that they’ve said that, “if force is used against us we will defend ourselves.” Unsurprisingly, people are not happy with Bundy’s delusional comparison, and took to Twitter with some sarcastic and poignant responses.  

Newly discovered photo of the #RosaParks bus-jacking of 1955… #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/zlgKuluHye — Goldie Taylor (@goldietaylor) January 6, 2016

#AmmonBundy should bone up on his history; particularly in the area of civil rights. #RosaParks didn’t seek change via a gun-toting militia.

— Elgin Charles (@ElginCharles) January 6, 2016

Did someone named Rosa Parks get a $500000 government loan, arm herself, take over federal property & demand snacks? https://t.co/HE9RqazRj6 — sfpelosi (@sfpelosi) January 6, 2016

A list of people who should compare themselves to Rosa Parks: 1. Rosa Parks

— Virginia Montanez (@JanePitt) January 6, 2016

White people, we need to finally all agree that there is no context in the universe where we can compare ourselves to Rosa Parks. Just stop. — Andrew, 2016 Edition (@Truly_Defective) January 6, 2016

Cliven Bundy: “You know, black people was better off being slaves.” Ammon Bundy: “Shut UP, dad, we’re TOTES Rosa Parks!”

— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 6, 2016

Rosa Parks and Ammon Bundy actually have a lot in common both human same number of arms and legs weakness for hats — Adam Serwer (@AdamSerwer) January 6, 2016

So, Ammon Bundy did accomplish one thing with his Rosa Parks comparison–he made himself even less likable. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Delusions of Grandeur: Ammon Bundy Compares Himself to Rosa Parks appeared first on Law Street.

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy became a GOP and Tea Party darling recently when he clashed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing rights to federal land. BLM confiscated — and subsequently returned after escalating safety concerns — nearly 400 of Bundy’s cattle because he has allowed them to graze on federal lands without a permit for many years, racking up an unpaid bill of over $1 million. This led to a standoff between Bundy, his friends, and Federal agents. There’s been a lot of back and forth in the political sphere — for example, Harry Reid called Bundy’s supporters domestic terrorists and everyone freaked out. And the entire incident turned Bundy into a de-facto spokesperson against Federal power, with many high-ups in the GOP supporting him.

And as so often happens — remember Joe the Plumber? — the poorly vetted farmer supported by the GOP as a representation of what is so great about this nation turns out to be pretty racist.

I’m just going to let you read Bundy’s words for yourself, courtesy of Adam Nagourney at the New York Times, because really, they’re too spectacularly offensive to paraphrase:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I don’t think I need to go into how spectacularly disturbing these statements are as a whole, but let’s just be very clear. This man, Cliven Bundy, essentially just said that he thinks that African Americans were better off as slaves. To national press. As someone who has been following politics essentially since I could read, this is probably one of the worst things I’ve ever heard.

First, in my probably futile attempt to interject some logic into Bundy’s statements, it’s clear the guy is a huge hypocrite. Because you know who receives a whole ton of government subsidies? Farmers and ranchers. Including those like Bundy himself.

In fact, that’s kind of what this entire debate is about — Bundy losing access to some of those very valuable subsidies. As a rancher, Bundy was able to graze his cattle on Federal land for about $1.35 per animal, per month. Similar accommodations on private land would run about $8-$23 per animal, per month. Now because of some policy changes, those subsides were going to be a bit less generous and create some other logistical problems, leading to Bundy’s standoff with the government. Yeah, he’s totally just against other people getting government subsidies, and thinks that getting them teaches other people bad lessons.

So how did this crazy man end up supported by some major players in the GOP, including Fox News pundits, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Dean Heller? (Although to be fair, after the racist statements came out, both Paul and Heller ran away from supporting Bundy as fast as they could.) Well to start, I think there’s something in the Tea Party’s unwavering devotion to the idea of “grassroots politics” that can be scary. The story hit national news, and immediately, the Tea Party and others rallied around him. There was no consideration that the guy in a standoff with Federal Rangers might be insane. There was no consideration that this man, who was being held up as a shining example of the little man, the oppressed farmer, and the patriot, needed to be vetted.

And that’s dangerous. Fox News, and other conservative media picked up this story right away and stuck by the man, giving a voice to the crazy racist who would usually be limited to sending offensive chain emails to his relatives or writing a letter to the editor every single week in his local paper. Now I, of course believe in free speech, and think that Bundy should have the ability to say whatever the hell he wants, even if it is gag-worthy. But the national microphone he’s been given is concerning, because now the rest of us have to listen to his racist drivel. All of this could probably have been solved by just one of those politicians who supported him sending a staffer out with a notepad and asking, “Hey Mr. Bundy, how do you feel about ____.” I have a feeling he’d have been more than willing to share his racist opinions pretty quickly.

Whether or not Bundy is right about his squabble with the Federal Government, which I think is actually at least a legitimate debate, the way in which this entire thing has played out should be incredibly concerning for the GOP. If they want to argue about the use of Federal land, fine, do that through discourse, or legislation, or debate. I’m happy to entertain that conversation. But to use a crazy racist rancher who is probably causing the expenditure of even more tax dollars by dragging the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies into this is just bad politics, plain and simple.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tea Party Darling Cliven Bundy is This Cycle’s Racist Joe the Plumber appeared first on Law Street.

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”

Only in Nevada…

Yes, those are the actual words of Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, addressing a twenty year range war between a Nevada rancher and the federal government.

For two decades, Cliven Bundy, a 67-year-old rancher, has been embroiled in a battle with the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency within the Department of the Interior that administers public lands.

The longstanding dispute reached its boiling point last week when the BLM seized nearly 400 of Bundy’s cows, alleging the animals were “trespassing” on federal land. Following the BLM roundup, hundreds of Nevadans showed up to protest the actions of the federal agency, claiming the BLM had overstepped its boundaries and infringed upon states’ rights. Looking much more like an armed rebellion, many protesters carried handguns and rifles and all shared Bundy’s sentiment that “this is a lot bigger deal than just my cows.”

The Conflict

While the fight between Bundy and the BLM has become a full-blown debate over states’ rights, it essentially boils down to a dispute over ownership: federal vs. state. Bundy, along with hundreds of fellow Nevadans who demanded the release of his cattle, believe the land in question, a 600,000-acre area near the Utah border known as Gold Butte, belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management, on the other hand, assumed control of the land as part of a conservation effort in 1993 and has sought to maintain order ever since.

Cliven Bundy’s Case

When the BLM took control of Gold Butte and other federal lands back in 1993, it wasn’t to stick it to Cliven Bundy and other ranchers who had used the land for decades. Rather, the BLM claimed the seizure was an attempt to save the desert tortoise, an endangered species that was given the status of “threatened” in 1990. According to the Washington Post, the conservation measures included “the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat.”

Not convinced by the conservation effort, Bundy accused the government of “land grabbing” and was not willing to relinquish his grazing privileges for another wildlife preserve. Fast forward to 2014 and the situation hasn’t changed much. Despite numerous lawsuits, court orders, and even violence between the BLM and ranchers – bombs were “anonymously” sent to land management offices in 1995 and 1996 –Bundy has consistently refused to remove his cows from the land.

A descendent of Mormons who settled in the area more than 140 years ago, Bundy claims he holds an “inherent right” to graze the land. He simply refuses to recognize federal authority on land he believes belongs to the state of Nevada. Although Bundy has agreed to pay any fees he owes, he will only fork over his money to Clark County, Nevada – not the BLM.

The Bureau of Land Management’s Case

Despite the skepticism of Bundy and other’s regarding the federal agency’s motive for seizing the land, the BLM has stuck to its story of conservation. For Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze, the issue is black and white: Bundy has been repeatedly breaking the law.

“This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public-lands ranchers do every year,” Kornze told CBS News. “After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially,” he continued.

After he refused to comply with BLM restrictions, the Bureau revoked Bundy’s permit in 1993 and have fined him countless times for grazing on federally protected land. Despite this, Bundy has never applied for a new permit nor has he paid any fines.

In 1998, a federal judge in Las Vegas ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle from Gold Butte. After attempts to settle outside of court in 2013, the BLM implemented two federal court orders to remove Bundy’s cattle.

Current Status

Citing “serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public,” Kornze called off the roundup of Bundy’s cattle this past Sunday, releasing the 400 cows that were gathered.

While the question of whether Bundy is a law-breaking rancher or a champion of states’ rights remains up for debate, the conflict has paused for the time being.

Still, both sides recognize that they remain very much at odds. Those on Bundy’s side claim the fight has only just begun, and the BLM released a statement saying “the door isn’t closed” and that they would “figure out how to move forward with this.” That being said, the BLM’s decision to back down – and effectively allow Bundy and his followers to win the heated standoff – could prove to set a dangerous precedent for the future.

The situation in Nevada has even captured the attention of members of the U.S. Senate. While Nevada Senator Dean Heller calls the BLM’s  tactics “heavy handed,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear that the actions of Bundy and other ranchers will not go unpunished. “It’s not over,” Reid said. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

[Fox News] [CBS News] [Washington Post]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle of the Butte: Rancher Takes on the Federal Gov’t appeared first on Law Street.