noharleyyet
Well-known member
dannyboy, did you just call some of us idiots?
Last edited:
Militia takes over wildlife refuge headquarters
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I'm confused as to where this idea that they were prosecuted for terrorism is coming from as well. I've read everything I can find from the District court, Dept of Justice and DA's office about the case, and have yet to find any reference to prosecution under anti-terrorism laws. All they were prosecuted for is destruction of government property. Being unable to find anything about that from primary sources, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is indeed just propaganda.
Bottom line, they knowingly set multiple fires to destroy evidence of crimes on public property, nearly burned over a BLM fire camp and endangered numerous lives. 5 years doesn't seem like an outlandish penalty to me. I wish the poaching alone brought that kind of time.
Bottom line, they knowingly set multiple fires to destroy evidence of crimes on public property, nearly burned over a BLM fire camp and endangered numerous lives. 5 years doesn't seem like an outlandish penalty to me. I wish the poaching alone brought that kind of time.
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Nameless Range
Well-known member
That's what I see too.
This is from the US Attorney:
"The evidence at trial convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hammonds were guilty of the federal crime of arson; that is, maliciously damaging United States property by fire. The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism. Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong."
It seems their sentence had nothing to do with terrorism. That's just more propoganda.
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
more propaganda idiocy from a 'moonbat' Obama appointee
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_us_attorney_amanda_mars.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_us_attorney_amanda_mars.html
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
Nope, I called you ill informed as the idiots in Oregon. Which in this case you are if you failed to read this thread before commenting, which extensively details the Hammonds actions as provided in court documents (also in this thread) and believe that the Hammonds were just some ranchers who let a couple fires get away.
"Putting the setting of an illegal fire on your own property that then burns over to federal land...." was the crux of my statement, as if you know ANY of the details you know this wasn't the case in the context of the Hammonds and BLM situation
Last edited:
Spot on!
Thanks for the link to letter NR.
Even given benefit of doubt,it is what it is.They were found guilty and that's what the sentence is for the Federal crime.
Given their history, they finally got something IMHO.
Bet the local sheriff is happy, the idiots at the Refuge will have to deal with the Fed.s now.
USNPS will defer to leading Fed LEO's ,that's the FBI folks.
I hope ......the electrical cut off is a start.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Was retired Federal Judge Hogan censured for his leniency?
SPOT ON! Great post.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Spending time over in the conservative tree house eh NHY?
Please feel free to bring forth a specific argument.
Please feel free to bring forth a specific argument.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
This appears to be where the terrorism label is being drawn from
From Think Progress:
"In a final bit of irony, this latest militia dust-up stems from a law created in direct response to the perception that right-wing domestic terrorism was surging during the Clinton years.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created the five-year mandatory minimum sentences that the Hammonds face for arson on public property. That law sailed through a Republican Congress in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
Had anyone been killed by the fires the Hammonds set, they could have faced life imprisonment or even the death penalty under the AEDPA. But the rigidity of punishments that Bundy’s armed men are protesting today was established in law partly in response to the actions of their ideological forebears."
Ignoring the history of the militia movement in these type of actions, it all boils down to willfully setting fire to government property, as has already been stated.
From Think Progress:
"In a final bit of irony, this latest militia dust-up stems from a law created in direct response to the perception that right-wing domestic terrorism was surging during the Clinton years.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created the five-year mandatory minimum sentences that the Hammonds face for arson on public property. That law sailed through a Republican Congress in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
Had anyone been killed by the fires the Hammonds set, they could have faced life imprisonment or even the death penalty under the AEDPA. But the rigidity of punishments that Bundy’s armed men are protesting today was established in law partly in response to the actions of their ideological forebears."
Ignoring the history of the militia movement in these type of actions, it all boils down to willfully setting fire to government property, as has already been stated.
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
The oregonian is a conservative treehouse?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The Oregonian article you posted has what to do with the issue being discussed?
Do a prosecutor's personal problems have anything to do with whether or not the Hammond's were treated unfairly? If so, how?
I assumed you were looking at the conservative tree house article based on you referencing her and the judge one after the other, just like that article. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Do a prosecutor's personal problems have anything to do with whether or not the Hammond's were treated unfairly? If so, how?
I assumed you were looking at the conservative tree house article based on you referencing her and the judge one after the other, just like that article. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Quick question? If Bubbla Habib purposely set fire to public land in an effort to cover up evidence of his illegal activities would you be as quick to post the same thing.
It's pretty evident this is going bad for everyone. The anti gun crowd has a new set of poster boys to show their liberal clan that all of us gun loving rural white folks are going to take over the government and can't be trusted with legal firearms. The land grabbers have a bigger audience to pitch their anti public land, down with the big oppressive government, let us give it to the states (or our largest campaign contributors) propaganda to. It's all over social media and has been pasted in this thread. If law enforcement goes in they will be damned for going after poor Constitution loving church folks who were only standing up for the common man. If they don't go in they will be damned for letting those radical activists take over federal property and opening the flood gates for the rest of the wing nuts who think they have a cause. The spin doctors are cranking out rhetoric as fast as their sheeple can share it on Facebook.
The local Sheriff put out a press release yesterday that pretty much sums it up. Just go home.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
What I do know is calling people names who state opinions or telling them to post like you want them to is a non starter....perhaps I'm mistaken.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You are not mistaken, as it is the emotional responses such as name-calling that exacerbate an already bad situation and surrounding discussion.
Similarly, it seems detrimental to resolution of these issues for those "constitutionalists" to so loudly criticize the government (at whatever local, county, state, or federal level) for not following the Constitution when they cannot cite examples or link policy, actions, or governmental regulations to anything clearly specific in the Constitution. Many assertions are based on ignorance, poor reading comprehension, or blatantly false logic regarding the relationship between and among the people, their representation, government, governmental agencies and the Constitution, Federal or State.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
You have to laugh at that no matter where you stand on the subject!
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The ONIONnailed it!
Similar threads
