Pierce: What's Happening in Oregon Is Nothing Less Than Armed Sedition

[cali]

<snip>
Before moving on to the larger issues, it's important to note that the local authorities, and the local citizenry, want no part of this noisy claque of armed meatheads. It is popular among these people who apparently have brains wired like short-wave radios broadcasting from upper Michigan to say that the real constitutional authority in this country resides in its local sheriffs. Well, the local sheriff in this case would like it very much if this particular invasive species would abandon his jurisdiction and go back to freeloading on federal lands in Nevada.

<snip>


This is an act of armed sedition against lawful authority. That is all that it is, and that is quite enough. This is not "an expression of anti-government sentiment." Flipping off the governor as he drives by is "an expression of anti-government sentiment." What Alex Jones does every day is "an expression of anti-government sentiment," and god bless them all for it. That's what the Founders had in mind. This is not an "occupation" following "a peaceful protest." That would be all those folks who got bludgeoned and pepper-sprayed out of Zuccotti Park a couple of years back. (And when exactly did ABC News decide it wasn't a news organization anymore?) These are men with guns who have declared themselves outside the law. These are men with guns who have taken something that belongs to all of us. These are traitors and thieves who got away with this dangerous nonsense once, and have been encouraged to get away with it again, and they draw their inspiration not solely from the wilder fringes of our politics, either. Ammon Bundy and his brothers should have been thrown in jail after they gathered themselves in rebellion the first time.

This is another step down the road that leads to the broken shell of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. There are respectable people in our respectable politics who have been shamefully silent on the subject, and there are respectable people in our respectable media who seem terrified of calling this what it is. You want an example of the deadening effect of "political correctness" in our politics? Watch what the people running for president have to say about this episode. Look at how it is being framed already—or ignored entirely—by the elite political media. There is a constituency for armed rebellion in this country that is larger than any of our respectable political and social institutions want to admit. It is fueled by reckless, ambitious people who engage in reckless, ambitious rhetoric.

<snip>

And, in related news, of course, Tamir Rice is still dead.


http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/?ref=yfp

[Coventina]

1. I heart Charlie.

K&R

[LuvNewcastle]

2. I'm not sure that sedition should be considered

a crime, because sedition is usually a term for speech that the government doesn't like. I don't think you can have "armed sedition." Once people take up arms against the government, you're talking about terrorism or possibly even treason.

Our government has passed sedition laws before and it's been during times of war, when the government wants to crack down on dissenters. I think calling this sedition paves the way toward passing more laws against sedition which carry harsh penalties. Since we are constantly in a state of war these days, I think accusing armed people of sedition muddies the water about what sedition really is, and would serve to make Americans accustomed to seeing people arrested for sedition when all they've done is speak or write words that the government doesn't approve of.

[baldguy]

3. .

sedition - {si-dish-uh n}

noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

[LuvNewcastle]

4. Thanks.

So sedition is mostly used to describe speech or writing. I still think it's a bit confusing to talk about "armed sedition." Lots of actions that aren't crimes can become crimes when a person decides to be armed. I think the concept of "sedition" is unconstitutional, so what is armed sedition, exactly? Is it when a commentator wears a gun while speaking out against the government? I think "armed sedition" is, at best, a clumsy term.

[Hortensis]

8. Charges of sedition are very much "constitutional."

Under the federal constitution, the word treason only applies in time of war and involves giving aid and comfort to identified enemies in that war. I have no idea how the word is defined in each of the state codes.

The terrorists arrested while making bombs after the World Trade Center bombing in the 1990s were prosecuted for seditious conspiracy. Prosecution for sedition is very rare and only happens when it's a very serious threat and happening.

One afternoon I watched on cable TV a bunch of Texans, including public officials, plot violent sedition, secession, insurgency, rebellion, revolt, insurrection -- whatever terms non-attorneys wish to use as they all applied. They discussed having armed themselves and their intent to murder any federal agents and troops who tried to stop them. This went on for at least a couple hours while, of course, they complained of intolerable government oppression, loss of liberty, etc. Then they discussed when their next meeting would be, adjourned, and went their ways until next time.

If these schmucks in Oregon are charged, it will probably be for various much less serious charges, like destruction of government property, public endangerment, etc.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. Thanks for the info on treason.

I didn't know that it only applies during war. I didn't know, either, that those terrorists were charged with "seditious conspiracy." Seemed that a terrorism charge would have been enough, on top of all the weapons charges, to put them away for a very long time, though. The concept of sedition just rubs me the wrong way because I associate it with being a violation of the right to free speech. Something I read about back in school when we talked about Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts gave me that perspective. Wish I could remember what it was.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that these guys would be charged with anything that serious. Their cause is just on principle. I mean, judges shouldn't be able to re-sentence prisoners after their time is served. Their methods can't be condoned, but I think most people will have at least a little sympathy for their situation.

[Hortensis]

10. Sure. But LuvNewCastle, I think they're dishonest

a-holes who care for nothing but what they want and have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Every 2 and 4 years, and frequently even more often, we have the opportunity for revolution against our local, state and federal governments, or to continue as is -- if that's our choice. If a tiny minority of us are unhappy that the will of the citizens of the United States has been to set aside some of the land that belongs to us in common for wildlife preservation, that's too damned bad. That's my land too, and that's my decision they're trying to trash illegally.

[LuvNewcastle]

13. Okay, the article I read said that they

were protesting about some men who were re-sentenced after serving time for setting fires in the forest. I see now that different people are explaining this whole issue from very different perspectives. I don't want national parks and forests bothered by assholes, either, but I wasn't aware of the whole story, apparently. Time to do some reading.

[Hortensis]

14. Lots of viewpoints on the web, all right. At least it's

indicative that those men reporting to prison finish up their sentences do not want this group using them as an excuse for their seditious acts? Have a nice one.

[enough]

15. Thanks to Hortensis and LuvNewcastle for a thoughtful and polite discussion of views.

Let's hope this is the new paradigm for the internet in 2016! Seriously, I loved reading this, so unusual these days.

[catnhatnh]

17. Actually being armed and occupying are part of the statute

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

As to sentencing there was a federal minimum sentence of 5 years but the judge set that aside and gave them 5 and 12 months. The prosecutor appealed and the appeals court reinstated the balance of the statutory sentences...

I have not one atom of sympathy for these armed thugs. Their "principles" are bullshit conspiracy theories formed by white supremacy groups and mostly they need to be convicted of felonies and to lose their 2nd amendment rights...

[ljm2002]

18. No, their cause is not just...

...they are serving the time required to be served for arson on federal land.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

The Hammonds did not ask the Bundys or anyone else to show up in "support" of them and they don't want them there. And BTW, poaching is one thing, but arson is a very, very dangerous crime. One of their neighbors described barely escaping with his life from the fire they started.

No, their cause is not just. People are twisting the facts to fit their narrative.

[KingCharlemagne]

5. A great column by Pierce, well worth reading in its entirety - nt

[B Calm]

6. They are terrorists and should be called that! Listening to the news they are called protesters.

[cali]

7. I'm seeing an increasing number of pieces questioning the language being used

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/http://www.640toronto.com/2016/01/03/oregon-terrorist-claim-they-wont-use-violence-unless-u-s-government-acts/http://www.blogforiowa.com/tag/domestic-terrorism-in-oregon/

[B Calm]

12. Thanks, refreshing to see truth in reporting.

[Sentath]

19. That second link appears to need some spaces in it. Lets try ...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/
http://www.640toronto.com/2016/01/03/oregon-terrorist-claim-they-wont-use-violence-unless-u-s-government-acts/
http://www.blogforiowa.com/tag/domestic-terrorism-in-oregon/

[Vinca]

11. This, more than anything else, will show the difference between

white and black, Christian and Muslim more than anything else. I imagine it will go the way of the Cliven Bundy ranch affair and no one will suffer any consequences. It seriously pisses me off.

[KG]

16. let's not pretend the shitbags aren't emboldened by american gun culture.

[cascadiance]

20. Just a few years ago here in Oregon, armed men occupied our legislature in the Capitol building...

As noted here...



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/11/1567701/armed-pro-gun-protesters-occupy-oregon-state-capitol/

These bums are too used to getting their way.

There's a reason that Dems took over stronger control in the state senate last election, and that was helped by anti-gun Bloomberg pouring money in to our election to get two more Dems elected to take strong control (one of them my new senator).

[Monk06]

21. You need to reform racketeering and extortion law in the US to include armed intimidation to

extortion statutes

The second amendment was not formulated to allow for vigilantism and armed provocation of lawful authority

This is a separate but related issue in relation to police gun violence and civil rights abuses. The right to bear arms should not be allowed to be a pretext for the actions of right wing anarchist groups