FBI takes lead on investigating armed takeover of federal building in Oregon

[jpak]

Source: Washington Post

BURNS, Ore. — The FBI has taken charge of the law enforcement response to an armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, saying that it will work with local and state authorities to seek “a peaceful resolution to the situation.”

“Due to safety considerations for both those inside the refuge as well as the law enforcement officers involved, we will not be releasing any specifics with regards to the law enforcement response,” the FBI said in a statement.

Federal authorities are working with the Harney County Sheriff’s Office, the Oregon State Police and other local and state agencies in response to the situation in eastern Oregon, the latest chapter in an ongoing fight over federal land use in the West.

The occupation of a remote federal wildlife refuge followed a peaceful march and rally held over the weekend to support two local ranchers convicted of arson. The two ranchers — Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven — plan to report to federal prison on Monday.

<more>

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/04/fbi-takes-lead-on-investigating-armed-takeover-of-federal-building-in-oregon/

[Buzz Clik]

1. My understanding is that Clarice Starling will be leading the investigation.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Break out the fava beans and a nice chianti. nt

[Buzz Clik]

6. Tastes like chicken...

[Xipe Totec]

8. Pork, actually, to be brutally accurate. nt

[Buzz Clik]

11. Pork and fava beans? Doesn't seem like the doctor's style.

[Xipe Totec]

17. The Doctor is a gourmand. Fabada Asturiana is a pork and fava bean dish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabada_asturiana

But what I meant is that human flesh tastes like pork, not chicken, according to the Aztec codices.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Ah. Two mistakes on my part.

When is dinner?

[Anansi1171]

4. I could see Cliven Bundy being played by Sir Anthony Hopkins...

"What does one do with an infestation of rats, Clarice?"

[Buzz Clik]

9. qui pro quo ... quid pro quo

[TrollBuster9090]

37. Only because the great Slim Pickens isn't around anymore. Too bad...

"Let me tell you what I know about the negro..."

[Anansi1171]

2. Oh but such a fumble by Obama. THANKS OBAMA! This is your fault for not doing more to promote...

...tolerance, inclusion, respect and unity.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Did you forget to add the sarcasm emoticon? nt

[Anansi1171]

7. Yes. I did.

But if one is required maybe it should be....

[R Merm]

34. The fumble was letting the Bundy's get away with their last hissy fit.

Why not do it again nothing happened to them.

[marble falls]

10. Whats to investigate? Arrest these terrorists.

[JDPriestly]

20. For what? Occupying federal lands?

Making announcements?

What have they done that would justify an arrest?

Illegal camping on federal lands?

Exercising free speech?

[CanonRay]

26. I think somewhere in Title 18 there is something about seizing a Federal building

Give them a chance to move out peacefully and then bring the hammer down.

[TrollBuster9090]

38. I was waiting for that to happen during the Bundy Ranch standoff.

Bundy owes 40 years worth of grazing fees and refuses to pay. The feds take his cattle. A bunch of heavily armed thugs show up and take them back, while pointing guns at federal officials.

I figure the FBI would wait until the excitement dies down, and they've all gone home. Then quietly arrest them one by one.

But no. Apparently the FBI's plan was to just wait until they keep seizing bigger and bigger things by force, and then eventually....dismantle the Federal Government? I'm guessing that's the plan. That's what it looks like so far, anyway.

[catnhatnh]

53. Yes there is

It's a federal felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years. And oh yeah-no more guns when you get out...

[geek tragedy]

30. It's a crime for private citizens to seize public lands and exclude the general public

and to convert that public land or property to their own use.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

31. Plus there is a sign on the door that says NO GUNS ALLOWED!

[geek tragedy]

32. that too. people can't say "I'm invoking my free speech rights" and then just ignore the law nt

[JDPriestly]

71. If they prove that they are excluding the general public . . . .

But still, these "crimes" are hardly worth arresting someone.

We shall see. They are hoping for trouble and will probably make some. But thus far, they are just a bunch of clowns.

I don't think they have done anything serious enough to elicit an armed response. Not yet anyway.

[geek tragedy]

72. So you don't think law enforcement should prevent people from illegally excluding the public

from public lands?

[JDPriestly]

73. I think that law enforcement has to have some evidence that they

are actually excluding people before they take action. I'm not there.

I don't know how much of their blather is just that, blather, and how much will be acted upon.

Just setting up house on public property is trespassing. Not a big crime. Carrying weapons -- I don't know what the punishment is for that. Could be jail time. Could be a fine.

So, I don't think we know enough to know whether they will actually commit crimes that justify a large law enforcement response.

So far I have the impression they have not garnered much support.

The less attention they get, the better in my view. Let's don't make martyrs of them. They are foolish, not brave.

Arson is a serious crime. Camping out in a government building is not so serious although there is probably a law against it.

[geek tragedy]

74. They're preventing the public from entering federal park land.

Armed goons are guarding the roads to prevent others from entering. Their pickups are patrolling the refuge. Men with rifles are in watchtowers.
A federal building has been seized by a band of armed criminals.

That multiple serious crimes have been committed is not a matter of serious debate.

[Blue_Tires]

69. Failure to pay grazing rights fees?

[Depaysement]

12. The FBI

I hope they can distinguish the wildlife from the animals.

[Angry Dragon]

13. they should be treated like terrorists

[Yallow]

14. They Have A Right To Protest and "Occupy"

If they threaten anyone they should be rounded up and prosecuted like criminals.

That's how it works in a nation with stuff like laws and constitutions and stuff.

If they don't like it, maybe they should move to Somalia.....

[bvar22]

15. Of course, you are right.

Last edited Mon Jan 4, 2016, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

...but I still wish they would call in the Philly Police to handle them like they handled MOVE, a black activist group in Philadelphia.
The dropped a big ass bomb right on their heads, and destroyed an entire block of homes, killing 11 and injuring many more.





On Edit: The above is what happens when we have Black People with guns.

[backscatter712]

19. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if Bundy's gangbangers got Waco'd...

Granted, the optics would be bad...

[rexcat]

61. I thinnk the best course of action...

would to surround the building and not let anyone in or out. Turn of the power and the water off and wait. Eventually they will come out on their own accord. At that point arrest the terrorists and let the prosecutors do their job. If per chance they want to get violent make sure there are enough snipers surrounding the building to take corrective action. Another key to the issue is to let them know what is waiting for them so at least they will know the consequences of their actions, be it civil or violent.

[JDPriestly]

22. I'm with you.

[geek tragedy]

28. There is a right to protest, but absolutely zero right to occupy. ZERO.

The first amendment does not give private citizens the right to seize public lands. That land belongs to the public, not to the Neanderthals occupying it currently.

[Yallow]

63. Actually They Are The Public

Even if they are brain dead......

I will give a lot of latitude to protesters.

Not people who point guns at officials though.

[geek tragedy]

64. No, they are members of the public, they are not the public.

They have absolutely zero right--and this is beyond any possible doubt--to deprive other members of the public access, use and enjoyment of that refuge.

They have the same rights as anyone else. No one has the right to occupy it.

[passiveporcupine]

35. Do they have the right to occupy federal buildings if doing so

keeps the government employees from doing their jobs? Is it OK to occupy with guns?

Yes, I've seen peaceful sit-ins in government official's offices or outer offices. They don't come armed and tell the news that they will shoot anyone who tries to come in and remove them. And they don't prevent the government employee from accessing and using his/her own office. And they usually just want a conversation with that official and then they leave. That is not the intent here in Oregon.

Occupying an open public park (with tents) is not the same thing as taking over buildings and shutting down business. If this Bundy group set up tents out in the forest, and left the buildings alone, there would not be this issue of "armed militant standoff". And who in their right minds would send their employees to work in a building (if they even let them in) with a bunch of armed crazy militants?

[MurrayDelph]

39. The right to "protest" and "Occupy"

does not extend to a closed building.

I believe that is called "breaking and entering."

[roguevalley]

42. may I say I love Oregon. I. Love. Oregon. I love this part of it because both sides of my

parents families lived there and have since 1868. The sheriff and the people there must be livid. There may be a lot of people who have feelings about things but armed invasion won't play well locally. These are good people in a depressed part of the state. I love Oregon and Eastern Oregon.

[L. Coyote]

75. No right to disobey laws. Warrants have been issued already, their crimes will be prosecuted.

Can't wait for the details.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Well that's good because I did not like hearing that interstate mobs taking Federal property is a

local law enforcement issue for a county with 7,000 people and a Sheriff who stared on Friday. It seemed a bit too hands off to me.

[JDPriestly]

24. Camping without a permit?

Have they even killed game without a license?

What have they done that is so seriously wrong as to require that they be arrested rather than simply fined?

Parking in a federal park without a permit?

Isn't it so far just a lot of talk and preening? Strutting about?

Have I missed something?

[passiveporcupine]

36. They are not camping out in tents in the forest.

They've taken over the whole wildlife refuge compound. It is shut down now because of them. No employees can work there, and no public can visit. They have taken the whole refuge hostage. And they are armed, with intent to use arms if necessary to stay there.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. You sure piled lots of bull in on that one. First, that's a Visitor Center they are 'camping in'

which is not open to the public today because of armed occupation by hooligans. So that's not purely 'camping', is it? No it's not.
Also, what I said had nothing to do with what should be done with these criminals what I said is that hearing DC say it was purely a local law enforcement matter as a bit too hands off, seeing as it's Federal land they are holding and the fact that local anything is small and poor.

[2pooped2pop]

51. not leaving?

seems to me that the unarmed occupiers of several parks, were tasered, pepper sprayed, chased, property destroyed, arrested, beaten, flash banged, tear gassed and called terrorist, insurgents, etc. I guess the anarchist who wanted to go violent with it might have been right after all? Use guns, carry a big hick, threaten to die rather than leave. Apparently that was what works. Who knew?

[angrychair]

55. Yes, you have

By some accounts there are as many as 150+ heavily armed people at the site that have expressed the desire to stay as long as it takes and shoot if they "need to".There are 11+ buildings that were closed to the public at that site. Based on public domain accounts from the site, they are unlawfully occupying at at least 3+ of the buildings.They have mounted an armed person in a fire watch tower at the site as well and man it 24 hrs a day.
Reporters were allowed at the site but barred from entering buildings for "operational security".

These are a bunch of nutjobs playing army and trying to start a conflict.

They even talked about bringing in spouses and children which is a clear attempt to have non-combatants at the site to have human shields or increase the opportunity for collateral damage if a breach is necessary.

These people are terrorists and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that if these were anything other than white males they would already be dead.

[Nihil]

68. "require that they be arrested rather than simply fined"?

> What have they done that is so seriously wrong as to require that
> they be arrested rather than simply fined?

Now I'm confused.

Surely they would have to be arrested in order to be tried and,
if found guilty, fined?

You seem to be suggesting that these are alternatives and that it would
be better for the punishment to be applied before the crime has been
proven rather than arresting them.



Were you meaning that this is somehow more akin to a traffic cop
issuing an on-the-spot fine for speeding or something?

(Note that I am not a US citizen and so might be missing something
blindingly obvious to those of you who are!)

Thanks.

[Bernin]

18. This liberal

is okay with civil disobedience.
Also, what they are protesting is a pretty obvious case of double jeopardy.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. It's not even close to double jeopardy.

nt

[Bernin]

25. When you plea bargain

and serve your sentence. Then some judge comes along and decides you need to do some more time.

yes, that is the very definition of double jeopardy.

[geek tragedy]

29. You should really read a legal dictionary before pretending to know what the law says

Double jeopardy refers to a person being prosecuted twice, by the same sovereign, for the same offense.

Here there was only one prosecution, and the appeals process was not over guilt, but rather whether the judge followed the law in determining the sentence. The judge broke the law in giving too lenient of a sentence, ergo the change.

[justiceischeap]

33. Here, I'll help you figure out how you're wrong

The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. See, e.g. United States v. Ursery, 518 US 267 (1996).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy

They weren't prosecuted twice, only once and there is a minimum sentence that the judge refused to hand down (which is why they're being sent back to prison to serve their minimum sentence). The judge had no latitude in the sentencing he could give and there wasn't a plea agreement.

And this is why they were resentenced:

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.

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

[Bernin]

49. The 5th

amendment says nothing about prosecuted. The word does not even appear in the 5th amendment.
The pertinent clause states:

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"

Being put in a federal pen a 2nd time for the same crime definitely puts you in jeopardy of life and limb.

They served their time. And, 5 years for a fire that accidentally spread to 140 acres of federal land is cruel and unusual punishment. Which is another constitutional issue as well.


BTW, who from the EPA is facing prison for the much more severe damage they recently did to the Animas river in Colorado?

[justiceischeap]

56. The point you seem to be missing is what the legal meaning of the 5th amendment is

And the legal meaning is that a person cannot be tried more than once for the same crime. Not only does the Federal appellate court agree on the definition of Double Jeopardy but so does the US Supreme Court--otherwise these men who INTENTIONALLY set the fire to cover-up poaching, wouldn't be heading back to jail to serve their complete terms. Again, a judge does not have the discretion to decide that the mandatory minimum in a case isn't worth following in sentencing. The arson charge has a mandatory minimum of 5 years. They did not serve that mandatory minimum, thus there is no double jeopardy. And this idea that the fire was accidental, well one of them may have been (but it was still illegal to set that fire under Oregon law) the second that burned 140 acres wasn't. Read the facts of the case. Facts matter and just because you keep disregarding the facts doesn't make them less factual.

Of course, I can explain this to you over and over but I think you'd rather go join your friends in Oregon--where there is another Federal law that says it's illegal to seize federal property. So those militia guys aren't "protesting" or participating in civil disobedience, they're breaking the law.

As far as the Animas River in CO, that's a totally different discussion and isn't pertinent to the situation in Oregon. If you'd like to speak about that, start a thread in GD.

[Bernin]

58. So,

What I'm getting from you is that:
1. you are a-okay with these men being sentenced under federal terrorism charges.
2. You are also a-okay with these men being prosecuted in 2010 for a crime that happened in 2001
3. You are also a-okay with mandatory minimums.

None of those 3 are democratic principles yet you accuse me of being pals with the protestors. hmmm

And yes the Animas river is definitely not a different discussion b/c that was willful destruction of federal property and the lack of any prosecution for it is another example of the in your face multi-tiered justice system.
Which is also not a democratic principle.

And, I'll hope you will note that I did not resort to snide comments and innuendo directed at you.
So, if you reply, please refrain from further petulant discourse.

[justiceischeap]

59. Your first mistake is assuming every democrat thinks like you

a) they were convicted and sentenced under federal arson charges. Please provide a link that states otherwise.

b) I am a-okay with anyone being convicted of a crime if that conviction falls within the statute of limitations.

c) yes, I am a-okay with SOME mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. I don't have a problem with 5 years for arson that not only put Hammond family members in danger but the firefighters as well. The problem with most mandatory minimums is that they have been used to jail many non-violent offenders to life sentences on the 3 strikes sentencing guidelines.

I resort to snide comments and innuendo because when people willfully peddle false information instead of researching the facts put before them. I have little respect for people who choose to be ignorant of facts.

[Bernin]

62. Here is your link.

"The men were convicted of arson, but under a provision of an expansive federal law punishing terrorism."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html#incart_story_package


That's okay. I have no respect for anyone that can't have a discussion without resorting to childish antics.

[geek tragedy]

60. Sticking up for Vanilla ISIS and bashing the EPA.

Looks like I was right about you.

[Midnight Writer]

67. Absolutely, non violent civil disobedience is OK. Then you must be willing to accept consequences.

You must be willing to accept arrest, conviction and incarceration. MLK, Gandhi, Father Dornan, countless others took that responsibility and suffered the results, then continued their work.

These folks are threatening armed violent response to government action.

If they feel so strongly, they must feel strong enough to suffer the consequences. If no one is hurt, and this is a non violent protest, the legal penalties should be fairly light. If someone gets hurt or even killed as a result of their actions, the legal penalty should be more severe.

The difference here is the guns and the threats of violence. When you have armed yourselves, pointed your guns at folks, threatened that you will not be taken without a firefight, then you have crossed a serious line that is beyond protest. Please recall that following the last Bundy stand off, a couple of them went on to shoot a couple of police who were eating lunch. Therefore, the threat of violence emanating from 150 armed folk must be taken seriously.

I agree that it is bullshit to "resentence" folks who have served their judiciated time and have not reoffended. I also have no problem with protesting that decision (although I must point out that their statements have changed over the course of the occupation). It is (again) the guns and threats of violence that put this into a different category than civil disobedience.

[mwrguy]

27. Is one of them Lon Horiuchi?

[GGJohn]

43. For those that don't know the name Lon Horiuchi,

He's the FBI sniper who shot and killed Vicky Weaver, who was holding her baby at the time, through a door while trying to shoot and kill Kevin Harris at Ruby Ridge.

[chervilant]

41. Re: two local ranchers convicted of arson:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[GGJohn]

44. They are doing the time,

they've surrendered themselves to the Fed. authorities at the Fed. prison to finish their sentence.

[chervilant]

45. Sigh...

I KNOW they are.

[GGJohn]

47. Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. eom.

[chervilant]

48. I was being facetious,

because so many of the extremists I've met -- who self-identify as conservative, or Republican or xtian -- will trot out that homily whenever they see someone liberal or Democratic get in a legal bind (usually involving marijuana -- a major crop in my county).

I grew up in a VERY conservative area, and am one of entirely too few liberals -- for MILES around -- and I've heard this derisive and dismissive assertion far too many times.

[RussBLib]

46. only now they are going to investigate?

I would have expected the Bundy gang to be on the FBI radar long before now.

[trueblue2007]

50. JUST shoot all the protestors and get it over with. use drones.

[bobthedrummer]

52. The FBI also took the lead in providing sanctuary to many killers, human traffickers, drug kings etc

while focusing on the really dangerous books that we, the people check out from public libraries, the action groups formed to expand civil rights, promote peace, educate, etc...The original goals of John Edgar Hoover's hateful COINTELPRO's have been far exceeded here in HOMELAND Inc-to the point of nascent fascism.

Of course there will be actions, reactions and over reactions like this, and that's all by design imho and experience.

There is quite a federal presence in the link below too.

Chapter 21-Omaha
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016139460

[Bernin]

54. The FBI

also did a bang up job covering up the Anthrax murders.

[bobthedrummer]

70. Welcome to the 2016 version of DU, Bernin! n/t

[ashling]

57. The FBI? Just call in this guy

[vanamonde]

65. There is precedent here

Younger folks on this board may not remember the nineteen month occupation of Alcatraz (also federal property) by a group of native Americans, 1969-1971. Clearly many of the dynamics are different this time, but it was ultimately resolved non-violently as I recall. The feds just waited them out. It's hard for occupiers to maintain the initial level of fervor for their cause as the weeks and months drag on. Especially when you realize that nobody is paying any attention anymore.

[hollowdweller]

66. So they have proved guns do work right??

Occupy guys and BLM protestors rounded up by police and moved.

What if the BLM guys had taken over the town hall in Ferguson, armed, and called for elections??

What if the Occupy guys had taken over the NYSE armed and called for repeal of Glass Steagle???

These guys? They get away with it and can do it again because they have guns.

Iraq had no nukes and we took their gov't out and occupied their country though they never threatened the US.

North Korea HAS nukes, has threatened the US and we treat them with kid gloves?

Anybody see a pattern here? Chairman Mao was right. "political power grows from the barrel of a gun"

In a sense the NRA is right. The gov't won't protect the people from these guys. Maybe the environmentalists and land preservationists should form their own milita and run them out??