Only in today's America can you conduct an armed occupation of federal property and not be penalized for it. Yet if you inadvertently leave $40 off your tax return, you'll be threatened with a fine and jail. And God help you if you're a black man caught stealing an apple from a bodega.
39
Disappointed in NYT coverage of this incident. No in depth explanation of verdict.
Is this the best you can do?
Is this the best you can do?
18
You don't know the reason for the acquittals, perhaps you should wait.
9
Just a thought.
If the armed occupiers had been immigrants, or members of Black Lives Matter, or (gulp) Muslims,- Americans all - Clive and Ammon and their buddies would have grabbed their long guns and side arms, jumped in their pick ups and high tailed to the Malheur Reserve lickity-split to BACK UP our valiant and patriotic rangers and agents, doing their best to protect Federal land from insurrection and from outright criminals.
If the armed occupiers had been immigrants, or members of Black Lives Matter, or (gulp) Muslims,- Americans all - Clive and Ammon and their buddies would have grabbed their long guns and side arms, jumped in their pick ups and high tailed to the Malheur Reserve lickity-split to BACK UP our valiant and patriotic rangers and agents, doing their best to protect Federal land from insurrection and from outright criminals.
21
Thank you to the Bundy family and anyone else that says 'no more' and stands up to the Federal Government. It isn't easy to stand up for yourself and exercise ALL of your rights.......but it sure feels good. (please look at the map of 'federal land' wow.....there is not much left.
2
Trump. Bundys. Peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. Same supporters. Same feelings and rhetoric. Same appeal.
24
I'm still waiting for charges to be brought against big daddy (and deadbeat) Cliven Bundy's posse for their 2014 standoff in Nevada. The boys pointing AR-15s at BLM workers and told to just go home?
Now the Oregon acquittals. "Law and order" indeed. Guess that only applies to Those People.
Now the Oregon acquittals. "Law and order" indeed. Guess that only applies to Those People.
26
Basically despite everything else, it's about the guns. You do not protest with guns. Period. I am so so so sick of guns.
29
This brings to mind the O.J. Simpson trial. No good will come from this verdict.
7
So what's the next step for the rest of us? Clearly, outsiders aren't welcome in Oregon, and visiting a wildlife refuge or park is now unsafe. Guess we'd better keep our tourist $$ at home.
12
A flagrant case of jury nullification, rivaling the O. J. Simpson case.
3
The ONLY real national threats we face are from within. Right wing dominionist Christians and conservative militia groups are enemies of our Democratic Republic. Most people in the military are ultra right wing Christian, thus the need for a new civil rights group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation started in 2005. These Christian dominionists do NOT defend our Constitution, rather a Christian Theocracy. Militia groups spawned Timothy McVeigh. This verdict put legitimacy on armed intervention by citizens. I'm corncerned (even alarmed) for the lives of our federal employees and the future of our nation.
17
It sounds like yet another decision of the unwashed masses (the jury) that the elite do not like. Perhaps we should scrap jury trials (and voting) and rely upon the Federal Judiciary for all of our decision making. You get to make decisions only if you went to Yale or Harvard Law Schools.
4
Is it now legal to occupy a federal building with assault rifles? Am I missing something? I am shocked at how our government chose to appease these folks.
18
The prosecutors didn't make their case, Mr. Ketcham. Your disdain is misdirected.
The solution is better prosecutors or working to change the law, not whining about your loss, sir.
The solution is better prosecutors or working to change the law, not whining about your loss, sir.
5
I worked for the USFS in Idaho in the 1990s after Waco and Ruby Ridge and the climate was openly hostile to US Gov't employees. This miscarriage of justice reinforces this. The government protects and manages OUR land in the West -- government workers need our support.
33
Clearly the Federal prosecutor failed.
7
The 7 felonious clowns were charged with "conspiracy", and the irresponsible jurors said 'no problem'. These reprobates got all attention and no consequences.
They should have been charged with destruction of gov't property, intimidation, common nuisance, all of these and additional. It's a travesty of justice that they were not held accountable.
Meanwhile, at Standing Rock, PEACEFUL protesters are wounded, assaulted, and rounded up with military brutality. Where is the justice?
They should have been charged with destruction of gov't property, intimidation, common nuisance, all of these and additional. It's a travesty of justice that they were not held accountable.
Meanwhile, at Standing Rock, PEACEFUL protesters are wounded, assaulted, and rounded up with military brutality. Where is the justice?
36
I don't understand the acquittal at all? How can it be ok for armed thugs to hole up in a public place keeping the public out?
16
When guns held by white men are fair free speech then why are the pipeline protesters being arrested? Because they are not white. If the pipeline protesters had guns they would be killed. The Bundy's ride again!
24
Those pesky juries, too bad they get in the way of your vision of correctness.
5
Isn't this just "jury nullification"? In the past, jury nullification typically occurred in support of liberal causes. Here, it seems to have worked in favor of a conservative cause. I am not saying that I agree, but it is interesting. . .
6
No, what it does is to fire a shot across the bow of a ship of state that has grown ever more bloated and tyrannical
5
We like to define ourselves as a country of law and order. What a joke.
10
I suppose we ought to start calling the Bundy gang "a well regulated militia?" I wonder if I can rassle me up my own posse of gun totin' microcephalic friends and start settin' things to right myself.
5
The inescapable message delivered by the Oregon jury is that local vigilantes, armed to the teeth and threatening sedition, can defy federal laws in the name of ... what?
Certainly not the US Constitution.
Certainly not a belief that the federal lands belong to all Americans, not just the people who live in closest proximity to them.
Certainly not a trust in their fellow Americans.
No, the people who made up the jury exemplify the types of individuals who have determined that their local tribes can use armed force to steal land and property that doesn't belong to them. They can do so because their tribe lives there.
There's a good reason why the Bundy's, their supporters, and the people typical of the Oregon jury are scorned as Y'all Qaedas. Same tribal mentality. Same belief that guns give them power. Just different theocracies.
Certainly not the US Constitution.
Certainly not a belief that the federal lands belong to all Americans, not just the people who live in closest proximity to them.
Certainly not a trust in their fellow Americans.
No, the people who made up the jury exemplify the types of individuals who have determined that their local tribes can use armed force to steal land and property that doesn't belong to them. They can do so because their tribe lives there.
There's a good reason why the Bundy's, their supporters, and the people typical of the Oregon jury are scorned as Y'all Qaedas. Same tribal mentality. Same belief that guns give them power. Just different theocracies.
7
There should be a no recourse lifetime ban on gun possession for anyone caught brandishing guns for political purposes to demonstrate zero tolerance for it.
4
"And while we don’t know the reason for the acquittals in what seemed like an open-and-shut case of guilt..."
Sure we do.
They're white.
We all know of the Bundys had been black, they would have been teargassed and shot the first night. There would have been no hand-wringing about the optics, no tearful phone calls. Hell, with a truckload of guns, they probably wouldn't have even made it down the highway to the station!
Sure we do.
They're white.
We all know of the Bundys had been black, they would have been teargassed and shot the first night. There would have been no hand-wringing about the optics, no tearful phone calls. Hell, with a truckload of guns, they probably wouldn't have even made it down the highway to the station!
11
Much like the sentencing of the Stanford rapist. A complete travesty. These are my lands and I want them protected!
11
So a bunch of armed thugs take over land we own and threaten federal agents, costing we the taxpayers dollars probably in the millions - but they were white and so they get away with it.
Meanwhile some black kid with a joint is being stopped, frisked, and having a gun pointed at him if he gets irritated at being stopped walking while black.
We got it, America.
The war on crime is only if you're black or brown. If they had been black and were armed (or not) they'd be dead.
Meanwhile some black kid with a joint is being stopped, frisked, and having a gun pointed at him if he gets irritated at being stopped walking while black.
We got it, America.
The war on crime is only if you're black or brown. If they had been black and were armed (or not) they'd be dead.
13
That's almost funny. With what this paper does to police officers they have put targets on many and don't care.
4
This shows again how bigoted whites are about taking govt land and using it for private purposes. When the Bundy follower was shot and killed, it meant that the white jury would turn the others loose. The whole group of insurgents should have been stormed and shot, but because they were white it did not happen.
5
Bundy and his lame progeny are grifters and insurrectionists.They should be treated accordingly!
They need to get real jobs as opposed to stealing from US taxpayers!
They need to get real jobs as opposed to stealing from US taxpayers!
10
While I do not disagree that federal lan management employees now have a bullseye on their back, I think this verdict constitutes a wide ranging threat to Americans everywhere. When a group of over grown adolescents are told that their gun waiving temper tantrums are ok regardless of their threats of violence and their criminal behavior, we are all at risk. The Bundies and their cheap, arrogant father are just the tip of the iceberg of right wing vigilantism and terrorism. Armed by the NRA and supported by those who think the Constitution gives them the right to intimidate and ride rough shod over other humans rights, these men are dangerous.
12
The Bundy crowd was guilty of a host of thuggish, wingnut crimes. Yet the BLM is also guilty, in their case of a great deal of regulatory overreach. Frankly, I am disgusted that the Bundy gang is not paying for their crimes. But ditto for the federal land managers. They make up rules that are totally unnecessary (e.g. rules for how many pounds of fossiliferous rock a hobbyist can collect per year? Come on...), yet the lawmakers and bureaucrats ever consider that there might be a price to pay for needlessly pushing around citizens. Well, one result is a jury exonerating the Bundy thugs. Perhaps it is time for some inspired rethinking of the role of federal land management?
2
How is it possible that Cliven Bundy is still illegally grazing his cattle on federal land? Does the federal government not have sufficient resources to put this scofflaw out of business?
11
"And while we don’t know the reason for the acquittals in what seemed like an open-and-shut case of guilt, it comes against a backdrop of deep antipathy in parts of the West toward"
the United States of America, apparently.
the United States of America, apparently.
6
BLM employees need to be armed and counter those threats with adequate force. Only this seems like it will work.
2
The Utah capitol building and the Governors office hold active shooter training. I believe this was a reaction to the gentleman that walked into the capitol building with a rifle and left it there just to demonstrate he could. His action was actually a protest against our gun laws rather than supporting the 2nd Amendment though.
In any event, I know a government employee that attended one of these training sessions. The basic takeaway: if a shooter walks into their building, they're all in big trouble. The officer even pulled out an assault rifle for effect. The only useful advice was to call their closest police dispatch directly. The response time is quicker than dialing 911 apparently. These people make and distribute welcome center pamphlets.
Most of the people giving tours in our capitol building are volunteers. The people working in the gift shop are under paid retail employees just like anywhere else. The BLM, the NPS, the FS, and the FWS? Let me put it this way, pit toilets at trailheads don't clean themselves. You have to really like your job to accept fun little responsibilities like this one.
These are the people we're talking about harassing in the work place. There's not much you can do about one-off copycats either. However, we can do something about the Bundy family. If the police can't get cows off our land, I say send in the national guard. Show the family what government overreach really looks like. Maybe they'll shut up. I'd feel better either way.
In any event, I know a government employee that attended one of these training sessions. The basic takeaway: if a shooter walks into their building, they're all in big trouble. The officer even pulled out an assault rifle for effect. The only useful advice was to call their closest police dispatch directly. The response time is quicker than dialing 911 apparently. These people make and distribute welcome center pamphlets.
Most of the people giving tours in our capitol building are volunteers. The people working in the gift shop are under paid retail employees just like anywhere else. The BLM, the NPS, the FS, and the FWS? Let me put it this way, pit toilets at trailheads don't clean themselves. You have to really like your job to accept fun little responsibilities like this one.
These are the people we're talking about harassing in the work place. There's not much you can do about one-off copycats either. However, we can do something about the Bundy family. If the police can't get cows off our land, I say send in the national guard. Show the family what government overreach really looks like. Maybe they'll shut up. I'd feel better either way.
10
The definition of Terrorism:
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
6
The prosecutions' case failed due to prosecutorial overreach.
http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/Oregonian/SharedArticle.asp...
The first article is written by Juror #4.
http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/Oregonian/SharedArticle.asp...
http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/Oregonian/SharedArticle.asp...
The first article is written by Juror #4.
http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/Oregonian/SharedArticle.asp...
2
The presence of deadly weapons--the fact that these land-grabbing "protesters" were armed and dangerous--is what made all the difference.
This clearly made it unsafe for the park employees to do their job--whether the thugs explicitly threatened them or not--just like the "militia" with their guns trained on BLM agents trying to deal with Cliven's illegal cattle made it dangerous for the agents do their jobs.
Ever since Waco, especially, the feds have wanted to avoid violent confrontations with extremist white "Christians," which is why they had to tiptoe in their dealings with these armed bullies throughout the Malheur fiasco.
The Native American peaceful protesters of the Dakota pipeline--also a land use issue--are not armed. Hence, force can be used on them without fear of retaliation. Ironic that they are standing up for non-selfish preservation of the land and water, whereas the Bundy "Christians" are standing up for the "right" to selfishly exploit the land.
We clearly need to repeal the GOP/NRA law that allows civilians to carry deadly weapons in national parks. This incident should be an object lesson on why this is a terrible idea.
Also, the Bill of Rights protects PEACEFUL assembly, including for purposes of free speech. "Protesting" while carrying deadly weapons is inherently intimidating and should not be protected. But then what about the Dakota protesters? Makes me want to go join them....
This clearly made it unsafe for the park employees to do their job--whether the thugs explicitly threatened them or not--just like the "militia" with their guns trained on BLM agents trying to deal with Cliven's illegal cattle made it dangerous for the agents do their jobs.
Ever since Waco, especially, the feds have wanted to avoid violent confrontations with extremist white "Christians," which is why they had to tiptoe in their dealings with these armed bullies throughout the Malheur fiasco.
The Native American peaceful protesters of the Dakota pipeline--also a land use issue--are not armed. Hence, force can be used on them without fear of retaliation. Ironic that they are standing up for non-selfish preservation of the land and water, whereas the Bundy "Christians" are standing up for the "right" to selfishly exploit the land.
We clearly need to repeal the GOP/NRA law that allows civilians to carry deadly weapons in national parks. This incident should be an object lesson on why this is a terrible idea.
Also, the Bill of Rights protects PEACEFUL assembly, including for purposes of free speech. "Protesting" while carrying deadly weapons is inherently intimidating and should not be protected. But then what about the Dakota protesters? Makes me want to go join them....
14
A big part of the problem here in Portland, Oregon, is that the local news media failed to report the background issues involved in the Malheur takeover; in particular, the information contained in Nancy Langston's op-ed piece which ran in the NYT just four days after the takeover began, and completely debunked the claims of the Bundys and their supporters. The local news media chose, instead, to treat the story as a "he said-she said" dispute, apparently fearful of generating backlash from Oregon's conservative rural population by reporting actual facts.
17
This just shows when you have an all white jury, one black male, whites will never be convicted of anything, even on Oregon. Our criminal justice system appears to be only for one race of people. If this group had been made up of people of color, I ahve no doubt that the verdict would have been entirely different.
10
Very shameful verdict that will carry consequences in the future. How could the jurors not see the criminality of these actions?
2
The Bundys will be successfully prosecuted only after they, or their followers, have killed people.
4
Remember: eastern Oregon was settled by white, racist refugees from Dixie. The verdict, an instances of jury nullification, reflects the anti-federal government stances of the locals who made up the jury should be no surprise.
6
The FBI will jump in for a case of sexting with an underage girl that crosses state lines, but they won't take control over an armed assault of federal/public property being raped and pillaged. Who's calling the shots?
Malheur is federal property and should be just as important as a federal military installation, and we all know how those are defended. Speaking of calling the shots, MILLIONS more acres were just allotted to the DoD by Congress for expansion of bombing ranges. I don't suppose they'd mind a nice wildlife refuge in Oregon if it became unmanageable due to risk/danger to employees. I dare the Bundys to try to take those lands!
In addition to, or part of, the Bundy mentality, we've also got the American Redoubt movement and their ilk invading our northwestern states. That needs coverage, although much of it is below the radar so hard to track.
Montana, designated as one of the American Redoubt destinations, is nicknamed the Treasure State for good reason. It's unfortunate but true that we can't rely on or trust our Fed Gov't to do what's best for us when they have the noise of money and bombs deafening them to the voice of the people and the cries of wildlife.
Malheur is federal property and should be just as important as a federal military installation, and we all know how those are defended. Speaking of calling the shots, MILLIONS more acres were just allotted to the DoD by Congress for expansion of bombing ranges. I don't suppose they'd mind a nice wildlife refuge in Oregon if it became unmanageable due to risk/danger to employees. I dare the Bundys to try to take those lands!
In addition to, or part of, the Bundy mentality, we've also got the American Redoubt movement and their ilk invading our northwestern states. That needs coverage, although much of it is below the radar so hard to track.
Montana, designated as one of the American Redoubt destinations, is nicknamed the Treasure State for good reason. It's unfortunate but true that we can't rely on or trust our Fed Gov't to do what's best for us when they have the noise of money and bombs deafening them to the voice of the people and the cries of wildlife.
4
I agree the verdict was a travesty but what I take away most now and, to be honest, felt the day I heard the specific charges announced is that they were indicted on the wrong charge(s). Surely there were many other charges to press them on but they chose the hardest one to prove when there is no documentary evidence.
These defendants did prevent federal employees from being able to perform their jobs. These people did bring firearms of many makes onto and into federal building without permission. These people did desecrate Native American burial grounds and disturb their artifacts. These people did incite others to join them in an armed standoff with Federal and State agents. These people did take government property without permission and use it again without permission, and in many cases left it in disrepair with no compensation to the country from which they took it. Many of these people did leave the scene of a crime several times during the commission of those crimes. And so on.
They were charged with the wrong crime(s).
- Clearwater from Oregon.
These defendants did prevent federal employees from being able to perform their jobs. These people did bring firearms of many makes onto and into federal building without permission. These people did desecrate Native American burial grounds and disturb their artifacts. These people did incite others to join them in an armed standoff with Federal and State agents. These people did take government property without permission and use it again without permission, and in many cases left it in disrepair with no compensation to the country from which they took it. Many of these people did leave the scene of a crime several times during the commission of those crimes. And so on.
They were charged with the wrong crime(s).
- Clearwater from Oregon.
5
Let's hope the Nevada case puts these miscreants under the jailhouse. It's hard to understand why the federal judge in the Oregon case didn't nullify the jury's nullification of the law by ruling that the jury's verdict went against the weight of the evidence. The fact that she didn't suggests that there may have been more weight to the defense than is generally being given credit -- that the government's use of paid informers to infiltrate the Bundy group during the standoff may have legitimately troubled the jurors, or at least raised reasonable doubt as to who did what.
1
It is frightening that there is such a wide divide between the government and the citizenry. Not just the radical Bundy defendants but a supposedly impartial jury express the deep founded fear that the government is doing wrong by the people. It seems unlikely that either of the current Presidential candidates are very concerned about this gap and how to fix it, although Clinton, more than Trump, seems willing to double down on distancing policy in Washington from the interests of groups she does not view as supporters.
3
The awful verdict in the standoff case is dwarfed by BLM's failure to take appropriate enforcement action in Nevada. As opposed to Waco and Ruby Ridge, if ever there was a case for full armament and force that was it. Yet law enforcement ran from the scene with tails between their legs, thus empowering the rednecks who continued their malfeasance at the Malheur Refuge. So, don't blame the verdict in Oregon. The arguably trumped up charges were misplaced and demonstrate that extreme "patience" can be as bad as over-reaction. Unfortunately, law enforcement can't seem to find the right balance and have no one but themselves to blame for escalating what is largely a political problem.
7
Apparently the defense was a lot better at jury selection than the prosecution. Trying to look on the bright side, maybe this signals a turn for the better in law enforcement, but that's already been turned over at Standing Rock. Canyon just imagine the outrage if they'd killed a horse at Malheur? There's a pretty blatant double standard here.
4
Perhaps ire is better directed at the interior department and the congresses that impose this intrusion upon these people - like the Dakota pipeline incident ongoing now. Read our history. The passing of 240+ years does not change the premise - either the people rule, or we change the rulers...and there is more than one method.
3
This trial outcome is nothing more than the opening act for the next Waco and Ruby Ridge. Armed activists constantly await their moment of opportunity to strike, this decision is their green light event.
3
Its pretty clear the stance of this author. Perhaps people need to start looking at the rights that slowly be etched away by government instead of badmouthing the individuals that are willing to stand up for the rights of the people of this country. Little by little govt has worked at taking away the things that originally founded this country and made us unique. The government employees were in no way a target by the Bundy's. They simply wanted to stand up and voice and make known the overstretching reaches of government. The Bundy's aren't trying to take away land for people to enjoy, but rather continue to use free range land for animals that have been free range. There is no crazy sense of entitlement or violent extremists....people, open your eyes and get a grip on reality!
2
Did you not read the NYT article with comments from a juror who sat on the Bundy trial? It is apparent that the essence of the problem that led to acquittals was overcharging by the US Attorney. The defendants were clearly trespassing and clearly disobeying lawful orders, but the jury was not asked to convict of such crimes. They were asked to determine whether the defendants were intentionally (not just knowingly) interfering with the duties of the park rangers, a charge which would carry a higher prison sentence than trespass or disobedience to a lawful order.
Over reaction by law enforcement is getting more common, as is over charging by prosecutors. Articles like this one continue to pump up the fears and the overreactions that have resulted in so many recent tragedies. Our thin blue line needs to calm down.
Over reaction by law enforcement is getting more common, as is over charging by prosecutors. Articles like this one continue to pump up the fears and the overreactions that have resulted in so many recent tragedies. Our thin blue line needs to calm down.
3
Reading all of this and adding it to the rest of the obstructions put forth (Trump, ideological republicans, preachers wannabees, profit-motivated corporations, Teas-Party, supremacists) makes me extremely angry. We are seeing hordes of contrarians who are wasting everybody's time. You cannot reason with any of them. I am hoping that a Hillary presidency will bring normalcy back as, little by little, the silent majority gently and systematically asserts his will.
If this does not happen, more and more of these people will feel unboldened and the situation will worsen until ugly "sledge-hammer-like" Law and Order gets established. We will be one step away from fascism at that moment.
Better to have the fight now. Apply the same long-winded approaches used against debunking ideologues. Bring them to justice when needed and Ridicule them in public and on their airwaves.
If this does not happen, more and more of these people will feel unboldened and the situation will worsen until ugly "sledge-hammer-like" Law and Order gets established. We will be one step away from fascism at that moment.
Better to have the fight now. Apply the same long-winded approaches used against debunking ideologues. Bring them to justice when needed and Ridicule them in public and on their airwaves.
2
This verdict was a major travesty. This verdict has far reaching implications. I sincerely hope that if a similar case comes up again, that jury will do the correct thing and convict.
I wonder if the occupiers were Black, American Indian or Hispanic- if the verdict would have been the same?
I also wonder what the verdict would be if they occupied another national treasure like Independence Hall. Statue of Liberty or the Grand Canyon? They are all on lands owned by the American people and supported by our tax dollars and protected by our government workers. They are not for private use. It would be the same thing if I decided to move into Independence Hall and make it my private residence. I'm tired of paying my mortgage so I'll just take over some public space for my own financial benefit. With the Bundy logic, that should work just fine.
I wonder if the occupiers were Black, American Indian or Hispanic- if the verdict would have been the same?
I also wonder what the verdict would be if they occupied another national treasure like Independence Hall. Statue of Liberty or the Grand Canyon? They are all on lands owned by the American people and supported by our tax dollars and protected by our government workers. They are not for private use. It would be the same thing if I decided to move into Independence Hall and make it my private residence. I'm tired of paying my mortgage so I'll just take over some public space for my own financial benefit. With the Bundy logic, that should work just fine.
7
The government has provided these "rugged individualist" and "survivalists" the self delusional ability to play at being tough guys of the west. The government got rid of their ancestral enemies and rightful owners (native Americans) with the U.S. Army. It gave them water to survive and prosper (see "Cadillac Desert"). So by all means, again, give them what they want. Let the gov't release the land. In ten years rapacious developers, logging companies and mining conglomerates will have crushed the puny life out of twerps like the Bundy family. I don't know what's worse: the cowards who did this or the pinhead judge who cleared them. Do we always have to live in the land of stupid?
5
Two lessons learned: Fire any prosecutor who allows an ignorant, uninformed jury to be seated. When a juror knows nothing about an event that occurred in his state and received extensive local and national media attention, that juror must be a recluse or an ignoramus. Secondly, when Cliven Bundy put out an all-call to right wing militia groups in Nevada and the media showed militia snipers with their rifles trained on federal officers, the full weight of federal law enforcement should have been unleashed and, I bet, the second event would never have happened.
6
The "Bundy Bunch" should have received the same sort of fines that Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street protestors receive when they occupy public property. (New York City has agreed to pay more than $300,000 to six Occupy Wall Street protesters who said police unjustly blasted them with pepper spray. It is the latest settlement out of 2,600 cases related to the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests.) The Oregon protest was nonviolent. No rocks were thrown, no buildings were burned and no stores were looting. It's not illegal to carry firearms to protests. The New Black Panthers routinely carry rifles and shotguns to protests, as did the original Black Panthers of the 1960s.
If you think for a second that African Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans, or even Asian Americans (much less Muslim) could occupy ANY federal facility, anywhere in America for more than a few minutes, you are clearly mistaken. Not to mention armed, and threatening to shoot it out with the police? It really wouldn't matter what their grievance was, nor how many people supported it. The mere fact that these 'welfare cowboys' are still breathing is due to their white privilege. This whole situation is almost too outrageous for words. Especially with unarmed black people being murdered weekly for the slightest disagreement with law enforcement, and surprise the prosecutors can't seem to bring a case against the police (or neighborhood watch) either. I'm beginning to think this is the whole point of the justice system in America. That the Dred Scott decision is the still the law of the land, especially for state and federal prosecutors.
11
Again, the NY Times treads recklessly with the terminology of extremist and threat depending on which side of the ideological fence the activity occurs. The Bundys are vilified equal to the degree of their opposition to governmental control against the side of supposed environmental policy, and yet the South Dakota protesters are deified to the degree of their opposition to an approved pipeline project for fossil fuels.
When there is no pragmatism and common sense there is no conversation, no consensus and only empty division. This editorial fails to present objective facts and instead presents mere propaganda.
When there is no pragmatism and common sense there is no conversation, no consensus and only empty division. This editorial fails to present objective facts and instead presents mere propaganda.
2
I appreciate this Op piece.
Most importantly, I want to thank BLM workers, Park Rangers & all who maintain OUR Federal Lands, Parks, and National Monuments. I love these places; we are fortunate as a country to have these wild & historically preserved places to love. Thank You brave, educated, dedicated men & women. for working on our behalf.
I am happily surprised to find a new ranger places. They are like cool-mints to my soul, breezes of fresh air on a stuffy day. With so many of our private farmlands being taken over by strip malls & big box stores, it is so heartening & hopeful to know there are lands that can never be taken away. Places to go where our souls can fly free in the world given by God, untainted by commercialism & hate.
Two recent visits come to mind for me. The Hagerman Wildlife Refuge in Texas where millions of birds find respite on their migrations. There it is, less than a couple hour's drive from Dallas, so close to strip malls you can almost touch them, yet, once you drive into it, it is back to the Heaven of Nature. Thank You, Rangers, for maintaining this park. I love it even though I don't live in Texas.
Ulysses Grant home, the former plantation of the family of Julia Dent Grant, his wife's family home. Tucked into a secret alcove in St. Louis. Maintained by Rangers. President Grant, Civil War hero, signed the first bill designating a National Park. Let's preserve the legacy he started and keep our Federal Lands safe for all to visit and enjoy.
Most importantly, I want to thank BLM workers, Park Rangers & all who maintain OUR Federal Lands, Parks, and National Monuments. I love these places; we are fortunate as a country to have these wild & historically preserved places to love. Thank You brave, educated, dedicated men & women. for working on our behalf.
I am happily surprised to find a new ranger places. They are like cool-mints to my soul, breezes of fresh air on a stuffy day. With so many of our private farmlands being taken over by strip malls & big box stores, it is so heartening & hopeful to know there are lands that can never be taken away. Places to go where our souls can fly free in the world given by God, untainted by commercialism & hate.
Two recent visits come to mind for me. The Hagerman Wildlife Refuge in Texas where millions of birds find respite on their migrations. There it is, less than a couple hour's drive from Dallas, so close to strip malls you can almost touch them, yet, once you drive into it, it is back to the Heaven of Nature. Thank You, Rangers, for maintaining this park. I love it even though I don't live in Texas.
Ulysses Grant home, the former plantation of the family of Julia Dent Grant, his wife's family home. Tucked into a secret alcove in St. Louis. Maintained by Rangers. President Grant, Civil War hero, signed the first bill designating a National Park. Let's preserve the legacy he started and keep our Federal Lands safe for all to visit and enjoy.
3
I would really like to read a detailed analysis of the court proceeding to get an idea of how this could possibly have happened. The charge of preventing federal employees from doing their work always seened kind of obscure and almost trivial to me. Could they have been charged with something else? Were the defendants permitted by the Court to argue their bogus "Constitutional" theories? What happened? This appears to be a very obvious case of jury nullification, but it's hard to imagine how these nut cases could have engendered much sympathy from a jury.
4
Yes, it certainly appears that the Bundys got away with committing illegal conduct. However the reasons should and will be examined. Without knowing more specific information on the jury's reasoning several potential areas come to mind: (1) what were the specific jury instructions on each of the charges especially in the area of intent as an element of the crime; (2) the role of and influence on the jury of the fact there were paid government informants with the occupiers; and (3) the obvious hostile jury pool which may simply have exercised jury nullification regardless of the facts and law. While I have no sympathy for the Bundys or other defendants, the fact is that a trial like this, even if won, would essentially bankrupt them to pay their legal bills and significantly disrupt their lives. So even with the acquittals, if is not as if the defendants did not pay a price for their conduct. And there are other pending charges against the Bundys and in subsequent criminal cases following an acquittal, the government is more likely to get a conviction because they will have a different jury pool and can examine what went wrong in the prior trial. Witness the subsequent conviction on federal civil rights charges of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating following their being found not guilty in the state criminal case against them.
1
This is such a travesty of justice it is hard for people to get their heads around it. If these kinds of acts aren't dealt with swiftly and with convictions, we will open up a host of similar illegal confrontations that will undermine the rule of law, bring chaos to the West and get people killed.
6
What is it that makes "armed takeover" of Federal land legal? These same terrorists are likely to do the same November 9th at the urging from Trump - with the 2nd amendment people prepared to do their thing.
The "armed standoff in 2014 against federal agents" where the Bundy's succeeded in threatening the lives of federal officials while continuing to flout the law to this day, likely encouraged the armed takeover at Malheur. The escalation will continue in their favor if they are allowed to do so with impunity. The government only backed down to avoid blood shed.
Like any terrorist organization, they should not be negotiated with while under threat of a firearm. Any attack or threat to a federal employee should be considered an attack or threat to the American people.
The "armed standoff in 2014 against federal agents" where the Bundy's succeeded in threatening the lives of federal officials while continuing to flout the law to this day, likely encouraged the armed takeover at Malheur. The escalation will continue in their favor if they are allowed to do so with impunity. The government only backed down to avoid blood shed.
Like any terrorist organization, they should not be negotiated with while under threat of a firearm. Any attack or threat to a federal employee should be considered an attack or threat to the American people.
5
Juror "No. 4" complained that the prosecutor was "arrogant," according to an email he sent to the local press.
Great job, jury. Because yes, a federal trial that empowers anti-government gun nuts and threatens the safety of federal employees is one big personality contest.
Great job, jury. Because yes, a federal trial that empowers anti-government gun nuts and threatens the safety of federal employees is one big personality contest.
9
Two thoughts:
First: The world is filling up, and the American people demand that the government take better care of the public lands. The wide open spaces that people in the American West enjoyed in previous decades are filling up, and being watched more closely. Things that land managers used to ignore, like overgrazing, they now monitor and try to prevent. The Bundys don't like it, but it will continue until the population declines. Welcome to the future, Mr. Bundy.
Second: Was it racism or location? The authorities had the luxury of time to defuse the situation because it was out in the middle of nowhere. In cities, where you are more likely to find blacks in these situations, there are other people, traffic, and resources that need to be used. They don't have 40 days to clear it. If the Bundys had tried to pull this off in Portland, it would not have lasted 40 days. There's a reason why rural people are allowed to plink at cans and bottles, while city people are not.
Still, they should be jailed for their actions.
First: The world is filling up, and the American people demand that the government take better care of the public lands. The wide open spaces that people in the American West enjoyed in previous decades are filling up, and being watched more closely. Things that land managers used to ignore, like overgrazing, they now monitor and try to prevent. The Bundys don't like it, but it will continue until the population declines. Welcome to the future, Mr. Bundy.
Second: Was it racism or location? The authorities had the luxury of time to defuse the situation because it was out in the middle of nowhere. In cities, where you are more likely to find blacks in these situations, there are other people, traffic, and resources that need to be used. They don't have 40 days to clear it. If the Bundys had tried to pull this off in Portland, it would not have lasted 40 days. There's a reason why rural people are allowed to plink at cans and bottles, while city people are not.
Still, they should be jailed for their actions.
4
Clearly, any civilian who comes onto federal land and is armed is a threat, and a BLS employee who encounters such a person has every right to fear for his life and shoot on sight.
4
Make no mistake: this was not a victory for justice, but a victory for vigilantism and violence. The Bundy's may feel themselves to be freedom fighters, but so do most terrorists.
6
Truly a baffling, bizarre, verdict.
The occupation of Alcatraz by Indians in 1972 regarding land rights in the west is no different.
3
One probably does not want to be on the Promise Keepers persona non grata list if one dwells in vast parts of the wild West.
The shooting and killing of a federal official by an American citizen is just as much terrorism as a member of Isis chopping off the head of an American journalist. Disgruntled Westerners like those at Malheur threaten the United States of America just as much as disgruntled lone wolves with ties to Isis.
5
Show your support by becoming a member of Friends of Malheur. Paid or unpaid. This verdict is a travesty. I am as mad at the jury as I am at the Bundy criminals. I am also returning to the other long standing orgs like Sierra Club.
http://www.malheurfriends.org/
http://www.malheurfriends.org/
3
Conspiracy theorists abound on the left.
2
Why doesn't the author know why the Bundy family was acquitted? Are the court records secret?
Why isn't there national outrage at people who did what the Bundy family and friends did?
Why isn't America fed up with the right wing? Them being the people who demand to feed on the federal teat while pointing a gun at law enforcement, now firmly embedded in precedent that sets them free of any responsibilities.
We are approaching a banana republic, if slowly. I guess the right wing, republicans, Trump, rural lunatics of the Bundy ilk, and others think 'law and order' is for other people (i.e., people they don't like), while the country is solely owned by them to loot and pillage on whim.
I am sickened by this. I suppose if you are one of the Bundy family, you can now shop lift, hold up a bank, and speed (somewhat lesser crimes than shooting at federal agents), you will be on federal assistance for life.
Why isn't there national outrage at people who did what the Bundy family and friends did?
Why isn't America fed up with the right wing? Them being the people who demand to feed on the federal teat while pointing a gun at law enforcement, now firmly embedded in precedent that sets them free of any responsibilities.
We are approaching a banana republic, if slowly. I guess the right wing, republicans, Trump, rural lunatics of the Bundy ilk, and others think 'law and order' is for other people (i.e., people they don't like), while the country is solely owned by them to loot and pillage on whim.
I am sickened by this. I suppose if you are one of the Bundy family, you can now shop lift, hold up a bank, and speed (somewhat lesser crimes than shooting at federal agents), you will be on federal assistance for life.
5
What is the purpose of carrying lethat weapons ?
The answer is to threaten prople with death if you don't do what they want. The Bundys and their gang of low brow terrorists occupied a federal building that MY tax dollars pay for because they decided the federal govt should subsidize their ranching operations with MY tax dollars.
Well I don't want MY tax dollars going to let theses thugs do what they want. The Nationsl Guard should have been called in on day one or the army for that matter. This is a travesty.
Now every white supremists, and there are many , will be free to threaten ordinary citizens whenever they have an imagined beef. Scary times indeed and the breakdown of civilization.
The answer is to threaten prople with death if you don't do what they want. The Bundys and their gang of low brow terrorists occupied a federal building that MY tax dollars pay for because they decided the federal govt should subsidize their ranching operations with MY tax dollars.
Well I don't want MY tax dollars going to let theses thugs do what they want. The Nationsl Guard should have been called in on day one or the army for that matter. This is a travesty.
Now every white supremists, and there are many , will be free to threaten ordinary citizens whenever they have an imagined beef. Scary times indeed and the breakdown of civilization.
7
What an utter farce!
How can they possibly not be guilty?? We saw them on TV, they even publicized what they were doing.
What's the point of having laws if the courts don't follow them?
How can they possibly not be guilty?? We saw them on TV, they even publicized what they were doing.
What's the point of having laws if the courts don't follow them?
43
How these wackjobs were acquitted is beyond me. If a gaggle of my pals and I marched into a McDonald's armed to the teeth and took it over isn't that a crime? Of some kind? I guess by the logic of this case, which is now legal precedent, it's a-okay! Libraries, gas stations, hospitals...wherever you want to go, wherever you think might be the root or even a root of tyranny, just go and take it over. Unless you're black. Or brown. Or anything but white. You'll be shot dead in minutes if that's the case.
4
Some people think that "land of the free" means "Free land for the taking". Since the pioneer days of staking out "Free land" (stolen from the native Americans however) many Americans think if it hasn't got a private property fence and land deed, they are entitled to help themselves to whatever land they want. The acquittals make me ill. This has sent a most dangerous precedent which could have better served the public with a lengthy time in prison. We need to conserve our natural resources, environment, and natural wonders for the enjoyment of all, and protect it from those seeking to exploit these lands for their own personal gain.
2
Thank you for this article. Perhaps it should read "... a BIGGER target..." I work for a federal land management agency at an office in a small city. Even then, our office was one of several that was closed due to a threat of violence this summer. I was a field employee (ranger) in the 1990s. Would not go back to the field again, but I greatly admire those who stay with it. The animosity towards federal employees was starting to take steam then; my crews and I were being bullied and threatened, but that was mild in comparison to now.
High Country News had an excellent investigative piece about violence and harassment against federal resource management employees within the last year or so. Field employees and managers are under a lot of stress- low budgets, understaffed offices, hostile attitude from some people and even lawmakers. The hostile attitude is becoming directed to recreational and other users of federal lands. I don't go camping any more because I don't feel safe. The BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service- all take care of our common heritage and lands. They are very dedicated to their work, the land, the resources, and the public. They are worthy of our support and better budgets!
High Country News had an excellent investigative piece about violence and harassment against federal resource management employees within the last year or so. Field employees and managers are under a lot of stress- low budgets, understaffed offices, hostile attitude from some people and even lawmakers. The hostile attitude is becoming directed to recreational and other users of federal lands. I don't go camping any more because I don't feel safe. The BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service- all take care of our common heritage and lands. They are very dedicated to their work, the land, the resources, and the public. They are worthy of our support and better budgets!
84
Other protesters can block Interstate highways or the George Washington Bridge, take over public university buildings and blockade public parks without any prosecution. They are released if arrested, often with payment from the public! (Occupy in NYC) The difference? They support Democrats!
4
No, Donna Gray, the difference between peaceful protesters who block a bridge or pipeline and this group of white militants is that they aren't wielding guns and pointing them at federal officials. If the Bundys were black -- just picture it for a moment -- waving guns, taking over buildings, insisting that property that belongs to the American people belongs instead to them -- wouldn't we be hearing about funerals, rather than acquittals?
75
Several commenters have said that these terrorists were acquitted because the prosecutors either overreached or could not prove the charges. It may be instructive to review the charges of which the defendants were acquitted: conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility. This should have been an open-and-shut case. The terrorists are on camera waving guns. There is video of them threatening federal agents with guns. It is an undisputed fact that they staged an arm siege of a federal facility and locked out federal officers.
This is not a case of prosecutorial overreach or a failure of evidence. Rather, this is an example of the disparity by which right-wing (white) groups are treated in comparison with other groups. At this very moment, Native Americans are being beaten and arrested for protesting the Dakota Pipeline that threatens their land and water. Journalists are being charged with inciting a riot, while militarized police pepper-spray protestors, shoot them with rubber bullets and arrest them.
It is beyond ironic that, in an election where the preferred candidate of the right wing is running one a platform of "law and order" and nationwide stop-and-frisk, these criminals were given a free pass to seize land belonging to all Americans. Meanwhile, African Americans are subject to police harassment and imprisonment for possessing small quantities of marijuana.
This is not a case of prosecutorial overreach or a failure of evidence. Rather, this is an example of the disparity by which right-wing (white) groups are treated in comparison with other groups. At this very moment, Native Americans are being beaten and arrested for protesting the Dakota Pipeline that threatens their land and water. Journalists are being charged with inciting a riot, while militarized police pepper-spray protestors, shoot them with rubber bullets and arrest them.
It is beyond ironic that, in an election where the preferred candidate of the right wing is running one a platform of "law and order" and nationwide stop-and-frisk, these criminals were given a free pass to seize land belonging to all Americans. Meanwhile, African Americans are subject to police harassment and imprisonment for possessing small quantities of marijuana.
15
Republicans have always detested and used federal workers as their whipping post. It's a broad brush they employ whenever legislation includes cuts in appropriations for every federal agency with the exception of the U.S. military which Americans support overwhelmingly.
This verdict against the BLM gives the green light to gun-wielding militia types, people of the same ilk as Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and others who will interpret this acquittal as proof that their violent methods using lethal force is not only justified but condoned. It's essentially open season on the heads of anyone who has the courage to wear a U.S. government agency uniform insignia or drive a vehicle displaying a U.S. government logo.
But, if they are successful in discouraging U.S. government workers from doing their jobs then they will have accomplished one of the major pillars of the Republican Party's dream to privatize every government agency including our national parks and agencies that in prior history have been charged with the responsibility of protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food that we consume.
A one-party controlled authoritarian government is a possibility in about one week from today and with it, the further erosion of individual rights and freedoms embedded in the U.S. Constitution, the Republican Party's most loathed liberal document.
This verdict against the BLM gives the green light to gun-wielding militia types, people of the same ilk as Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and others who will interpret this acquittal as proof that their violent methods using lethal force is not only justified but condoned. It's essentially open season on the heads of anyone who has the courage to wear a U.S. government agency uniform insignia or drive a vehicle displaying a U.S. government logo.
But, if they are successful in discouraging U.S. government workers from doing their jobs then they will have accomplished one of the major pillars of the Republican Party's dream to privatize every government agency including our national parks and agencies that in prior history have been charged with the responsibility of protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food that we consume.
A one-party controlled authoritarian government is a possibility in about one week from today and with it, the further erosion of individual rights and freedoms embedded in the U.S. Constitution, the Republican Party's most loathed liberal document.
11
Interesting contrast between law inforcements responses to the Bundys' gun toting occupations of Federal lands and the peaceful set-in protests of the Souix Indians on Federal lands. Guns in hand, cowboys are waited out as they try to take over our country's land and the peaceful Indians get gassed arrested and treated badly while trying to protect our country's land. The difference, the almighty dollar, race, history, and injustice. I have little hope for the future of our environment, climate and our country.
11
Excessive liberal land policies in the west and Alaska have over the years ignited great animosity towards the federal government. In addition, federal law enforcement tends to be very heavy handed and dictatorial. The nation was not founded on the basis that the federal government would retain ownership of such vast areas of land ownership. Now is the time for congress to begin divesting the government of these vast lands in the west and in Alaska.
2
When the nation was founded, the land to the west seemed endless. People viewed wild land both as something to be feared and tamed. To exploit the land was viewed as beneficial both in terms of enlarging the country and enriching the people, but also for bringing dangerous and unknown areas into the realm of the domestic.
Two hundred years have passed, and the situation is completely different. Now humans are the threat to wild areas. Our economy is not dependent on taming every last area of land, and we now know that we need some wild areas -- ecologically; psychologically for us all to be able to know the wild; and to preserve some of what this country really was, before we overrun it. We know we have to protect it from ourselves.
Two hundred years have passed, and the situation is completely different. Now humans are the threat to wild areas. Our economy is not dependent on taming every last area of land, and we now know that we need some wild areas -- ecologically; psychologically for us all to be able to know the wild; and to preserve some of what this country really was, before we overrun it. We know we have to protect it from ourselves.
7
...Which ultimately means privatizing them and eliminating access to them for virtually every American. A crazy thing to do, giving up one's own birthright so that wealthy industrialists can make a mint off it.
5
The public servants who work in our national parks and wildlife refuges are not "faceless feds." One is my son, a wildlife biologist, who is young, idealistic, working seasonally and without job security because he is passionate about helping wildlife and humans share the land. He is a person of integrity and a responsible steward. When the Bundys point their guns, they are pointing them at my 23-year-old son. How exactly is this lawful?
16
It is not the workers in the national parks and the wildlife refuges that are the problem. They are merely the human shields set up by the administrators to protect them from having to accept direct and personal responsibility for the boneheaded actions that they have taken.
I have no problem with the rangers and scientists. I have lots of problems with their managers and policy-setters.
I have no problem with the rangers and scientists. I have lots of problems with their managers and policy-setters.
1
We have to deal with Fish and Wildlife officials here on Vieques, and it has not always been a positive experience. Some of the agents bully and threaten the local citizenry. I am not suggesting the Bundy acquittal was appropriate. But I can relate to the motivation behind it.
4
I wonder how much of the Bundy mentality is an echo of that great land giveaway known as the Westward Expansion.
2
The government needs to appeal this ruling and get their act together. The Bundys are clearly in the wrong on this. The arrogance of government prosecutors is also clear, they fumbled the ball.
5
In the early days of the republic farmers in western Pennsylvania staged an armed rebellion over a federal liquor tax- the whiskey rebellion. George Washington actually led troops- the only time a commander in chief did so-to put down the challenge to federal power. When Cliven Bundy ignored a legitimate court decision which he had litigated and lost the government should have used whatever force was necessary to take his cattle and enforce the courts order
52
if federal authorities were not so cowardly at that cattle round a few years back, and used the requisite force, this problem would have been solved there and then. there would have been bloodshed but law and order would have been maintained. This is what needs to be done. The question is, will the relevant authorities act accordingly next time or just prove to be, once again, cowards?
7
Will the next court case be staffed with jurors from Nevada? In that case it will likely be the same outcome. I'm a retired archaeologist who has worked on federal land for over 30 years. Federal employees work for relatively low pay given the education level of many, and believe that they are working for the people, all the people, not anti-Americans like the Bundys. I am certain that the number of Americans that want to transfer our national parks, national forests, BLM land, Fish and Wildlife preserves to the private sector, which is what will happen if given to the states, is a tiny minority, mostly Trump supporters. Sad that it has come to this.
9
No, that is NOT the position of the conservative at all Mr. Shackley.
It is the position of the conservative that The People get a FAIR HEARING BEFORE GOVERNMENT ACTION and be granted ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION FOR THEIR LOSS.
It is the penchant for the bureaucrat to seize and deny without due process that riles the conservative...
And rightly so.
It is the position of the conservative that The People get a FAIR HEARING BEFORE GOVERNMENT ACTION and be granted ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION FOR THEIR LOSS.
It is the penchant for the bureaucrat to seize and deny without due process that riles the conservative...
And rightly so.
1
The Bundys and their ilk are playing at war and then whine when captured tjat they are peace loving militia only out to protect the environment from the terrible feds. These characters like to parade around in fatigues playing soldier but they are cowards; if you want to play with guns, join the military¡ But these cowards do not want to have other people shooting at them, but ti is time the feds change and if there is a threat to the feds arrest the culprits, and if they want a shoot out, give it to them with some hot lead.
6
I spent day 3 of the Malheur occupation with Bundy et al inside the administration building at the refuge and talked with all of their leaders. I went there to better understand what they wanted and to ask them to leave, which I did (and of course, they didn't). Their stated goal was to inspire others to do exactly what they were doing -- occupy federal western lands in an armed sagebrush rebellion that would force the federal government to turn the land over to who they believed should control it, the counties. Counties would then sell, lease or give away the land (Yellowstone included) so the land could be used and developed, as they believe God intended. Functionally, lands such as Yellowstone National Park, wildlife refuges and national forests (much of which are currently leased for logging, mining and gazing) should cease to be available to the public.
I suggested that if federal lands were to be turned over to anyone that the Indians seemed to have the best claim for ownership. I was told no because the indians "lost" the war. I appears that might --some would say white might -- makes right.
While the Bundy led militia group did not succeed in igniting a national revolt against the federal government earlier this year, there are still thousands and thousands Americans who believe God created the land for people to control and use AND that the federal government has no right to own land. The events at Malheur have not changed their perspective.
I suggested that if federal lands were to be turned over to anyone that the Indians seemed to have the best claim for ownership. I was told no because the indians "lost" the war. I appears that might --some would say white might -- makes right.
While the Bundy led militia group did not succeed in igniting a national revolt against the federal government earlier this year, there are still thousands and thousands Americans who believe God created the land for people to control and use AND that the federal government has no right to own land. The events at Malheur have not changed their perspective.
81
On leaving the active duty military in the early 1960's, my father went to work for the US Forest Service, from which he usltimately retired. His first job with them was in Burns, Oregon.
Having observed the situation since that time, from various perspectives, including growing up in timber dependent communities, temporary USFS work, environmental activist/protester, I think that it is mainly the government moving the goal posts - with more and ever more restrictive land use regulations and
an autocratic "my way or the highway" toward the civilian populace that has
been the primary driver of growing hostility toward the BLM in particular by the "managees".
Not that there are not loose cannons amongst the anti crowd, but it is mainly political and bureaucratic overreach that has tended to poison what were once congenial relations between people and government agencies in much of the rural West and undermining respect for even reasonable rules.
What were once public lands in the broadest sense now feel like "government lands" where the peasants venture at the pleasure of and on the terms of bureaucrats - hardly the same thing.
Having observed the situation since that time, from various perspectives, including growing up in timber dependent communities, temporary USFS work, environmental activist/protester, I think that it is mainly the government moving the goal posts - with more and ever more restrictive land use regulations and
an autocratic "my way or the highway" toward the civilian populace that has
been the primary driver of growing hostility toward the BLM in particular by the "managees".
Not that there are not loose cannons amongst the anti crowd, but it is mainly political and bureaucratic overreach that has tended to poison what were once congenial relations between people and government agencies in much of the rural West and undermining respect for even reasonable rules.
What were once public lands in the broadest sense now feel like "government lands" where the peasants venture at the pleasure of and on the terms of bureaucrats - hardly the same thing.
11
You are obfuscating the issues. Bund yet al destroyed federal property and threatend federal workers. They were treated with kid gloves; allowed to come and go. Ridiculous! Try occupying a state or city owned building in NY and see what happens. Seditious behavior needs to be delt with the same way it was treated in the early history of this country - e.g. The whiskey rebellion.
5
Phrases like "political and bureaucratic overreach" sound nice, but without specifics, are simply empty ideological slogans. I've visited many national parks, BLM lands, etc., and the regulations for use are reasonable and necessary given environmental fragility and competing demands by people.
The overreach here is by Bundy and other self-appointed radicals. For years, ranchers have been able to use federal lands at a charge of $1.35/Animal Unit Month (AUM) (while the charge on private land averages 15 times that fee). This fee is so low that it costs the government more to manage and restore overgrazed lands. But even at that low rate, Bundy has refused to pay for more than 20 years!
As is described in another comment (Don Francis), the goal of the Bundys is to turn over all Federal lands to the counties, at which point they can be sold to private parties. It's hard to see how that will benefit what you call the "peasants", who now will venture onto these lands at the pleasure and on the terms of the new owners of what is now private property.
No thanks, I think I'll pass on the paradise you and the Bundys are promising us.
The overreach here is by Bundy and other self-appointed radicals. For years, ranchers have been able to use federal lands at a charge of $1.35/Animal Unit Month (AUM) (while the charge on private land averages 15 times that fee). This fee is so low that it costs the government more to manage and restore overgrazed lands. But even at that low rate, Bundy has refused to pay for more than 20 years!
As is described in another comment (Don Francis), the goal of the Bundys is to turn over all Federal lands to the counties, at which point they can be sold to private parties. It's hard to see how that will benefit what you call the "peasants", who now will venture onto these lands at the pleasure and on the terms of the new owners of what is now private property.
No thanks, I think I'll pass on the paradise you and the Bundys are promising us.
6
Have you ever considered that BLM rules might exist to protect the long term viability of ranchers? That the rules are uncomfortable by design. Whether grass in Neveda or water in California, the BLM is trying to stop private owners from their own impulse to exploit. Read anything about the tragedy of the commons and you have the BLM's mission statement in a nutshell.
I'm sorry you don't find the the bureaucratic complexity convenient. However, I imagine most of the complexity results from a long history of private interests litigating against public land regulation. As such, I find the grievance much diminished. Have you tried asking for public assistance in complying with existing law?
I'm sorry you don't find the the bureaucratic complexity convenient. However, I imagine most of the complexity results from a long history of private interests litigating against public land regulation. As such, I find the grievance much diminished. Have you tried asking for public assistance in complying with existing law?
6
The lands the Bundys are abusing are public lands. They were made public to benefit all Americans. They were made public in order to be protected from overgrazing. If the Bundys and others like them want to continue to try and invade public lands I suggest they move to countries that don't care about the public good. In the meantime they might consider the fact that the people they are endangering with their attitudes have families, friends, and the same needs they have. I resent seeing them abusing land that has been set aside for public enjoyment. It's a big country. They can go buy land to abuse and stop pretending to care about anything other than their own interests.
25
Those of us who support our local agencies like USFWS have volunteered to help with security. The Bundy's and their ilk are not welcome here.
16
Happy to see support for government at any and all levels. Not wild about vigilante justice.
2
Wall Street Occupiers without carrying weapons were indicted. Cops killing unarmed civilians were acquitted. The Bundys carrying automatic weapons occupying government properties were acquitted. Something is really wrong with this country.
447
don't worry, Bundy still has another trial to go. Considering what he did at the cattle round up against federal agents he probably will be serving a very long sentence. Lets just hope the message is received by his followers.
1
The Bundys weren't carrying "automatic weapons". No one in the US is permitted to own "automatic weapons".
They're semiautomatic.
They're semiautomatic.
1
a jury of their peers, regional sentiment, privileged ranks---all in the legal system.
I suspect the wrong charges were brought. I hope new and distinct charges will be brought that do not place the Bundy's in double jeopardy. Occupying public spaces and threatening law enforcement and others with arms should not be an activity approved and sanctioned by our courts.
What if:
The Bundy's were African-American? Or Muslims carrying arms to maintain a lengthy occupation of any federally owned property?
Why such a double standard for protection of public property? What if we drill for oil or mine for minerals in Arlington cemetery instead of the American West? Or locate toxic polluters near public schools, or public theaters, rather than the public amphitheaters of The West? Can I drive off-road and across the lawns of Central Park, or just across the "preserved lands" of Utah and Colorado?
What if:
The Bundy's were African-American? Or Muslims carrying arms to maintain a lengthy occupation of any federally owned property?
Why such a double standard for protection of public property? What if we drill for oil or mine for minerals in Arlington cemetery instead of the American West? Or locate toxic polluters near public schools, or public theaters, rather than the public amphitheaters of The West? Can I drive off-road and across the lawns of Central Park, or just across the "preserved lands" of Utah and Colorado?
69
Presumably, there was no evidence that the occupiers were threatening anyone or charges would have been brought along those lines.
While laws limiting the carrying of weapons within designated federal buildings (for example) may well be valid, the open carry of weapons in Oregon is legal for anyone whom may legally possess one, no permit required.
The mere fact of being armed does not, by itseld, constitute "threatening" legally or according to logic and common sense. And does not negate other rights - for example those recognized and protected under the 1st Amendment.
The jury did their job, good for them.
While laws limiting the carrying of weapons within designated federal buildings (for example) may well be valid, the open carry of weapons in Oregon is legal for anyone whom may legally possess one, no permit required.
The mere fact of being armed does not, by itseld, constitute "threatening" legally or according to logic and common sense. And does not negate other rights - for example those recognized and protected under the 1st Amendment.
The jury did their job, good for them.
3
Another Double Jeopardy advocate! What, pray tell, would those additional charges be that would not violate double jeopardy? This isn't a first-year law school exercise. Maybe we can twist the "rule of law" to protect the "rule of law," eh?
2
The precautions BLM workplaces are now taking--panic buttons, extra locks, and active shooter drills--are exactly the precautions schools have been taking for years in the wake of school shootings. Congress, the courts, and gun culture have endangered yet another segment of the population. It's terrifying.
91
I was shocked by the verdict. But if it was done by a jury of "peers" I should not have been. This is a problem with highly contested environmental issues laced with extreme hostility. Jury nullification negates the rule of law. We are in trouble!
Americans by vast majority strongly support environmental protections, and they strongly support the BLM personnel and other federal land managers. This injustice has to be addressed...I am not sure how given this atrocious verdict. The Bundys and their ilk are anti-American. Plain and simple.
Americans by vast majority strongly support environmental protections, and they strongly support the BLM personnel and other federal land managers. This injustice has to be addressed...I am not sure how given this atrocious verdict. The Bundys and their ilk are anti-American. Plain and simple.
54
I am old enough to remember in law school when jury nullification was all the rage on the Left . . . careful what you wish for . . .
2
The prosecution chose to charge the Bundys with a thought crime, a tradition that goes back to the Inquisition and beyond, and it's not always easy to prove what people thought. The juror who spoke publicly said the jury had no doubt that crimes were committed; it's just that the prosecution tried them for their "intent", not for the harm that they did, and clearly the goal of the takeover was to publicize their view, not block employees from working.
15
Many criminal offenses are "intent" offenses" rather than "result offenses." For example, fraudulent use of identifying information is typically an intent offense. Murder is a result offense. The intent of Mr. Bundy and his co-conspirators was to protest the restriction on use of public land. I agree, that would be protected. But when they seized the land using weapons and occupied it, refusing to leave, that was an offense. And it was for that they should have been convicted.
36
The "thought crime" being that they didn't "intend" to block the workers from their jobs, they just "intended" to publicize their views? Surely the jury would have been given an instruction indicating something along the lines of "you intend the natural and probable consequences of your actions," but I'm not saying you're wrong.
The Malhuer Wildlife Refuge occupation could be described as occupying the Dean's office while being heavily armed. Occupying the Dean's office for a week normally leads to negotiated arrests followed by a slap on the wrist. The assault rifles would have counted only if they had been used to directly threaten employees. Apparently that didn't happen.
The government chose to put all their eggs in the conspiracy basket and then did a poor job of proving that a conspiracy existed. A bunch of yahoos popping in to help out their buddies is not a conspiracy. It's just yahoos with guns.
But again, the guns don't count because they were just exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
And, of course, we don't have a gun problem.
The government chose to put all their eggs in the conspiracy basket and then did a poor job of proving that a conspiracy existed. A bunch of yahoos popping in to help out their buddies is not a conspiracy. It's just yahoos with guns.
But again, the guns don't count because they were just exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
And, of course, we don't have a gun problem.
15
"The assault rifles would have counted only if they had been used to directly threaten employees. Apparently that didn't happen."
A powerful firearm rifle is brandished during the commission of a crime. How is that *not* to be seen as a direct threat to the victims and bystanders?
A powerful firearm rifle is brandished during the commission of a crime. How is that *not* to be seen as a direct threat to the victims and bystanders?
4
Agree 100%
1
The Bundy verdict, the Senate GOP blockade against Judge Garland and other judicial nominees, James Comey's infamous letter, and Trump's candidacy give weight to Justice Thomas' observation that our institutions are being destroyed. There is too much at stake not to resist these forces with every remaining fiber of our common decency.
32
So maybe next time the Feds won't let them take the place hostage and instead will try to force them out earlier. The Feds were trying to avoid bloodshed because these idiots were armed, destructive and threatening.
27
The Feds were too lax, letting these yahoos freely move in and out, letting them bring in food, etc. They should have been arresting tvese people at every opportunity and should have wuarantined them and starved them out. Avoiding bloodshed is an admirable goal, however, and I commend them for avoiding it.
1
This verdict is a disgrace. There is no way that this joint endeavor was not a conspiracy. Beyond that, it was a deliberate attempt to challenge the rule of law which is basic to our Constitutional system. If federal land is to be transferred to anyone , it should be transferred back to sovereign Indian tribes. Let's see if the Indian Nations give the "Welfare Cowboy" Bundys the sweetheart deals they got from the Feds.
I'd like to see some groups like the Audubon Society brings civil suits against the Bundys. The Bundys denied the public individuals the use of the Wildlife Refuge and they should pay monetary damages that leave them penniless.
As far as their 2nd Amendment
I'd like to see some groups like the Audubon Society brings civil suits against the Bundys. The Bundys denied the public individuals the use of the Wildlife Refuge and they should pay monetary damages that leave them penniless.
As far as their 2nd Amendment
36
Federal employees in danger should be armed and not hesitate to defend themselves from domestic extremists. If they are brought up on charges for shooting an extremist, not to worry, extremist supporters aren't the only ones who can vote "not guilty".
9
The hard truth is that if we were ever to decide to deal with human degradation of the planetary eco system, a great deal of targeted re-wilding would have to be part of the mix. Giving this kind of "victory" to forces adamantly opposed to such policies simply points up the unlikelihood of turning back the anthropocene.
7
The acquittal of the Bundys in their first trial is unbelievably unfair and outrageous. I hope that the outcome of the trial on their armed confrontation with law enforcement ends up with a conviction, reinstating the rule of the law. We the people have the right to enjoy the federal lands that have been set aside for all of us and our children without worrying about the crazy sense of entitlement of a few armed and violent extremists on the fringe.
140
What has surprised me about the whole affair is how many chose to interpret the verdict through the lens of racism, rather than jury nullification.
The only way one could play the 'race card' here is if one believes that 12 jurors in Oregon cared more about sending a message to black Americans most have only seen on TV, than they did about sticking it to the Feds while sitting judgement of a bunch of Bible-toting cowboy Mormons.
To call it a race-based verdict says more about the observer of the trial than it does about what actually motivated the jurors involved, and the charges that were brought. This verdict was an example of jury nullification.
The only way one could play the 'race card' here is if one believes that 12 jurors in Oregon cared more about sending a message to black Americans most have only seen on TV, than they did about sticking it to the Feds while sitting judgement of a bunch of Bible-toting cowboy Mormons.
To call it a race-based verdict says more about the observer of the trial than it does about what actually motivated the jurors involved, and the charges that were brought. This verdict was an example of jury nullification.
7
With our jury system in criminal cases - arguably flawed because it requires unanimous agreement by the jurors - criminals do sometimes "beat the system;" and not just white men as too many of those commenting here complain. Consider O.J. - clearly guilty - who committed multiple murders - which the Bundy's didn't - and got off scot free and overwhelmingly cheered and celebrated nationwide by blacks. Far more offensive to Justice than the not guilty of conspiracy charge on the Bundys. And far more damaging to the country as well.
2
There is an incredible amount of contempt being directed toward federal employees now. There are reminders that the concept of "public lands" is not referenced in the constitution. There are threats of a violent response to the results of the election.
7
We all know exactly what would have happened if the "protest" aka armed takeover had been conducted by immigrants, members of Black Lives Matter, or - wait for it - Muslims. Not only would the armed takeover be given a wildly different label, and brought to a screeching halt in hours, not weeks, I would be very surprised if the whole lot of the "protesters" didn't resist arrest and draw their arms and had to be shot on the way to the local jail.
It is so frustrating and gut rending to have this group of smug losers thumb their nose at the government, law enforcement and all the rest of the citizens of the U.S. - you and me- who pay taxes to support that land that they get subsidies to use for their own personal profit - and are still not happy - heck their ready to, and did, take up arms against - us.
No one else, anywhere else in the country would be able to do what they did and not do prison time.
Since they videotaped themselves in and on the Malheur property and building with guns, the not guilty verdict on the charge of having guns on Federal property was a clear sign that that community, that Federal District was going to take care of it's own - the law be damned.
I am appalled that there seems to be no way the prosecutors can have this verdict reviewed by cooler heads? Is there no appellate court they can take this to as a verdict against the great weight of the evidence?
Is there no change of venue in Federal Court?
It is so frustrating and gut rending to have this group of smug losers thumb their nose at the government, law enforcement and all the rest of the citizens of the U.S. - you and me- who pay taxes to support that land that they get subsidies to use for their own personal profit - and are still not happy - heck their ready to, and did, take up arms against - us.
No one else, anywhere else in the country would be able to do what they did and not do prison time.
Since they videotaped themselves in and on the Malheur property and building with guns, the not guilty verdict on the charge of having guns on Federal property was a clear sign that that community, that Federal District was going to take care of it's own - the law be damned.
I am appalled that there seems to be no way the prosecutors can have this verdict reviewed by cooler heads? Is there no appellate court they can take this to as a verdict against the great weight of the evidence?
Is there no change of venue in Federal Court?
102
One doesn't have to have much historical knowledge to know that more human beings have lost their lives by their own or opposing governments. Irrespective of where the saying "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" comes from, it touches on a basic historical observation. When we learned that the government had inserted people into the group and could not convince the jurors that the government did not influence the outcome from that action, it is no surprise that reasonable doubt prevailed. That is because our government has been known to fan the flames for a desired outcome.
5
As juror #4 said, and thanks for his comments, the jury did not think the morons were innocent. Everyone saw what went on. Notwithstanding the humble "ah, shucks, folks" demeanor of some of the occupiers, there was a takeover, federal employees did not dare go to work, property was damaged, and folks were intimidated by inflammatory language and brandishing. But apparently there was no statute violated whose elements fit the crime and were serious enough to give them the time in jail they deserved. So the local U.S. Attorney's Office went for the big conspiracy with intent charge and didn't have to goods to make it stick. They could have easily been convicted of trespassing, probably a misdemeanor with a smallish fine, but that would have been a joke. I've got a feeling that the matter in Nevada will be another kettle of fish. The occupiers and their supporters are just dense enough to treat this as a "victory over tyranny" and become bolder instead of a narrow brush with the hoosegow. With those clowns federal land managers should be careful. We'll see how that turns out.
24
To me the acquittal in this case is like the acquittal for O.J. In both cases a jury ignored the facts, ignored the evidence, ignored common sense to 'send a message' to outsiders. And because they did that, they came to a shameful decision. I agree that federal employees (and state employees, I'm guessing) are at more risk. I believe there will be will be more incidents and, most likely, deaths. The next trial will end in conviction, but the jurors of this trial will need to share the blame with criminals for what happens.
8
Some of my most memorable outdoor experiences have come courtesy of federally (I.e, you and me and everybody)-owned lands: the ranger sharing genuine wonder at an active lava flow feet from us at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; the Willamette National Forest Service employees who gave evening talks at the campgrounds we visited with our kids every summer, sharing their research observations on lake clarity or the best vantage from which to catch the Perseid meteors. These were people doing work they love for not a lot of financial return. And there are fewer of them now, as budgets get smaller and meaner, and our lands become more vulnerable to those only looking for what can be extracted from them for personal gain.
We are fools and traitors to our grandchildren to disregard the threats to public lands.
We are fools and traitors to our grandchildren to disregard the threats to public lands.
20
It is curious that people still go on about how the Federal government owns so much of the West compared to how little of New England they own.
Didn't most of the land in the original 13 colonies already belong in private hands when the Revolutionary War was won? So isn't it obvious most of the land in the East Coast would not belong to the government of the United States. It is worth mentioning here that GWashington gave land in Virgina to the US to form our capital city.
Then as the nation expanded Westwards, starting with individuals who occupied lands in the Midwest, you then had the US government waging war with the Native Americans and taking their lands. This land was given to European immigrants and their progeny in various parts of the South and Southwest (Louisiana purchase was by US govt. not private entities. Same with Alaska, or the lands obtained after the Mexican-American War, yielding CA, UT, NM, NV, AZ, etc...)
Most of the choice lands were turned over to private ownership and the government retained ownership of the desert lands and less hospitable pieces. Nobody wanted to settle there obviously, because if they had there would have been nobody to stop them. If any of these lands are desirable today it is because of the public infrastructure in place, viz., Highways, Powerlines (REA) and other government investments.
So why is the dispute over how much more land is owned by the US government in the West compared to the East Coast? Why is it a "Thing?"
Didn't most of the land in the original 13 colonies already belong in private hands when the Revolutionary War was won? So isn't it obvious most of the land in the East Coast would not belong to the government of the United States. It is worth mentioning here that GWashington gave land in Virgina to the US to form our capital city.
Then as the nation expanded Westwards, starting with individuals who occupied lands in the Midwest, you then had the US government waging war with the Native Americans and taking their lands. This land was given to European immigrants and their progeny in various parts of the South and Southwest (Louisiana purchase was by US govt. not private entities. Same with Alaska, or the lands obtained after the Mexican-American War, yielding CA, UT, NM, NV, AZ, etc...)
Most of the choice lands were turned over to private ownership and the government retained ownership of the desert lands and less hospitable pieces. Nobody wanted to settle there obviously, because if they had there would have been nobody to stop them. If any of these lands are desirable today it is because of the public infrastructure in place, viz., Highways, Powerlines (REA) and other government investments.
So why is the dispute over how much more land is owned by the US government in the West compared to the East Coast? Why is it a "Thing?"
5
It's a Thing because public lands in the West are such a vast amount of acreage, and the states (that is, the rebellious element within the various western states) want their junks turned over so they can profit. It's entirely profit-motive driven. And no, it's not that the public lands are "undesirable." Your national parks and monuments are all public lands. Most of the oil/gas drilling and exploration are leases on public lands. And those of us who live here get to feel that all the land we can see beyond our own backyards is ours too, because it is. And yours.
As for the Bundy mentality, I have no explanation. Other than they're whining, oversize babies with guns who "don't want no one telling them what they can do."
As for the Bundy mentality, I have no explanation. Other than they're whining, oversize babies with guns who "don't want no one telling them what they can do."
2
Its a "thing" because the protesters don't know their American History. Full stop.
1
The government's attorneys made some mistakes in preparation and strategy. The jury did not perform their duty of apply the law (the judge's charges to the jury) to the fact pattern presented.
The government is going to get another chance to get these criminals in the Cliven Bundy trial for non-payment of grazing fees, and the subsequent altercation which involved pointing guns at federal employees.
If I were the United States Government, I would make their conviction a sure thing by bringing in a hired gun from West, for instance attorney Gerry Spence of Jackson, Wyoming. Spence is 87 years old now, and in semi-retirement. His last case was in 2012. If Spence is not up to it, I'd get the next best guy or girl at the Spence Law Firm, and perhaps bring in Gerry (with his western jacket and cowboy hat) for some cross examinations.
It is important for the Bundys to be convicted and put away for a long time. It's time to bring in a magnificent ringer that the jury will listen to. It's time for Spence.
The government is going to get another chance to get these criminals in the Cliven Bundy trial for non-payment of grazing fees, and the subsequent altercation which involved pointing guns at federal employees.
If I were the United States Government, I would make their conviction a sure thing by bringing in a hired gun from West, for instance attorney Gerry Spence of Jackson, Wyoming. Spence is 87 years old now, and in semi-retirement. His last case was in 2012. If Spence is not up to it, I'd get the next best guy or girl at the Spence Law Firm, and perhaps bring in Gerry (with his western jacket and cowboy hat) for some cross examinations.
It is important for the Bundys to be convicted and put away for a long time. It's time to bring in a magnificent ringer that the jury will listen to. It's time for Spence.
12
This piece, like so much of the reporting on the Clive Bundy trial, misses the mark. The prosecutor overcharged the case. The jury reacted by acquitting Clive Bundy. The essence of Mr. Bundy's action was protest against government policies that he disliked. His actions were not unlawful, but his protests were sincere, at least to some degree.
Just imagine if state prosecutors routinely charged Black Lives Matter protestors with an unlawful conspiracy as the federal prosecutors did in the Bundy case. Jurors would quickly see that the cases turned on protest not conspiracy. When it comes to conspiracy theories, the courtroom is no different from the rest of the world. Conspiracy theories are whacky, to wacky to deserve a prison sentence unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just imagine if state prosecutors routinely charged Black Lives Matter protestors with an unlawful conspiracy as the federal prosecutors did in the Bundy case. Jurors would quickly see that the cases turned on protest not conspiracy. When it comes to conspiracy theories, the courtroom is no different from the rest of the world. Conspiracy theories are whacky, to wacky to deserve a prison sentence unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
5
Wow, what false equivalencies. The Bundy gang staged an armed siege of a federal building, threatening to kill any agents who tried to intervene. They were "overcharged" with bringing firearms into a federal facility, of which they were clearly guilty. (There are many, many photographs and videos of them committing this crime.) They were also acquitted of impeding federal agents -- by threatening them with guns -- another charge they were clearly guilty of. It is not a "conspiracy theory"; they clearly conspired. Again, they are on video conspiring.
Black Lives Matters protests are, for the most part, peaceful. They are not waving guns, nor have they occupied a federal facility. If they did, you better believe they would be charged (and convicted).
The fact that the Bundy gang acted because of "government policies that he disliked" does not excuse them. In fact, it makes what they did an act of terrorism. A protest becomes terrorism when firearms and threats are involved.
Imagine if a group of armed American citizens who were Muslim seized this facility because they disagreed with "government policies that they disliked", such as drone bombings of innocent men, women and children in various countries in the Middle East. Would you still excuse their actions? Would they be acquitted? How would this action be any different, other than the color of the actors' skin and their religion?
Black Lives Matters protests are, for the most part, peaceful. They are not waving guns, nor have they occupied a federal facility. If they did, you better believe they would be charged (and convicted).
The fact that the Bundy gang acted because of "government policies that he disliked" does not excuse them. In fact, it makes what they did an act of terrorism. A protest becomes terrorism when firearms and threats are involved.
Imagine if a group of armed American citizens who were Muslim seized this facility because they disagreed with "government policies that they disliked", such as drone bombings of innocent men, women and children in various countries in the Middle East. Would you still excuse their actions? Would they be acquitted? How would this action be any different, other than the color of the actors' skin and their religion?
76
But Black Lives Matter individuals did not forcibly take over federal land with weapons. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about use of force with weapons as a legal right, although many conservatives think so.
4
The federal land in the west belongs to all US citizens. It does not exclusively belong to the people in the west who want to exploit and dispoil it for personal or corporate profit.
I have no sympathy for the likes of the Bundy Clan and there followers. I expect the Federal Government will see to it public lands to be protected and preserved from exploitation by individuals and corporation and the natural resources located there protected from exploitation and extraction.
I have no sympathy for the likes of the Bundy Clan and there followers. I expect the Federal Government will see to it public lands to be protected and preserved from exploitation by individuals and corporation and the natural resources located there protected from exploitation and extraction.
91
The jury in the Bundy case was a mixed group, and they were unanimous. So the likely culprit in this was the prosecution, which tried charges they couldn't prove.
Clearly the Malheur group were guilty of *something.* You cannot march into public property with guns and announce it is yours anymore than you can march into a neighbor's house armed, and announce it is yours. That day and age went out with castles. So the prosecution must have been especially inept - either choosing the wrong charges, or choosing the wrong prosecutor.
By all means, federal employees are at risk from the cuckoo nuts out there who believe that the government has no right to property - an inversion of reality. We all own property rights to land that belongs to the US. It is not as if we can transfer our asset to Russia or China, only the rights to it. Some of those property rights are maintained collectively, for all of us. It isn't a difficult or controversial concept, unless you live near that land and want it.
But in protecting those who work our federal lands, we need to be smart. It would help if Congress actually protected them legally, but we can expect less than nothing from Congress. So in their stead we need smart law enforcement that can figure out how to charge and prosecute effectively.
Clearly the Malheur group were guilty of *something.* You cannot march into public property with guns and announce it is yours anymore than you can march into a neighbor's house armed, and announce it is yours. That day and age went out with castles. So the prosecution must have been especially inept - either choosing the wrong charges, or choosing the wrong prosecutor.
By all means, federal employees are at risk from the cuckoo nuts out there who believe that the government has no right to property - an inversion of reality. We all own property rights to land that belongs to the US. It is not as if we can transfer our asset to Russia or China, only the rights to it. Some of those property rights are maintained collectively, for all of us. It isn't a difficult or controversial concept, unless you live near that land and want it.
But in protecting those who work our federal lands, we need to be smart. It would help if Congress actually protected them legally, but we can expect less than nothing from Congress. So in their stead we need smart law enforcement that can figure out how to charge and prosecute effectively.
101
Actually private land in the U.S. has been transferred to foreign citizens including wealthy Chinese. Not much about that in the Trump camp. You'd think they'd be incensed that foreigners owned American land. The hypocrisy of the Republican Party knows no bounds.
2
Yet "we" worry about Islamic terrorists. I was absolutely appalled at the acquittal of these domestic terrorists. This will open a floodgate of anarchists who believe that they answer to no law. How a jury could find for the defendants is beyond my comprehension. This is so far from what is happening in Standing Rock where Native Americans are trying to protect their land, their water, their environment yet they are facing snarling dogs, tear gas and other chemical assaults, The National Guard and arrest. Journalists are being arrested for reporting on the event, a no fly zone has been set-up and more. Yet the Bundys, an armed domestic terrorist group, walk free. The upcoming trial on the willful theft of our land by Cliven Bundy for grazing his cattle on public lands without paying the accompanying fees will probably also end in a similar miscarriage of justice. Our "justice" system seems to be a complete sham. We have an FBI director who is trying to tilt the election to his party's favor, violence directed at a peaceful protest and violent terrorists who threatened government employees with loaded guns walking free. We are on the verge of electing a demagogue and authoritarian who is possibly guilty of the rape of a thirteen year old child as president of the United States. There are more guns than people and sales are rising, our citizens are armed to the teeth. Our country is no longer recognizable and is seemingly going insane. Heaven help us.
100
Heaven?
What we need to do is realize that the issues that were present when certain states were forced to ratify the constitution, when certain states wanted out and were prevented by armed forces are still active. Those wanting partition 155 years ago may have been beaten physically but the ideas were not and the federal government continues to grow more powerful.
The solution? Partition.
What we need to do is realize that the issues that were present when certain states were forced to ratify the constitution, when certain states wanted out and were prevented by armed forces are still active. Those wanting partition 155 years ago may have been beaten physically but the ideas were not and the federal government continues to grow more powerful.
The solution? Partition.
1
Sharon,
What a excellent comment you've written. I do take issue, though, with your loose use of the word "terrorist'. Terrorists incinerate children at day care centers. The word should be reserved for ISIS and the like, or McVeigh. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed reading your comment.
What a excellent comment you've written. I do take issue, though, with your loose use of the word "terrorist'. Terrorists incinerate children at day care centers. The word should be reserved for ISIS and the like, or McVeigh. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed reading your comment.
That verdict is instructive in that it demonstrates that it is important not just to recommend an indictment and bring the case to a courtroom, it has to be proven. This jury found that the prosecution did not prove that the charges were valid beyond reasonable doubt. They found the defendants not guilty.
Transfer that information to the famous email case. Some people were angry that the FBI did not recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. If they had done that, it would have been politically fatal, but she would still have been innocent until proven guilty. I believe that would have required a grand jury to agree with the recommendation and then for the DOJ to take the case to court and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the charges were true.
It looks to us as if those Malheur occupiers were guilty of something. We are dismayed that the jury failed to convict them, but perhaps the fault is that the wrong charges were brought. Perhaps the jury rejected the idea of a conspiracy based on perceptions of motive.
Bringing charges has implications. It has to be done seriously and with as little prejudice as humans can muster.
Transfer that information to the famous email case. Some people were angry that the FBI did not recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. If they had done that, it would have been politically fatal, but she would still have been innocent until proven guilty. I believe that would have required a grand jury to agree with the recommendation and then for the DOJ to take the case to court and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the charges were true.
It looks to us as if those Malheur occupiers were guilty of something. We are dismayed that the jury failed to convict them, but perhaps the fault is that the wrong charges were brought. Perhaps the jury rejected the idea of a conspiracy based on perceptions of motive.
Bringing charges has implications. It has to be done seriously and with as little prejudice as humans can muster.
1
There is a growing movement that believes the Constitution forbids the federal government from owning land larger than 10 miles square. They refer to it as Clause 17 ( don't bother looking, its not labeled as such, so much for their being students of the document) That this is in the constitution is not in question, it is although its not labeled as such, that it referrers to the federal government acquiring land, and limiting its size, for the federal capital outside of any states jurisdiction. We call it Washington DC.
The anti-federal government movement refuses to believe the federal government or its agencies are allowed to own land for parks or anything other than military institutions. They do not believe we as a nation are the better for our parks, national monuments and wildernesses. The movement to transfer federal lands pretends these lands can be better managed at a local level, ignoring that the states can't afford to keep these lands and are promptly selling many lands already transferred to them. The Feds often are their own worst enemy. Recall how the park service blocked a public highway overlook so people couldn't stop to see Mt. Rushmore when the government shut down? Stupid. Over all the transfer movement is being used by hyper wealthy looking to milk public lands for their own narrow financial benefit, be it resource extraction or a private reserve. Lands we can generally use now for recreation is in grave danger and we are being shut out.
The anti-federal government movement refuses to believe the federal government or its agencies are allowed to own land for parks or anything other than military institutions. They do not believe we as a nation are the better for our parks, national monuments and wildernesses. The movement to transfer federal lands pretends these lands can be better managed at a local level, ignoring that the states can't afford to keep these lands and are promptly selling many lands already transferred to them. The Feds often are their own worst enemy. Recall how the park service blocked a public highway overlook so people couldn't stop to see Mt. Rushmore when the government shut down? Stupid. Over all the transfer movement is being used by hyper wealthy looking to milk public lands for their own narrow financial benefit, be it resource extraction or a private reserve. Lands we can generally use now for recreation is in grave danger and we are being shut out.
5
Incredibly National Park officers were sent out to close Washington's home in Mount Vernon. No one in the service knew that the home is a privately owned enterprise and the Park Service had no authority there?
Or brought in barriers to block access to the Viet Nam Memorial?
It was all about punishing the American people ad trying to enlist them to fight those who shut down the government. The heavy hand of government only confirmed what people were thinking, that the government has too much control.
Or brought in barriers to block access to the Viet Nam Memorial?
It was all about punishing the American people ad trying to enlist them to fight those who shut down the government. The heavy hand of government only confirmed what people were thinking, that the government has too much control.
1
I have no sympathy for law breakers and wish that the Bundys were convicted. But I do not consider federal lands to be holy and I do not consider those who administer them to be on a heroic mission.
I have been to an animal refuge in Colorado that was ugly and open and seemed not to provide necessary shelter to the animals. The Grand Canyon is visited by countless foreigners who arrive in exhaust-spewing buses, stay a couple of hours, and then head out. The contractors who provide food and lodging at the national parks overcharge and are of mediocre quality. You get to see animals at Yellowstone because they have been lured to the road, where visitors feed them. The main attractions at Glacier can't be seen until June because of snow on the main road. 100 folks with shovels would help take care of that -- the roads at Rocky Mt. National Park are 4,000 feet higher and cleared earlier. Mt. Hood is one of the great climbs in the West. I have yet to see a trail sign on the main path. But the year round skiing is easily accessible.
In my experience, state parks are administered as well as national parks and sometimes better. And state parks are used by a greater variety of visitors. You don't see any blacks at national parks and the visitors are, on the whole, better off than those at state parks. National parks mostly service foreigners, retired Americans, and outdoorspeople with high quality equipment. State parks service me and my neighbors.
I have been to an animal refuge in Colorado that was ugly and open and seemed not to provide necessary shelter to the animals. The Grand Canyon is visited by countless foreigners who arrive in exhaust-spewing buses, stay a couple of hours, and then head out. The contractors who provide food and lodging at the national parks overcharge and are of mediocre quality. You get to see animals at Yellowstone because they have been lured to the road, where visitors feed them. The main attractions at Glacier can't be seen until June because of snow on the main road. 100 folks with shovels would help take care of that -- the roads at Rocky Mt. National Park are 4,000 feet higher and cleared earlier. Mt. Hood is one of the great climbs in the West. I have yet to see a trail sign on the main path. But the year round skiing is easily accessible.
In my experience, state parks are administered as well as national parks and sometimes better. And state parks are used by a greater variety of visitors. You don't see any blacks at national parks and the visitors are, on the whole, better off than those at state parks. National parks mostly service foreigners, retired Americans, and outdoorspeople with high quality equipment. State parks service me and my neighbors.
1
Those you seem to defend here are not interested in transferring federal land to state parks, but to give to wealthy developers, mostly themselves.
5
Used to be folks in the West had ways of dealing with rustlers, claim jumpers, horse thieves, and marauders of all types. No need to bring in FBI or DOJ types. Just don't bother us while we get the job done.
8
You folks out west are caught up in the myths of John Ford westerns and Zane Grey novels; legends in your own minds regarding your supposed rugged individualism.
The problem with your boast is that you don't get the job done. The jury's verdict certainly is evidence of that.
The problem with your boast is that you don't get the job done. The jury's verdict certainly is evidence of that.
The government brought the wrong charges, that's what happened! Alice T. Meyer, 1325 SW Myrtle Drive, Portland OR. 97209
6
If the government brought the wrong charges and there are still charges that could be made that have not be made it seems the terrorists could be tried on the charges which are valid. They just can't be re-tried on the same charges. If you know what they should be charged with, then you should speak up. Perhaps you could even bring a case yourself if you were in any way impacted by their behavior.
This summer I spent a month as caretaker at an historic ranch administered by the BLM about 50 miles south of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters. During this time I met and worked with numerous BLM staff from equipment operators, to support staff, to rangers, to wild horse experts, to recreation experts, to administrators. I had no particular exposure to the BLM staff prior to this time and thought I might find them to be uninspired bureaucrats. I was so wrong. To a person these are remarkable individuals doing difficult jobs, often working alone and in challenging conditions. I am pleased to know that such fine people are stewards of our public land. I feel like I own the land (along with everyone in the nation!) and BLM staff look after it for us.
The Bundy's et al. have a valid perspective but took extreme measures because they were not getting their way. What they did was not true to the many fine people (BLM, ranchers, Burns Paiute, etc.) of Harney County that work every day to get along and find compromise.
The Bundy's et al. have a valid perspective but took extreme measures because they were not getting their way. What they did was not true to the many fine people (BLM, ranchers, Burns Paiute, etc.) of Harney County that work every day to get along and find compromise.
43
Mr. John F. Helmer in Oregon
I, personally, truly appreciate your letter. In fact, I came on this comment site to write a Thank-You to the BLM people who do such a fine job in OUR PUBLIC LANDS and a Thank-You to the rangers who manage our parks and national monuments. I am always surprised when I go to a place and I find that rangers are the ones who are making everything stay nice and, basically, work for all of us.
However, keeping all your good comments in mind, I don't understand what you mean when you say "The Bundy's et al. have a valid perspective..." I can't understand what could be VALID about their particular perspective? I realize that you go on to say that they "took extreme measures because they were not getting their way." In fact, what makes them, or anyone, think they have the right to graze their cattle on public land without paying? Or the right to takeover a federal facility and intimidate all the workers there and any visitors who might be thinking of coming? If the Bundys can do it, why can't I do it. I could use a supplement to my income. Couldn't I just buy a couple hundred head of cattle and a used mobile home and run up to some federal land area and squat myself down for the long haul? There is nothing to stop me or anyone else; if the Bundys can do it, anyone can do it. The rule of law is broken down. One of the things that makes this country great is our Public Lands and our National Parks and National Monuments. God help us if we should lose them.
I, personally, truly appreciate your letter. In fact, I came on this comment site to write a Thank-You to the BLM people who do such a fine job in OUR PUBLIC LANDS and a Thank-You to the rangers who manage our parks and national monuments. I am always surprised when I go to a place and I find that rangers are the ones who are making everything stay nice and, basically, work for all of us.
However, keeping all your good comments in mind, I don't understand what you mean when you say "The Bundy's et al. have a valid perspective..." I can't understand what could be VALID about their particular perspective? I realize that you go on to say that they "took extreme measures because they were not getting their way." In fact, what makes them, or anyone, think they have the right to graze their cattle on public land without paying? Or the right to takeover a federal facility and intimidate all the workers there and any visitors who might be thinking of coming? If the Bundys can do it, why can't I do it. I could use a supplement to my income. Couldn't I just buy a couple hundred head of cattle and a used mobile home and run up to some federal land area and squat myself down for the long haul? There is nothing to stop me or anyone else; if the Bundys can do it, anyone can do it. The rule of law is broken down. One of the things that makes this country great is our Public Lands and our National Parks and National Monuments. God help us if we should lose them.
3
i don't want to turn Federal lands over to these protestors to "manage." They will destroy the West for their own profit.
188
This is just so wrong. I believe that the Bundys do not share the opinion of most Westerners (of which I am one), that they have an inalinaable right to graze their cattle where they please, take over wildlife refuges whenever they please. They need to suck it up and pay their taxes like the rest of us. That's what this is truly about. They don't want to pay taxes, What a bunch of babies.
174
JEA SLC
Excellent point. Maybe they could be jailed for tax evasion. Put them in jail with the likes of the organized crime gangs. That's what they are. Organized crime in boots instead of suits.
Excellent point. Maybe they could be jailed for tax evasion. Put them in jail with the likes of the organized crime gangs. That's what they are. Organized crime in boots instead of suits.
1
It would be informative to hear why the Justice Department thought that it had a case for conspiracy. I can't imagine why simply brandishing weapons and kicking all federal employees out of public property that they were mandated to manage wouldn't have been enough to put these guys away for years. The fact that it is so much easier to put a teenage black who is caught with a bag of marijuana and a prior conviction behind bars is a bizarre testimony to the priorities of our nation.
149
This was so easy. Opening arguments Monday, summations Wednesday, and jail sentences for life on Thursday. All the evidence and actions (hostage taking, sedition, treason, attempted murder, burglary, squatters, et al) were against these Cretans and deplorables but someone messed up for no reason whatsoever. Transcripts, film footage, voice recordings during the seige and in the police offices should have given the authorities so much evidence that it was a slam dunk. Even a first year law student could have prosecuted them with little or no prior training. Even blindfolded. Fortunately, since a Federal crime, they will never get to vote ever again. And see Americans, what stupid people do to, not for, this country?!
Stop voting Republican't and listening to Fixed Noise propaganda coolaid!
Tell all you know and see to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Stop voting Republican't and listening to Fixed Noise propaganda coolaid!
Tell all you know and see to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
31
Well, some of us "cretins" are quite worried about government overreach. Just sayin'
3
Maybe I misunderstand you, but being acquitted of federal charges does not deprive one of his or her right to vote.
2
I have to wonder why the Bundy clan was allowed to defy the government for so long. It looked to the world like they had some kind of immunity, that they were above the law. Even with this latest act of jury nullification, the government needs to keep enforcing the law.
47
Bob Garcia, Miami
Yeah, I know. It is really freaking me out. I don't understand why these guys weren't put away for life. If they were Black or of Mexican descent or Native American, they would not even have made it out of the refuge. They would have been tear gassed and tasered, at the very least, then prosecuted for armed insurrection.
Yeah, I know. It is really freaking me out. I don't understand why these guys weren't put away for life. If they were Black or of Mexican descent or Native American, they would not even have made it out of the refuge. They would have been tear gassed and tasered, at the very least, then prosecuted for armed insurrection.
1
Mr. Ketcham knows all to well that you don't have to go to Oregon or Nevada to see the justice that was handed down in Portland. Right here in Escalante my home for the last 35 years we have had a BLM ranger thrown in jail for making a comment about IED's to the sister of an elected official. He was accused of being a terrorist by the sheriff. You see Jeff served in Iraq and knows all about IED's . The sheriff wanted to make an example of a government worker who was "trespassing" on the God given land that belonged to the locals and not the federal government. The story can be found here. http://suindependent.com/jeff-ellison-blm-ranger
13
Robert Weinick, Calf Creek Escalante, Utah
Thanks for posting the link. I put it on my fb page. Everyone needs to know this.
Thanks for posting the link. I put it on my fb page. Everyone needs to know this.
A very good article that serves to warn us of the consequences of this poor decision. Having hiked in the Malheur, I was very distressed by this thuggish, self-righteous takeover of land that we, the taxpayers, all "own" and have a right to enjoy. This type of Libertarian vigilantism can only cause harm to public and--as the author points out--to dedicated public employees who help maintain these lands for the common good. This refuge is absolutely beautiful; high desert solitude and beauty in an increasingly distracted and polluted world. We need to take a stand against any future occupations of our public trust.
45
The Bundy's, predatory criminals assaulting federal land that belongs to all of us, being freed this easy, is an affront to any decency left out there. Could it be that being white gave an unfair advantage unimaginable in a different skin shade? Do we remain discriminators, where justice is not blind, just with a hypocritical eye patch favoring the 'chosen', however bad their behavior? This is a sad day for fairness, and perhaps an invitation to somebody else to assault public property in a not too distant future, if deemed convenient, as leniency seems to suggest?
20
Jury nullification in action. The people of Oregon will be sorry for what the jury has done,
26
"The people of Oregon will be sorry for what the jury has done,"
I'd wager that the vast majority of them already are.
I'd wager that the vast majority of them already are.
There is another trial of "Malheur militants" set to start early next year. The Justice Department needs to do a better job of prosecuting instead of thinking the facts of videotaped armed trespass impeding the work of federal land management employees and unnecessarily disturbing carefully stored Native American artifacts was a slam dunk. For those of us who know the story of Malheur, the real story is the protection of migratory waterfowl that are the real owners of the land and water that we puny humans "manage" on their behalf. They deserve better than the dominion over the land approach that the Bundys and their ilk would think appropriate.
18
These people were outsiders. They weren't invited by the locals to do their childish protest. Yes there is often a love hate relationship regarding BLM land but the blessings out way the cons.
The federal employees take great care of the land and because it's public land we get to enjoy it for generations. Growing up I enjoyed riding horses on the local BLM land in Central Oregon. Nothing more freeing than pretending to be a cowgirl.
I'm glad that steps were taken to make sure that the Western lands didn't end up like the Eastern lands. We still have our old growth forests and amazing rock formations. I live in a state where I am three hours from the beach, the desert, or the forest and it's not ruined by overpopulation.
I hope that adjustments to the law is made as a result of this case so that next time they are able to be convicted. Once guns are involved it's no longer a non violent protest. The local community and federal employees should not have to worry about being shot while going about their daily business.
The federal employees take great care of the land and because it's public land we get to enjoy it for generations. Growing up I enjoyed riding horses on the local BLM land in Central Oregon. Nothing more freeing than pretending to be a cowgirl.
I'm glad that steps were taken to make sure that the Western lands didn't end up like the Eastern lands. We still have our old growth forests and amazing rock formations. I live in a state where I am three hours from the beach, the desert, or the forest and it's not ruined by overpopulation.
I hope that adjustments to the law is made as a result of this case so that next time they are able to be convicted. Once guns are involved it's no longer a non violent protest. The local community and federal employees should not have to worry about being shot while going about their daily business.
197
The Bundys are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such. It's just that no one wants to upset the right wing these days.
4
Mr. Ketcham writes from one of the most spectacular spots in the West. Over the last 25 years I have enjoyed visiting Escalante and taking the spectacular ride from there to Boulder, happy that most tourists flock to Moab and turn it into an open air recreation park. Some places are to beautiful to ruin in the hunt for oil and coal. Escalante is among the most beautiful of those spots.
10
How about just closing down Malheur and making it a wilderness area? I'm sure bird watchers can find other places to go, and the employees can be relocated to other Wildlife Service locations [they probably don't feel much at home where they are]. When the locals lose all that bird watcher, etc,. income, maybe they will realize how stupid they were.
5
The Malheur trial verdict appears to be a true injustice to US citizens throughout the country. Weeks of occupation by heavily armed “protestors”, employee salaries wasted, considerable damage done to our property. All of it well documented. And the criminals walk free claiming justification for their bizarre constitutional interpretations. How can this be?
Our Federal government is becoming increasingly paralyzed by the fear of the condemnation of these clamerous, threatening reactionaries. Our officials constrain themselves to delicately maneuver around these reactionary challenges, fearful of an eruption of vituperation or outright violence as the perpetrators judge helpful to their ends. The Republican party platform of this election year shockingly affirms these reactionary positions (one more example of the damage a political party that would rather promote dysfunction than cure it can inflict).
I certainly feel for the federal employees that have been so undermined. I encourage our Federal officials to find the resolve to appropriately confront these criminal activities that will surely increase following this verdict and propelled by the current presidential election turmoil.
Our Federal government is becoming increasingly paralyzed by the fear of the condemnation of these clamerous, threatening reactionaries. Our officials constrain themselves to delicately maneuver around these reactionary challenges, fearful of an eruption of vituperation or outright violence as the perpetrators judge helpful to their ends. The Republican party platform of this election year shockingly affirms these reactionary positions (one more example of the damage a political party that would rather promote dysfunction than cure it can inflict).
I certainly feel for the federal employees that have been so undermined. I encourage our Federal officials to find the resolve to appropriately confront these criminal activities that will surely increase following this verdict and propelled by the current presidential election turmoil.
169
If the BLM group had held that land forty-,uh, forty minutes, there would have been no trials.
7
First and foremost the problem starts with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I had the opportunity in some OPM-sponsored management courses for senior US Government managers to meet several prime examples of the sort of employees comprising the BLM. I came from a DoD project management background. Never in my life have I met a more woolly-headed bunch of circular-reasoning, non-goal-oriented people. They couldn't even tell us, their fellow-students, what the mission statement for the BLM is, if one even exists!
2
Hello. I'm a trespassing self styled patriot and sovereign Nevadan, who refuses to pay his required fees and I'm here to help.
9
The Fed'l Gov't emboldened these armed intruders through their incredibly light touch, letting it go on for too long without doing anything to impede them. The relatively minor criminal charges also reinforced the impression among the jury and the public that those in higher authority didn't consider this property worth fighting for, OR there was a hidden agenda. Normally they'd crack down and throw the book at such people.
The hidden agenda was the interests of capitalists. They're the political donor class who prey on our public commons through their paid puppets in Congress whose job is to 'starve the beast' through underfunding and by willful neglect, forcing the sale of public assets.
In this case, willfully neglecting to protect Fed'l lands and employees resulted in employees now unwilling to be subjected to such danger. The privatization agenda is advanced when Malheur has to be shut down and sold due to lack of staff and others follow. It's the domino effect of fear.
We know there's a hidden agenda when this domestic terrorism elicited no response for months, yet private pipelines, financiers on Wall St., etc. get a rapid and aggressive response, including troops in riot gear and MRAPs, to simple peaceful protests.
The Bundy ilk was coddled because they not only didn't threaten capital, they advanced the cause of 'liberating' our public land for future profit by instilling fear.
The damage is done regardless of possible future convictions.
The hidden agenda was the interests of capitalists. They're the political donor class who prey on our public commons through their paid puppets in Congress whose job is to 'starve the beast' through underfunding and by willful neglect, forcing the sale of public assets.
In this case, willfully neglecting to protect Fed'l lands and employees resulted in employees now unwilling to be subjected to such danger. The privatization agenda is advanced when Malheur has to be shut down and sold due to lack of staff and others follow. It's the domino effect of fear.
We know there's a hidden agenda when this domestic terrorism elicited no response for months, yet private pipelines, financiers on Wall St., etc. get a rapid and aggressive response, including troops in riot gear and MRAPs, to simple peaceful protests.
The Bundy ilk was coddled because they not only didn't threaten capital, they advanced the cause of 'liberating' our public land for future profit by instilling fear.
The damage is done regardless of possible future convictions.
24
Taking over government land is insurrection. When students occupy buildings,they are arrested. When native Americans engage in a stand off ,they are killed. However,right wing white anti Government groups are exonerated by their like minded peers. BLM agents should not endeavor to confront would be militias without heavily armed back up. Anti government groups have been encouraged by the alt right forces that have come out of the woodwork. The law is reasonable as regard land management and it must be upheld.
250
Federal employees have had targets on their backs since Ronald Reagan placed them there when he was President. He never spoke kindly of government workers or the jobs they did. With this outrageous Bundy verdict, very likely there will be more violent takeovers of Federal lands and buildings. And, I would not be surprised if we were witness to more Oklahoma City style bombings of Federal office buildings by these anti-government radicals.
21
The Malheur verdict piles a judicial atrocity on top of a heinous crime. It tells armed would-be land pirates that they can commander the public treasure for their personal gain, be it material or ideological, with impunity.
It tells the American public that the territory legally set-aside as long as two centuries ago for its enjoyment is no longer guaranteed. This is the pretty pass our country has achieved in this era 24/7 heat without a nanosecond of light.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
It tells the American public that the territory legally set-aside as long as two centuries ago for its enjoyment is no longer guaranteed. This is the pretty pass our country has achieved in this era 24/7 heat without a nanosecond of light.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
149
Why isn't the FBI and the Federal Marshals protecting the rights of these federal workers, and criminally charging those who perpetrate these actions?
21
Why isn't the FBI protecting the rights of the federal workers? Because they are too busy trying desperately to find something, anything, to charge Hillary with and throw the election to Trump. Comey's FBI agrees with the Bundys.
1
The system of federal land management in Western states is sort of a violation of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This important measure, older than even the Constitution, established that all states coming into the newly formed union would enter as equal partners. It eliminated the possibility that the new nation would administer newly acquired territories as provinces. The Northwest Ordinance outlined a process by which territories could become states, whereupon they would become equal, enfranchised members of the Union (then still under the Articles of Confederation). The electoral college, giving two senators to each state, proportional representation based on population, and the creation of a standalone capital, also enshrined the idea of equality among the states. The Northwest Ordinance specifically kept the government from simply annexing the Ohio Territory and administering it from the East Coast, like an Empire would do. The founders didn't want a few population centers or large states to control all the new nation's geography. So...a state in which the Federal government owns 80% of the land is not a "state" in the same way that, say, Massachusetts is. It just isn't. A state that only controls 20% of its territory isn't really a state in the constitutional sense of the term. BTW, Provinces might not be so ominous or horrible. Canada has a provincial system, for example. But let's call it what it is.
6
"So...a state in which the Federal government owns 80% of the land is not a 'state' in the same way that, say, Massachusetts is. It just isn't."
Why? Because you say so? "It just isn't" is a nonsensical argument.
Why? Because you say so? "It just isn't" is a nonsensical argument.
3
" So...a state in which the Federal government owns 80% of the land is not a 'state' in the same way that, say, Massachusetts is. It just isn't. A state that only controls 20% of its territory isn't really a state in the constitutional sense of the term."
I'd try to refute that, but how does one rebut nonsense?
I'd try to refute that, but how does one rebut nonsense?
3
Good for the Constitution of 1787 which overrode the Articles on Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance.
Good riddance.
Good riddance.
1
The Republicans of the 1860s fought a bloody war to keep the US together. Sadly, the Republicans of today, after decades of gutting governmental power and decrying everything the US stands for, are on the precipice of rending this nation asunder in a way the Confederacy could only dream of.
The repercussions of this inexcusable verdict may well be the point of no return for the unity of our nation, and the effectiveness of its governing bodies to maintain the rule of law.
The repercussions of this inexcusable verdict may well be the point of no return for the unity of our nation, and the effectiveness of its governing bodies to maintain the rule of law.
38
Sad as this is I think it is time we train and arm all federal employees who have to work in remote and or rural locals in the same way we train Park Rangers who often have to deal with such people.
If the Juror #4 letter is real then how the jurors did not see conspiracy is beyond reason.
Conspiracy; The act of conspiring together; An agreement among conspirators, a group of conspirators.
Conspire; To act in harmony toward a common end.
It is plain as day.
If the Juror #4 letter is real then how the jurors did not see conspiracy is beyond reason.
Conspiracy; The act of conspiring together; An agreement among conspirators, a group of conspirators.
Conspire; To act in harmony toward a common end.
It is plain as day.
8
The jury system sometimes fails us. Read some articles published in the Oregonian newspapers for details about this trial. Juror #4 was adamantly against conviction, and was able to affect the removal from the trial of a juror that disagreed with him.
37
The prosecution was stupid to try to convict for conspiracy. They should have gone for criminal trespass.
"You commit a criminal trespass whenever you enter onto property which you know you do not have the right to enter, or remain on property after learning you do not have the right to be there. Trespassing can occur on both private and public property, and you do not have to receive a verbal warning that the property is off limits."
"You commit a criminal trespass whenever you enter onto property which you know you do not have the right to enter, or remain on property after learning you do not have the right to be there. Trespassing can occur on both private and public property, and you do not have to receive a verbal warning that the property is off limits."
9
Trespass? Looked more like sedition to me, sedition with press conferences and prayer meetings.
1
The 2016 assaults on B.L.M. American employees by uneducated, riffraff, and their acquittals in a court of law display the depraved state of our nation's system of justice.
Our Roman and British ancestors would be ashamed of what our courts have become.
Our Roman and British ancestors would be ashamed of what our courts have become.
26
Federal law enforcement must not wait again to arrest crazy militia members until they become entrenched. When they take over a federal facility, it is incumbent upon law enforcement and arrest them. If they resist, surely the feds can,and should, outgun them. We cannot continue to allow these lawless thugs take over land we all own. Law enforcement does not seem to have any trouble arresting people who are black, brown or red; we need to apply the same laws to white militia or they will run even wilder and crazier than they are now. If the militia want a shootout,oblige them and the populace will be behind the feds.
80
They had over 30 guns and 18,000+ rounds of ammunition, they were itching for a fight, the Feds didn't want another WACO or Ruby Ridge, so they stayed.
28
Correct. And if a grand jury is started to question the actions of law enforcement, consider this -- extremist supporters are not the only ones who can vote "not guilty".
All utilities should have been disconnected from the building after about 12 hours, with a cordon of law enforcement personnel just waiting patiently around the perimeter. Anyone trying to leave should have been arrested for trespassing, not allowed to go into town for supplies and return (duh). Most importantly, this approach would have denied these yahoos the attention they sought.
3
This country was made for white people
We are trying to move away from that. But white privilege is real.
Report it nyt
Look at how wages, sentencing, endorsements all differ by race. Even more so than gender.
White terroists are freedom fighters
The civil rights movement was subverted by the FBI
Many things have changed but not enough
We are trying to move away from that. But white privilege is real.
Report it nyt
Look at how wages, sentencing, endorsements all differ by race. Even more so than gender.
White terroists are freedom fighters
The civil rights movement was subverted by the FBI
Many things have changed but not enough
12
White privilege is a myth. Otherwise go tell the millions of poor whites in trailer parks of their 'privledge'
1
I've commented about Oregonians who live in rural areas and small towns last year after the college shooting rampage that happened in Roseburg. Most rural and small town folks out here are right wing in thinking and anti Federal government; guns, Jesus and beer reign supreme. I believe the prosectutors botched the jury selection based on what i've read , most seated jurors during that trial were from rural Oregon and more than likely had already a biased view of the Feds. The proof is the not guilty verdicts for the gun charges. Are you kidding me, Not guilty? Having spent only 5 hours deliberating (the judge told the jury to start from the beginning after she seated the replacement juror) , no one can tell me they didn't already make up their minds and decided to screw the gov't charges and buy into Bundy's Mormon sermon-type testimony that lasted for 3 days. Give them guns, give them Christian/Mormon sermons and you'll get an acquital every time. For the next trial by dear prosecutors do a more vigorous vetting of the jury pool and will you please select some people of "color" for the jury.
30
I grew up in the county seat of Malheur County; have cousins in Burns; worked for the BLM.
I think few of my Malheur brethren have much sympathy for free-loading squatters like the Bundys.
By the way, I watched a couple of call-in talk shows on Seattle public access television in which the Bundy family and allies had an hour of free expression. One woman claimed the government scheduled the trial to begin on the day that Satan took his annual bride -- a girl of seven to seventeen years. She said the whole matter was one of religion and God's will. All agreed.
The Bundy bunch is wacky as well as treasonous.
I think few of my Malheur brethren have much sympathy for free-loading squatters like the Bundys.
By the way, I watched a couple of call-in talk shows on Seattle public access television in which the Bundy family and allies had an hour of free expression. One woman claimed the government scheduled the trial to begin on the day that Satan took his annual bride -- a girl of seven to seventeen years. She said the whole matter was one of religion and God's will. All agreed.
The Bundy bunch is wacky as well as treasonous.
6
Who was on that jury? I've known of crazy juries, but these people take the cake. I wonder if I'd be breaking the law if I suggested that anyone who reads this story should mount a takeover of their homes? I'm sure they'd be fine with it, right? It's a Second Amendment right, right? Sheesh.
17
I feel for the agents but, eventually, the citizens of these states - the ones who have been blindly following the small government rhetoric of the right - will realize that anarchy isn't good for business....or civilization. They will wake up and turn on these few craven takers who would be destitute without federal land handouts that we, the federal taxpayers, subsidize.
In the meantime, save these federal jobs for the states that want a 21st century economy. It's a pity about the land, though.
In the meantime, save these federal jobs for the states that want a 21st century economy. It's a pity about the land, though.
9
In 20 years there will be no Bureau of Land Management. Our public lands are slowly being commandeered by large corporations who will eventually sell the rights to private developers.
YES People! Private homes, gated communities and elite enclaves in Yosemite and Yellowstone. Think I'm crazy? 20 years isn't that long to find out..
YES People! Private homes, gated communities and elite enclaves in Yosemite and Yellowstone. Think I'm crazy? 20 years isn't that long to find out..
12
My question is: what can we do now? I'm disgusted by this verdict. Public lands do not exist to enrich cattle ranchers. They exist for all people and must balance wildlife, recreation, and certain industries. The Bundy's seek nothing less than to turn our vast national treasures, the very wild spaces which make our country and the American West special, into desolate wastelands filled with bleached cattle bones. How can we, as citizens with every right to demand protect of our lands, stand up to selfish miscreants like the Bundy's? How do we demonstrate to apathetic or even antipathetic citizens the value of keeping wild spaces wild?
Also why have the FBI and BLM put so many resources into destroying and discrediting organizations like Earth First! while standing down to armed terrorists like the Bundy's? It seems that perhaps environmental extremism for the good of the land is less palatable than violent extremism carried out for the good of the individual.
Also why have the FBI and BLM put so many resources into destroying and discrediting organizations like Earth First! while standing down to armed terrorists like the Bundy's? It seems that perhaps environmental extremism for the good of the land is less palatable than violent extremism carried out for the good of the individual.
21
Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat and a thief who refused to pay his grazing fees to the United States government, which represents all of our country's people. He should have been arrested, but the Obama Justice Department did its customary "good" job, just as it did with Wall Street tycoons.
Let's face it. The main reason the Bundys and their merry men got away with their prolonged act of domestic terrorism is because they are white. If a group of black, Latino, or Native American militants had done the same thing, the outcome would have been very different.
Let's hope the next trial goes better so Cliven and his sons can be put safely behind bars where they belong. They aren't patriots.
Let's face it. The main reason the Bundys and their merry men got away with their prolonged act of domestic terrorism is because they are white. If a group of black, Latino, or Native American militants had done the same thing, the outcome would have been very different.
Let's hope the next trial goes better so Cliven and his sons can be put safely behind bars where they belong. They aren't patriots.
91
I fully agree that Bundy is a thief and the Feds should have arrested him. However, and I know this is a popular narrative right now, I disagree with your assertion that the only reason Bundy got away with it is because he's white. Remember Waco and the Branch Davidians? Lots of dead white people. Ever since then the Feds have been real shy about confronting armed 'resisters' fearing a public relations nightmare if lots of dead bodies result.
2
Not a threat? When back in the '60's the Black Panthers LEGALLY walked into the California Capitol armed to the teeth, young Black men in para-military uniforms with guns who threatened nobody, the REPUBLICAN Governor, Ronald Reagan, had a total panic attack. He and the legislature quickly passed laws that today would make the NRA go insane.
But this was literally an illegal takeover via threat of violence. I can only see 2 ways they could have been acquitted:
1) They committed "jury nullification" which, AFAIK, is not illegal and, ethically, only can be justified if the law itself is clearly illegal. Clearly the law against a conspiracy to seize Federal property by force of arms doesn't fit that.
2) The jury was tampered with, which IS a felony.
Since this is the 2nd time Bundys have threatened the BLM employees with violence, the obvious response is for the BLM to beef up its security forces and train them in SWAT-type responses to such attacks. I'm sorry, but this isn't cops shooting unarmed Black people for reaching for their wallet, it's defending against armed insurgents.
But this was literally an illegal takeover via threat of violence. I can only see 2 ways they could have been acquitted:
1) They committed "jury nullification" which, AFAIK, is not illegal and, ethically, only can be justified if the law itself is clearly illegal. Clearly the law against a conspiracy to seize Federal property by force of arms doesn't fit that.
2) The jury was tampered with, which IS a felony.
Since this is the 2nd time Bundys have threatened the BLM employees with violence, the obvious response is for the BLM to beef up its security forces and train them in SWAT-type responses to such attacks. I'm sorry, but this isn't cops shooting unarmed Black people for reaching for their wallet, it's defending against armed insurgents.
14
There ought to be civil lawsuits for damages, loss of use, and property destruction. It was, after all my stuff they wrecked. And yours too, dear reader...
49
A federal government determined to provide evidence for a crime they intended to prosecute would have escorted the Oregon Rufuge employees through the terrorist lines with as much firepower as deemed necessary and arrested anyone who even threatened resistance (like on private property at Standing Rock). But like the Obama regime's retreat at Bundyville two years ago, the FBI, Oregon state police and the Harney County sheriff decided that white lives really matter and the allowed the terrorists to show the nation their power to sustain their armed occupation for over 40 days. Law enforcement turned over control of Refuge entry and exit to the terrorists and that's why the dangerous perps were acquitted.
9
The trespassers broke the law, threatened federal workers, and most likely harmed the refuge. They should have been tried, convicted, and given appropriate prison terms---and charged fines for wasting MY tax dollars!
This verdict sets a very unfortunate precedent.
This verdict sets a very unfortunate precedent.
31
All of the Bundy crowd were arrested, one was shot dead, several pled guilty, and the ringleaders who didn't plead guilty spent eight months in jail without bond before being acquitted. So... really... if you want to bet you can hijack a federal duck farm and believe doing only eight months is a win... go for it. But maybe next time the feds won't foul up and pull a risky stunt like charging everyone with hard-to-prove criminal conspiracy... or maybe next time one of your fellow knuckleheads will shoot someone and you'll all go to jail for 20 to life.
11
Next time the government will have learned its lesson, and bring charges that can stick instead of ones they didn't have evidence for. This was a terrible failure of justice, and it didn't have to happen.
The feds brought charges of conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs, but presented no evidence that the occupiers made statements to each other along the lines of "Let's stop federal workers from doing their jobs." All the other charges they brought were attached to this charge, so they all failed.
Instead of picking charges with the highest penalty, regardless of the evidence, they should have brought criminal trespass charges, and other lesser charges so at least these thugs would have spent some time in jail. The juror who spoke out said the jury was frustrated that there were no charges that there was evidence for. They knew laws were broken and wanted justice to be done, but there was nothing they could do.
The feds brought charges of conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs, but presented no evidence that the occupiers made statements to each other along the lines of "Let's stop federal workers from doing their jobs." All the other charges they brought were attached to this charge, so they all failed.
Instead of picking charges with the highest penalty, regardless of the evidence, they should have brought criminal trespass charges, and other lesser charges so at least these thugs would have spent some time in jail. The juror who spoke out said the jury was frustrated that there were no charges that there was evidence for. They knew laws were broken and wanted justice to be done, but there was nothing they could do.
13
Sadly, yes. There should be real consequences when armed people take over federal land or buildings and cause hundreds of thousands dollars worth of damage. Now, Oregon militias (and others) will feel emboldened just before and after this election to do as they please. I live in Oregon and this is scary,
16
I never understood that the only charge against the Malheur occupiers was conspiracy. What? After all that wanton destruction of public property, and threats of violence inherent in open displays of weaponry, the only question is conspiracy?
I have to assume incompetent prosecution.
I've wondered if citizens can launch a civil suit, for compensation over the destruction of "our" property, and the "taking" of our right to feel safe while visiting our properties.
I have to assume incompetent prosecution.
I've wondered if citizens can launch a civil suit, for compensation over the destruction of "our" property, and the "taking" of our right to feel safe while visiting our properties.
16
Oregon DOJ Chief, Billy Williams, FAILED Twice. He Needs To Go.
Billy Williams currently serves as the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. The buck stops with him. He gets the credit or the blame for DOJ successes and failures in Oregon. Billy Williams must be held accountable for two massive FAILURES under his command.
Billy Williams FAILED to issue arrest warrants for criminal trespass on the first day of the Bundy gang takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, he, Billy Williams, allowed armed de facto law breakers to commandeer the MNWR for 41 days.
Billy Williams FAILED to secure a conviction for various and blatantly obvious crimes committed by the armed Bundy gang.
Oregon DOJ Chief, Billy Williams, double FAILURES of judgement have brought shame on Oregon and the Department of Justice.
Billy Williams decision making FAILURES will likely encourage more violent assaults on federal property in Oregon and throughout America.
Oregon’s entire congressional delegation and governor must publicly ask President Obama to immediately remove Billy Williams from Oregon.
Williams replacement must publicly and unequivocally state that any and all future attempts at armed occupancy on federal property in Oregon will be dealt with swiftly regardless of the race or amount of weaponry of those who commit criminal trespass.
Richard Ellmyer
North Portland
Author of The Ellmyer Report, http://macsolve.org/lists/?p=subscribe
Billy Williams currently serves as the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. The buck stops with him. He gets the credit or the blame for DOJ successes and failures in Oregon. Billy Williams must be held accountable for two massive FAILURES under his command.
Billy Williams FAILED to issue arrest warrants for criminal trespass on the first day of the Bundy gang takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, he, Billy Williams, allowed armed de facto law breakers to commandeer the MNWR for 41 days.
Billy Williams FAILED to secure a conviction for various and blatantly obvious crimes committed by the armed Bundy gang.
Oregon DOJ Chief, Billy Williams, double FAILURES of judgement have brought shame on Oregon and the Department of Justice.
Billy Williams decision making FAILURES will likely encourage more violent assaults on federal property in Oregon and throughout America.
Oregon’s entire congressional delegation and governor must publicly ask President Obama to immediately remove Billy Williams from Oregon.
Williams replacement must publicly and unequivocally state that any and all future attempts at armed occupancy on federal property in Oregon will be dealt with swiftly regardless of the race or amount of weaponry of those who commit criminal trespass.
Richard Ellmyer
North Portland
Author of The Ellmyer Report, http://macsolve.org/lists/?p=subscribe
11
Change of venue? I can't imagine a jury in NY siding with outlaw cowboys. I am bitterly disappointed in Obama, these men should be incarcerated. Indigenous Americans are jailed, black Americans are shot on sight, Muslim Americans are profiled and threatened constantly, but our good old white anarchists are above the law. Come on man.
13
The criminals admitted their guilt when they announced they were taking over the building and their occupation was filmed on national TV. I'm not sure how you get "not guilty" from that situation. This was not justice. The jury did not discharge their duty and the verdict should be overturned.
7
Picture, a trial by jury in the deep south in the thirties for a lynching of a black man. Guess what, they get off, it's called "jury nullification." If you commit any crime where the local population is sympathetic to the accused, a local jury can completely exonerate an obviously guilty person.
This is what happened, but the Bundy party, though armed to the teeth, never hurt anyone. In fact one of them was killed by the police at a traffic stop. Juries sometimes let guilty people off, it's their nature. Now, had Mr. Bundy been African American, the authorities would have acted with far less deference to the "occupiers." (And, that's called racism.) For Mr. Bundy, he is a recipient "white privilege."
This is what happened, but the Bundy party, though armed to the teeth, never hurt anyone. In fact one of them was killed by the police at a traffic stop. Juries sometimes let guilty people off, it's their nature. Now, had Mr. Bundy been African American, the authorities would have acted with far less deference to the "occupiers." (And, that's called racism.) For Mr. Bundy, he is a recipient "white privilege."
11
These lands were federal lands before there was a state, they were part of the Oregon territory and belong to the people of the U.S. not the state.
As Mark Thomason has said, the prosecutor was remiss in not bringing separate charges for destruction of Federal property, and other charges it would have been difficult for the jury to deny happened. Most of us agree it looked like a conspiracy, but hard to find that they did conspire among themselves without a witness.
Next time the feds need to go in and make physical arrests, and force these people to show just how they will act in such a case.
As Mark Thomason has said, the prosecutor was remiss in not bringing separate charges for destruction of Federal property, and other charges it would have been difficult for the jury to deny happened. Most of us agree it looked like a conspiracy, but hard to find that they did conspire among themselves without a witness.
Next time the feds need to go in and make physical arrests, and force these people to show just how they will act in such a case.
12
The Bundys and their ilk are nothing more than welfare queens. Hiding behind their privileged white skin, guns, and self serving misinterpretations of the constitution. They were treated with kid gloves by law enforcement. Meanwhile, Native Americans peacefullly protesting the threat of an oil pipeline across there land, a pipeline that was rerouted because of the potential danger posed to a city along the original route, are met with a militarized police force sound bombs, tear gas and other assorted weapons. The cowards in law enforcement who will attack with all the means at their disposal unarmed protesters on their own land while tip toeing around armed trespassers should be ashamed of themselves.
The next time freeloading malcontents like the Bundys attack the US government as they did in Oregon they should be met with the same degree of force that this country seems to reserve specifically for people of color.
The next time freeloading malcontents like the Bundys attack the US government as they did in Oregon they should be met with the same degree of force that this country seems to reserve specifically for people of color.
19
I am married to a research scientist who drives vehicles with university, state issued tags. He has, for many years now, had to dance politely around these types of fools who routinely berate him for 'earning triple time' working on a Sunday, fueling his work truck with their tax dollars, wearing what is viewed as fancy raingear or other equally idiotic complaints.. He is a salaried employee and pretty much works 24/7 as the project or weather may require. His expenses require ludicrous paperwork and his raingear is his own. For many years he has had a target on his back but now this verdict coupled with an out of control gun culture, well, I am grateful his retirement is near. Here in the west we all know these types of lazy, ignorant free loaders and, yes, this verdict will encourage them but they are well out of control now.
21
What's the word for someone who spends his time intimidating people he knows won't fight back? Who chooses to occupy by threat a bird refuge? And to intimidate the unarmed people who run the place and presumably care for the land and the birders who come to visit?
Let these guys take their weapons and try to occupy a military installation (there are many out west, also owned by the Federal Gov't) or even a local biker bar. But of course they won't. Bullies pick on easy targets.
Let these guys take their weapons and try to occupy a military installation (there are many out west, also owned by the Federal Gov't) or even a local biker bar. But of course they won't. Bullies pick on easy targets.
11
Conservation in the West requires government employees. Preventing crime in poor neighborhood requires government employees (cops). The anti-government mood that has inspired both Trump and Sanders to talk about revolution is at work when people oppose conservation and law enforcement.
The United States is good. Democracy is good. Our government is good. Not enough people know this.
The United States is good. Democracy is good. Our government is good. Not enough people know this.
9
Why didn't the Feds charge them with actual wrongs against the government such as damaging govt property, trespassing, etc, instead of or along side conspuracy? Why don't they do it now?
8
The verdict was a travesty. For federal employees on vast areas of federal lands in the West, this is totally unacceptable. When a BLM agent drives her vehicle across a lonely stretch of federal land, who will witness what these right wing militia creeps might do?
Even as a private citizen out for a hike or overnight backpack, I feel increasingly paranoid.
When I was a kid traveling the West with my family, guns were not permitted in the National Parks and Monuments or other federal lands. Republicans in Congress changed that. This is a looming problem for our American future.
Even as a private citizen out for a hike or overnight backpack, I feel increasingly paranoid.
When I was a kid traveling the West with my family, guns were not permitted in the National Parks and Monuments or other federal lands. Republicans in Congress changed that. This is a looming problem for our American future.
378
The defendants in this trial were clearly guilty (they documented it themselves) and the not guilty verdict by a jury who essentially engaged in jury nullification (saying the defendants 'cause' negated the law) is a travesty and miscarriage of justice for the victims of these criminals who caused millions of dollars in damage at the educational/scientific faculty at Malheur Refuge and terrorized an entire community for 41 days earlier this year. The verdict also sends a message, as this article stated, that any Federal faculty is up for grabs by armed terrorists and Federal workers trying to do their jobs essentially have a target on their back. While the (taxpayer funded) Oregon Federal prosecutors and Judge Anna Brown failed to protect US citizens from the seditionist Bundys and their violent militia followers at this trial, the Nevada case is much more clear cut and the Bundys face decades in prison for the 2014 armed assault on Federal officers.
252
We're all at risk when armed thugs ignore the law and take matters into their own hands. How is anyone to know what the "rules" are when they are made up in the heads of violent individuals? To quote a famous lyricist, "They decide and the shotgun sings the song."
7
What are law-abiding citizens supposed to think when American law enforcement officers gun down unarmed people of color on a seemingly weekly basis while heavily armed white criminals can act with impunity? If Bundy's thugs were Native American or African American, most of them would be dead now and the survivors would be looking at long, stiff sentences in federal prison.
It was precisely this kind of cowardly federal government response that helped spread lawlessness in the territory of "Bleeding Kansas" in the 1850s which in turn led directly to larger attacks against federal authority and the Civil War.
7
Yes, there are some elements of America's western population that continue to see the unbelievable beauty and diversity of our region's environment as just one more treasure house to be sacked. There are also many more who live here because we treasure the opportunity to experience first hand the wonder of nature. This isn't over.
Prosecutorial incompetence? Badly scoped bill? Who knows what led to the wildly improbable outcome of the Malheur Refuge case. Whatever it was...the jury missed the forest for the trees. And they did deal a bruising blow to the scores of service minded employees who work for our environmental service agencies out of love for the flora and fauna which live there under their protection.
The Bundys and their ilk are the latter day Lords of the Flies who tore into North America's flora, fauna and the cultures that preserved them like the worst of Old World Barbarians...driven by irreverence for life and focus on impossibly satisfying an insatiable greed.
We're not prepared to give up what belongs to us all to satisfy the maniacal greed of the few.
Prosecutorial incompetence? Badly scoped bill? Who knows what led to the wildly improbable outcome of the Malheur Refuge case. Whatever it was...the jury missed the forest for the trees. And they did deal a bruising blow to the scores of service minded employees who work for our environmental service agencies out of love for the flora and fauna which live there under their protection.
The Bundys and their ilk are the latter day Lords of the Flies who tore into North America's flora, fauna and the cultures that preserved them like the worst of Old World Barbarians...driven by irreverence for life and focus on impossibly satisfying an insatiable greed.
We're not prepared to give up what belongs to us all to satisfy the maniacal greed of the few.
16
Do ya think? What the hell? Being an Oregonian, I will always love the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the Alford Desert, but I can't help but think I was mistaken for loving Harney County residents. Honestly, we all saw what those people were doing. Can anyone say they it wasn't an armed occupation or at least an attempt to intimidate? Not to mention their total disrespect for Burns Paiute tribal artifacts. At this point, I feel the tribe needs to sue them! They may be my last hope for justice in Oregon! Apparently, if you're white, wear a cowboy hat, sling a gun with ammunition and wear a cowboy belt, you can invent laws and the courts don't have the tenacity to defend the citizens of Oregon. Heaven help us.
11
And don't forget, they cleared out the Senior Center Food Bank of most of its food, intended for local vulnerable people. The "Occupiers", when will the Bundys and their friends repay them? Eh? remembered to bring guns but not food? They intimidated the workers there as they wore guns, and it was staffed with little old ladies. They yelled at federal workers in Safeway, and followed them home, slashed tires, it's not just the refuge, but the whole town was terrorized. Bundy said he'd leave if asked, they asked at a town mtg for them to leave, they didn't. The even tore out a rancher's fence, not Malheurs's, built road to drive their pickups on, right over a Native American archeological site.
Talk about entitlement!
Yeah, big tough cowboys with white privilege and guns!
Talk about entitlement!
Yeah, big tough cowboys with white privilege and guns!
2
Meanwhile, a significant number of Congress deplorables of the Grand Ole Peabrain party would rather hand out more ammo to the militia paranoids and criminals than lift a finger to help the civil servants at Interior and Agriculture do their jobs under the law.
11
“It’s gotten to the point that we do active shooter drills,” Ms. Shelton said.
We have those drills in our schools now, too.
When civility returns to our great democracy, please notify us ALL of such. OF course, I won't be able to reply right away as my students and I will be engaged in ALICE training.
~peace (remember that?)
We have those drills in our schools now, too.
When civility returns to our great democracy, please notify us ALL of such. OF course, I won't be able to reply right away as my students and I will be engaged in ALICE training.
~peace (remember that?)
5
This verdict was an extreme act of jury nullification. A guilty verdict would have been supported by more than ample evidence (witness the guilty pleas of earlier defendants charged as a result of this occupation.) At the same time, the prosecution should have anticipated such a result and may have been derelict in selecting a jury itself.
5
The Bundys want land belonging to all Americans, and they want it for free, and they want to use it for making money with livestock, so, they want to use it and destroy it. The only hope for preserving the landscape in the modern age is to put it in the hands of the BLM, because every corporation has demonstrated that profit trumps the common good. The jury that acquitted them was foolish. We can only hope that the February trial ends with a just verdict that is in the interests of all Americans.
15
The Obama administration screwed that up from the very beginning. We cannot allow armed citizens to take over federal lands for any reason. Federal prosecutors then over-charged the insurrectionists, making sure that no one would go to prison.
.
The next time this happens the president should emulate President Washington's actions against the Whiskey Rebellion. By making it clear who is in charge on federal lands - the federal government, and by extension, all Americans - the president can ensure the law and order that Republicans want out of our government.
.
The next time this happens the president should emulate President Washington's actions against the Whiskey Rebellion. By making it clear who is in charge on federal lands - the federal government, and by extension, all Americans - the president can ensure the law and order that Republicans want out of our government.
4
Nobody pulled a trigger. No shots were fired. That would have changed everything.
Without shooting, the defense could make a case about right to carry arms in the woods, and freedom of speech, and remember where the jury was picked.
Now I don't think that is right, but that is the distinction that happened. It is not quite a target on the back, even if all those guns at the scene of a confrontation is a really bad idea.
Furthermore, proof of pointing a gun at someone is a death threat, and ought to have been enough if charged and proven. It appears that was not charged and proven. From news accounts, it could have been and should have been. It seems the prosecution was too focused on other things to make that easier case.
Without shooting, the defense could make a case about right to carry arms in the woods, and freedom of speech, and remember where the jury was picked.
Now I don't think that is right, but that is the distinction that happened. It is not quite a target on the back, even if all those guns at the scene of a confrontation is a really bad idea.
Furthermore, proof of pointing a gun at someone is a death threat, and ought to have been enough if charged and proven. It appears that was not charged and proven. From news accounts, it could have been and should have been. It seems the prosecution was too focused on other things to make that easier case.
12
Considering the area, with its prime anti-government sentiment, with a judge trying to law-splain to jurors about how they're supposed to view statements and evidence and interpret the law, its not all that surprising that was always going to be an uphill battle for a federal prosecutor.
1
Mark: "remember where the jury was picked"
From the Oregonian:
"Four of the 12 jurors are from the tri-county Portland area. Three are from the Eugene/Springfield area, and others live in St. Helens, Klamath Falls, Baker City and Hood River."
Portland and Eugene are the most liberal locales in the country. St. Helens is 20 miles north of Portland. Bend is chock full of California emigres. Hood River is known for its beer and windsurfing. Baker City and Klamath Falls are more conservative.
If anything, the jury might be expected to hold some animus for the occupiers. As they say, that dog don't hunt.
From the Oregonian:
"Four of the 12 jurors are from the tri-county Portland area. Three are from the Eugene/Springfield area, and others live in St. Helens, Klamath Falls, Baker City and Hood River."
Portland and Eugene are the most liberal locales in the country. St. Helens is 20 miles north of Portland. Bend is chock full of California emigres. Hood River is known for its beer and windsurfing. Baker City and Klamath Falls are more conservative.
If anything, the jury might be expected to hold some animus for the occupiers. As they say, that dog don't hunt.
1
Ok, so we need dead bodies and then you'll concede that armed insurrection is a bad idea?
It's important for people to understand what went wrong with the government's case. I take the liberty of reposting a comment (by someone else) on an article in the Washington Post:
"The conspiracy charge was conspiracy to impede federal workers from doing their jobs. There was no evidence presented that these lowlifes specifically made statements to each other such as, "Let's stop federal workers from doing their jobs." Zero evidence of the specific conspiracy charged. The juror who spoke to The Oregonian said they were frustrated that they were not presented with any charges that there was evidence for.
The other charges were all attached to the conspiracy charge, so when those failed all the charges failed. There were no separate charges, such as criminal trespass, that would have led to an easy conviction, but with a smaller penalty.
This could have been an easy case if the government had been willing to bring charges with penalties of under six years in prison. The government blew it. Awful."
"The conspiracy charge was conspiracy to impede federal workers from doing their jobs. There was no evidence presented that these lowlifes specifically made statements to each other such as, "Let's stop federal workers from doing their jobs." Zero evidence of the specific conspiracy charged. The juror who spoke to The Oregonian said they were frustrated that they were not presented with any charges that there was evidence for.
The other charges were all attached to the conspiracy charge, so when those failed all the charges failed. There were no separate charges, such as criminal trespass, that would have led to an easy conviction, but with a smaller penalty.
This could have been an easy case if the government had been willing to bring charges with penalties of under six years in prison. The government blew it. Awful."
155
So the prosecutors picked the wrong charges to pursue, and that's why we're now facing who-knows-what in repercussions? THAT is ludicrous, but I believe it. Glad to hear (third-hand) from a juror who was not averse to convicting but could not, given the evidence and the charges.
2
Funny how the government only seems to 'blow it' when they really don't want to prosecute to begin with. I bet if it were Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, or the Standing Rock Tribe the government will magically get every count they asked for and then some. No it's only white welfare ranchers, police that murder un-armed black people or kids playing in a park, the prosecutors just can't seem to get it right in those cases. I'm beginning to think that is the whole point of the 'criminal justice' system in America.
4
So men with assault rifles are at your workplace and you're just supposed to act like it's business as usual? That's absurd! I read a letter from juror number 4 trying to justify the verdict, who apparently you agree with. So if the Bundy clan occupy Crater Lake National park next and men are walking around with assault weapons, you'll be OK with it as long as you dont actually hear that they will shoot someone who stands qin their way. I used to think that Oregon was a place I'd want to visit. But after this verdict and the response of the people in Roseburg Oregon after the mass killings at a college, who met Obama at the airport and shouted at him to go home just because he wanted to offer his condolences, I think I'll stay as far away from your state as possible.
It is notable that the defendants in the occupation of a federal wildlife refuge and their attorneys argued that this was a 'religious' cause, no doubt that stemming from the idea in the Old Testament Bible which states that man has 'dominion over all the earth', essentially giving man free rein to do exactly as he wishes to the earth and its many other inhabitants.
I recall during the siege that the 'occupiers' were claiming that the federal government has no business telling them what to do, that they wanted to see this land which had been set up as a wildlife refuge being opened up for ranching, mining and development. It is all really a ruse for those greedy and salivating for release of public lands into private hands.
Note the difference in treatment between these 'occupiers' who were supposedly just protesting against the 'evil' of the federal government, and the protestors against the pipeline in North Dakota who are on 'private property' and are being tasered, tear gassed and having sound cannons used on them.
Far too often, it is big business and the mantra of private ownership of land which call the shots in our nation. Those who steadfastly attempt to protect our publicly owned lands are true heroes.
I recall during the siege that the 'occupiers' were claiming that the federal government has no business telling them what to do, that they wanted to see this land which had been set up as a wildlife refuge being opened up for ranching, mining and development. It is all really a ruse for those greedy and salivating for release of public lands into private hands.
Note the difference in treatment between these 'occupiers' who were supposedly just protesting against the 'evil' of the federal government, and the protestors against the pipeline in North Dakota who are on 'private property' and are being tasered, tear gassed and having sound cannons used on them.
Far too often, it is big business and the mantra of private ownership of land which call the shots in our nation. Those who steadfastly attempt to protect our publicly owned lands are true heroes.
284
The indigenous people who are protesting the oil pipeline in N. Dakota would do well to bring in the Bundys to join them, then they will have no fear of the government arresting them.
3
Bundy and his bunch of creeps are trying to steal MY land. That property belongs to me as a member of the American people. The Bundy boys need to be treated at the thieves they are.
5
BLM had a long history of vehicles with government license plates, no more; and no uniforms, not even polo shirts with embroidered logos. The lowest-key agency imaginable.
14
We may never know the reasons for the acquittals, or we may eventually understand the jury’s thinking. If we do, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that it’s an issue that could become increasingly polarizing.
235 years ago, when we ratified our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and 226 years ago, when we ratified our current constitution, two overriding principles informed both efforts: compromise and the conviction that the true protectors of culture were the states, not the federal entity. Thus, in our current constitution we protect the relevance of our smaller states by disproportionate representation, notably in the Senate but also in the House; and, of course, the central compromise was on slavery. Without these compromises, we would not have a nation today, or at least not one that likely resembled today’s reality in any way.
But the federal government owns vast tracts of our western states – Nevada, for example, is about 86% owned by the federal government. Oregon, the venue of the actions at issue, is about 53% owned by the feds. By contrast, New York is about 0.4% owned by the feds.
Millions of Americans have a problem with this, still believing that states are the proper protectors of culture. I suspect that our emasculated western states will be the sites of continued civil disobedience, until we find better compromises on such a basic issue as how much authority a state has in determining the use of the territory within its own borders.
235 years ago, when we ratified our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and 226 years ago, when we ratified our current constitution, two overriding principles informed both efforts: compromise and the conviction that the true protectors of culture were the states, not the federal entity. Thus, in our current constitution we protect the relevance of our smaller states by disproportionate representation, notably in the Senate but also in the House; and, of course, the central compromise was on slavery. Without these compromises, we would not have a nation today, or at least not one that likely resembled today’s reality in any way.
But the federal government owns vast tracts of our western states – Nevada, for example, is about 86% owned by the federal government. Oregon, the venue of the actions at issue, is about 53% owned by the feds. By contrast, New York is about 0.4% owned by the feds.
Millions of Americans have a problem with this, still believing that states are the proper protectors of culture. I suspect that our emasculated western states will be the sites of continued civil disobedience, until we find better compromises on such a basic issue as how much authority a state has in determining the use of the territory within its own borders.
6
Did the state of Oregon give the Bundy's the right to use federally owned land or did the Bundy's take it on themselves to use the land.
13
Richard brings up some good points, the main one being the way the Federal government claims hegemony/ownership of vast swaths of land, particularly in the West. I read somewhere that the Feds claim title to 90% of California with the Union Pacific RR holding another 5%, leaving just 5% for the tens of millions of people to make do with.
It is time that we return to the constitutional principle of delegated powers and stop the overreach of the Federal government into our lives, in matters great and small.
It is time that we return to the constitutional principle of delegated powers and stop the overreach of the Federal government into our lives, in matters great and small.
2
And millions of Americans think that that is bull. States rights are invoked to allow States to discriminate against individuals because of race or sexual orientation. The States that are so exorcised over federal land control have no problem with federal land management and subsidies that help them survive and and protect their land. They love ferderal money, just not federal regulations and responsibilities
12
Why were the Bundy's (et al) acquitted? Will the government contest the ruling? Surely the people impacted by their lawlessness can and should seek civil damages. Consider the millions this cost the county in overtime, the federal government and employees in lost wages, the local community, and monies to repair damage to the Malheur site. Not to mention the cost of the trial and incarceration; paid by taxpayers. I don't know what alternative universe the judge and jury live in -- but I hope that justice may yet prevail and these irresponsible tax cheating deadbeats will have to pay damages and win a long jail term.
199
Once the jury has ruled, even with jury nullification, the state does not get another bite at the apple.
Consider the possibility that the NYT version of the trial and the event omits some relevant factors that the jury and the judge took under consideration.
Consider the possibility that the NYT version of the trial and the event omits some relevant factors that the jury and the judge took under consideration.
1
Yeah, let's just get rid of juries. I mean, whose idea were they, anyway? The federal government knows best, right?.
FYI, you need to spend some time reading U.S. history. Our country was founded on the basis that power flows through the states to the federal government, not the other way around. And juries were considered by the founding fathers to be the absolute foundation of democracy and a wall against tyranny.
FYI, you need to spend some time reading U.S. history. Our country was founded on the basis that power flows through the states to the federal government, not the other way around. And juries were considered by the founding fathers to be the absolute foundation of democracy and a wall against tyranny.
2
The Bundys can be charged civilly, but the government cannot appeal an acquittal. Consult the law of double jeopardy.
5
I just don't understand why America's violent white welfare queens aren't treated the same as America's violent black welfare queens.....with police brutality, imprisonment and arbitrary execution.
What's with the double standard ?
What's with the double standard ?
421
I agree. Perhaps it is the funny hats/boots. Being a former employee of a three federal land management agencies, I mostly bit my tongue when we allowed these punks to abuse the resources, their privileges, or our fellow employees. Having intimate knowledge of the Bundy clan, the boys, and their attorney's really have cleaned up their game. The FBI and DOJ did not present the correct charges. Relying on conspiracy charges was a tough nut to prove. Especially when the judge would not allow the employees to testify their state of mind leading up to, during the occupation, cleaning up the mess, while attempting to return to a normalize secured work setting.
These so-called occupiers were a menace while their cause continues to be rejected in a variety of court rulings and legislative actions. These lands are public lands, managed for the highest/best use...multiple uses. These lands are a national treasure. We must protect them while allowing for sustainable, reasonable, permitted uses. We need to protect our publc lands workforce.
The Bundys' will have another day in court in February for the ridiculous show of force that occured when Cliven Bundy called for help to protect his illegal/trespass cattle that had been lawfully rounded up under federal court order in April 2014. I believe the story concerning the Malheur Refuge is not over. Civil actions must be brought against these hooligans for the damages they caused during this criminal enterprise.
These so-called occupiers were a menace while their cause continues to be rejected in a variety of court rulings and legislative actions. These lands are public lands, managed for the highest/best use...multiple uses. These lands are a national treasure. We must protect them while allowing for sustainable, reasonable, permitted uses. We need to protect our publc lands workforce.
The Bundys' will have another day in court in February for the ridiculous show of force that occured when Cliven Bundy called for help to protect his illegal/trespass cattle that had been lawfully rounded up under federal court order in April 2014. I believe the story concerning the Malheur Refuge is not over. Civil actions must be brought against these hooligans for the damages they caused during this criminal enterprise.
140
These individuals are not female. They are "welfare cowboys." These freeloaders could not survive in the desert West if taxpayers from other states were not funding the federal government to manage water resources to keep them alive.
129
Right on the money.
6
OUR government employees do not need to be afraid. They just have to let the public know immediately when these kinds of things happen. The minute a lawsuit is started or an action is threatened or taken let us know. Now that we understand what has been going on WE will take action to stop their attempts to take over OUR national and state property. This is not acceptable.
134
Who is this "we"? I find this message disturbing on many levels.
3
The Bundy crowd's defense was that they didn't actually threaten anyone or conspire to keep federal employees out of Malheur. There message was more like: "Come to work as if it were any other day. I'll be sitting at your desk with my AK-47, but don't mind me."
The federal government leases cattle grazing rights for about 1/3 of their cost on privately held land. If BLM land was sold off to private investors — Saudi's and Chinese? — how would the local cattle ranchers benefit?
The federal government leases cattle grazing rights for about 1/3 of their cost on privately held land. If BLM land was sold off to private investors — Saudi's and Chinese? — how would the local cattle ranchers benefit?
386
Those states all have agencies to over see land. The Bureau for Land Management is as necessary as a buggy whip design bureau.
The Bundy crowd are using their religious "beliefs" as a pretense to grab our public lands. Imagine if a bunch of Hare Krishnas did that- those same Bundy crack pots would be out on regular Hare Krishna hunts with their shotguns and AR-15 rifles. And calling on the Feds to send in the Army to take back the public lands. Extremism- from Bundy to Trump, over 40% of the country's voters are accepting this as the new norm.
20
Small ranchers are fearful of this in Utah, where the (Republican) state government has been making plans to sue the Feds for control of public land. Having to pay private land rental rates would, they think, drive them out of business. Yet they continue to vote solidly Republican. The Democratic candidate for the U. S. House Utah district 2, Charlene Alberran, has spent time talking to many of them.
I have a backyard that overlooks BLM land south of St. George; Bundy's ranch is only about 45 minutes away by I-15. I have visions of them taking that land over by force; probably not going to happen but it makes me wonder what will become of the land.
I have a backyard that overlooks BLM land south of St. George; Bundy's ranch is only about 45 minutes away by I-15. I have visions of them taking that land over by force; probably not going to happen but it makes me wonder what will become of the land.
11
If only the mindset of extraction and exploitation could ride off into the sunset.