Aftermath of the militia takeover of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters
- Thread starter Cheetah
- Start date
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I wouldn't saddle the people who have been o.k. with this, despite being told what was happening, on the progressives. To paraphrase a dead President; It is not new. It is not progress.
But hey, sometimes sentencing minimums and whatnot hit the right sort of ----s. Arson is suprsrsbzinz don't you know. Armed uprisings and hostile native tribes! Can't we just dream a little bit about circumstances that would make it legal for us to off them en masse?
Such a familiar ass tune.
But hey, sometimes sentencing minimums and whatnot hit the right sort of ----s. Arson is suprsrsbzinz don't you know. Armed uprisings and hostile native tribes! Can't we just dream a little bit about circumstances that would make it legal for us to off them en masse?
Such a familiar ass tune.
When I talk about progressives I'm usually referring to the leadership... may be confusing or unfair but it flows better than "prominent democrats and major metro based media outlets"
I've tried to explain that there are plenty of left leaning folks in ranch communities that care about class and oppression as well as local land use... but Big Prog has given up on winning their votes or mourning their deaths
I've tried to explain that there are plenty of left leaning folks in ranch communities that care about class and oppression as well as local land use... but Big Prog has given up on winning their votes or mourning their deaths
Last edited:
Republicans don't get a pass either, and I'll admit that dems have done more towards prison reform, justice reform and due process while reps have historically hurt those causes and embraced "victims rights" and "empowering law enforcement"
not sure that dems other than Obama buy into those concepts any longer
you all may not see it but the grassroots R/W correction on that issue came as part of the tea party package
it's sometimes harder to see the union than the conflict
I'm trying to tell Progressives how their tone sounds in red locales because I'd rather have two viable parties to vote for than one. May look like concern trolling but it's entirely an expression of self interest
not sure that dems other than Obama buy into those concepts any longer
you all may not see it but the grassroots R/W correction on that issue came as part of the tea party package
it's sometimes harder to see the union than the conflict
I'm trying to tell Progressives how their tone sounds in red locales because I'd rather have two viable parties to vote for than one. May look like concern trolling but it's entirely an expression of self interest
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Is there any legal or local reason that Trump gave his pardon at this very moment ?
If not... is it not very convenient to do it now in order to show that Trump is supporting the sentiments of rural ranchers/farmers ?
(a bit under pressure because of the trade war)
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
If he would have waited until the tail-end of his term their prison terms would have been over. That's really the only thing I can think of. Is there any legal or local reasons for the timing of any presidential pardons, ever? (except when they do it just before leaving office). What was the reason for the timing of the previous 7 pardons by Trump?
You could argue if the pardon is justified or not, but I don't think the timing of the pardon is an issue.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
The statement from the Press Secretary is that the evidence against the Hammonds was weak. That the Hammonds are fathers and family men was also highlighted.
However, there is some degree of controversy over the Hammonds’ charges and sentencing. The Hammonds were charged under anti-terrorist laws which, to many observers, seemed a bit extreme for what was probably them trying to burn off brush from land where they wanted to graze their cattle. These terrorism charges really amped up the minimum sentencing of the Hammonds. The Citizen action in the takeover of the Mahleur HQ was ostensibly to highlight the apparent unfairness of charging ranchers with terrorism charges for a brush fair.
But while there might be some reasonable reasons why one might grant the Hammonds clemency because of an apparent unfairness in charges and sentencing, the President has instead chosen to highlight perceived weaknesses in the cases against them and their familial ties in granting them pardons. Whether that’s because bringing up the trumped-up (haha) terrorism charges would be poor optics, or that the administration was honest in its reasoning for the pardon, or if this is the result of a guy who is more interested in concerns about celebrity and fame than governance and the Hammonds are something of a celebrity case, I couldn’t say.
However, there is some degree of controversy over the Hammonds’ charges and sentencing. The Hammonds were charged under anti-terrorist laws which, to many observers, seemed a bit extreme for what was probably them trying to burn off brush from land where they wanted to graze their cattle. These terrorism charges really amped up the minimum sentencing of the Hammonds. The Citizen action in the takeover of the Mahleur HQ was ostensibly to highlight the apparent unfairness of charging ranchers with terrorism charges for a brush fair.
But while there might be some reasonable reasons why one might grant the Hammonds clemency because of an apparent unfairness in charges and sentencing, the President has instead chosen to highlight perceived weaknesses in the cases against them and their familial ties in granting them pardons. Whether that’s because bringing up the trumped-up (haha) terrorism charges would be poor optics, or that the administration was honest in its reasoning for the pardon, or if this is the result of a guy who is more interested in concerns about celebrity and fame than governance and the Hammonds are something of a celebrity case, I couldn’t say.
Last edited:
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Depends though, Deliberately lit wildfires spinning out of control, causing millions in loses to property and major evacuation would certainly be grounds for terrorism especially if it causes lose of human life
In Australia we pass laws specifically to increases charges for this type of arson.
Federal case was that the Deliberate fire was to kill four Firefighters, and that the Hammonds made deaths threats to the firefighters afterwards to try and silence them.
On top of this was the unpaid grazing dispute, occupation, refusal to pay taxes, and sovereign citizen movement. They got off lightly with just 5 year sentence
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
If they set the fire to make a political statement or intimidate a group of people, sure.
Is that really what happened?
It didn't result in loss of human life.
Deliberately setting fire to a mosque or church is terrorism, I agree. That is why those laws were passed, correct?
That would have been a difficult case, perhaps why the prosecutor originally allowed the plea deal for the minimum sentence.
Did they? Or was that done by other people? One of the hammonds did make a threat against an investigator that he was going to frame that investigator for the arson. Prior to the 2001 and 2006 fires they did make threats against people in a different case in the early 90's.
The grazing dispute and taxes you can pin on them and they paid $400,000 in restitution to the government for the fires, but the occupation and sovereign citizen movements were done against their wishes.
I agree that they deserved more than what the first judge sentenced them to which was 3 months one Hammond and 1 year for the other.
Last edited:
