Where is the National Guard?

[tuxgeo]

Not sure jurisdiction, it is a National Park, which means it may be a federal issue and not a state one, thinking this would be FBI.

Call it a "Federal Wildlife Refuge," please -- not a "National Park."
(The only "National Park" in Oregon is Crater Lake N.P.)

I'm thinking the federal officers who are most likely to show up there eventually are the Federal Marshalls.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Their acts have so far been armed, but peaceful, and that makes terrorism hard to make stick.

I wouldn't say they have been peaceful. Telling the government that if they try to take them out, they'll be putting people at risk is not a peaceful. It's a threat to use force against the government for not doing what they want them to do.

 

[WayneLigon]

The feds have had a policy of ignoring or paying off most of the extreme-right-wing (and occassional left-wing) groups in that general region to keep from igniting another Waco or Ruby Ridge, though, so it could simply be that after their last dance, Bundy senses a possible pay-day out of all this. The Bundys have already had a guns-pointing-at-Feds confrontation last year, and a violent confrontation will only add fuel to the Patriot Movement/anti-government militia movement.

 

[Janx]

Hm. Not sure that the internet entirely agrees with you. Right now, they're in violation of a few laws, I expect, but while they say they are armed, they've not used violence.

The first definition that Google gives for terrorism is, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

There's a political aim here, yes. But as noted there's been no violence as yet, and I'm not sure anyone's intimidated.

The FBI says:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

#3 we have.

#1 - I assume they're violating some laws, yes. But have as yet committed not acts that were in and of themselves dangerous to human life, have they?

#2 - The folks in Oregon are not trying to intimidate civilians, as there are none present. There's been no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. So, the only possibility is that it falls under ii - influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

A bunch of folks holed up in a building are not terribly intimidating to the government. So, that leaves us with coercion. That is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. The only force or threat as yet applied has been of the form, "if force is used on us, we'll use force on them". That doesn't seem a solid claim of coercion against the government on the land policy they say they want to change.

Simply put, nobody's really scared or intimidated here. Not much terror. Not much terrorism. Their acts have so far been armed, but peaceful, and that makes terrorism hard to make stick.

On #2, they are trying to do (ii) because they are occupying the building in protest to the re-jailing of some ranchers in a federal case.

On #1, it's just a matter of time. They have guns. They declared intent to use them, I believe. It would take very little to trigger some gun play.

 

[Janx]

The feds have had a policy of ignoring or paying off most of the extreme-right-wing (and occassional left-wing) groups in that general region to keep from igniting another Waco or Ruby Ridge, though, so it could simply be that after their last dance, Bundy senses a possible pay-day out of all this. The Bundys have already had a guns-pointing-at-Feds confrontation last year, and a violent confrontation will only add fuel to the Patriot Movement/anti-government militia movement.

The Feds likely need to get all SunTZu on this. So the bad guys want a conflict, don't give them one. Starve them out. Jam their wifi signals, etc. Jack with them indirectly.

 

[Janx]

Some armed right wing extremists have broken into a US federal wildlife refuge and are willing to kill to make their point. http://gawker.com/sons-of-noted-racist-vigilante-are-willing-to-kill-in-s-1750764305

Where is the National Guard? When black people protest in the street, the National Guard is called pretty quickly. Why isn't the public behind shooting those right wing extremists? They are breaking the law and are obviously dangerous. The public is always for the shooting of black people who were breaking the law and danerous, even if they were not armed.

Addressing this more directly (asside from Umbran's points to you).

I could be wrong, but in most of the black death incidents, they happen pretty quickly. Black guy does something, cop shows up hot and ready and bang, dead black guy in short order.

This building seizure was sort of slow-motion. Bad guys seize empty building and call in their demands. It's not that a single patrol car is sent out to investigate and the cops bumble onto it and start shooting.

Everybody knows where they are, who they are. The cops had to drive out there a ways, and set up some kind of crisis command center no doubt.

The scale is different in how it gets to the police and such.

I imagine in the black death incidents, those cops thought it was going to be "just another call". I doubt the cops in oregon thought that when the call came in.

 

[Kramodlog]

Hm. Not sure that the internet entirely agrees with you. Right now, they're in violation of a few laws, I expect, but while they say they are armed, they've not used violence.

There might be some confusion. I was responding to Max who was giving his opinion on what is terrorism. I found it lacking. I wasn't concern by the Oregon group.

We can see if they qualifies with what you mentioned.

The first definition that Google gives for terrorism is, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

There's a political aim here, yes. But as noted there's been no violence as yet, and I'm not sure anyone's intimidated.

Violence and death has been hinted at and they have a few firearms. At least one of them said he was ready to die for his cause. I wonder if he wants to die shooting? What they are doing is clearly an attempt at intimidation. Whether the attempt is successful or not that doesn't matter for it to be an act of terror. The intent is important.

The FBI says:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

#3 we have.

#1 - I assume they're violating some laws, yes. But have as yet committed not acts that were in and of themselves dangerous to human life, have they?

They certainly hinted at violence. Must we wait that they do? The weapons they have aren't there for them to collect and trade.

#2 - The folks in Oregon are not trying to intimidate civilians, as there are none present. There's been no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. So, the only possibility is that it falls under ii - influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

A bunch of folks holed up in a building are not terribly intimidating to the government.

Success or efficiency is irrelevant. It is clearly their intent to intimidate and impact policy.

So, that leaves us with coercion. That is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. The only force or threat as yet applied has been of the form, "if force is used on us, we'll use force on them". That doesn't seem a solid claim of coercion against the government on the land policy they say they want to change.

If they are so peaceful and not dangerous, not ready to die and kill for their cause, why not go and arrest them for their illegal activity? The FBI could go inside unarmed and just handcuff them. Right?

Simply put, nobody's really scared or intimidated here.

Intent rather than success is important. An incompetent terrorist is still a terrorist. Seeing as no federal agents has tried to arrest them yet, I think they managed some intimidation.

 

[cmad1977]

I want these people killed quite frankly. What they are doing is treason and rebellion. I would fully support a joint tactical strike to wipe them out.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wouldn't say they have been peaceful. Telling the government that if they try to take them out, they'll be putting people at risk is not a peaceful. It's a threat to use force against the government for not doing what they want them to do.

They've been exactly as peaceful as the occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were. They're less disruptive than the occupy movements were, and they're in outside civilian population centers. The only 'violence' they've threatened is that they are ready and willing to defend themselves if the authorities try to use force to remove them.

They're criminals, yes and no doubt, but they aren't engaged in terrorism, nor is this any kind of threat to civilian populations. You (and others) are blowing this way out of proportion. There's no need to storm the ramparts of a bunch of idiots posturing out in the wilderness because they're not a threat to anyone but themselves. The urge to recreate Waco is unaccountably strong.

 

[Kramodlog]

Addressing this more directly (asside from Umbran's points to you).

I could be wrong, but in most of the black death incidents, they happen pretty quickly. Black guy does something, cop shows up hot and ready and bang, dead black guy in short order.

This building seizure was sort of slow-motion. Bad guys seize empty building and call in their demands. It's not that a single patrol car is sent out to investigate and the cops bumble onto it and start shooting.

Everybody knows where they are, who they are. The cops had to drive out there a ways, and set up some kind of crisis command center no doubt.

The scale is different in how it gets to the police and such.

I imagine in the black death incidents, those cops thought it was going to be "just another call". I doubt the cops in oregon thought that when the call came in.

There are plenty of videos on the net of white people who open carry and are approached slowly and non-violently by cops because people in the neighborhood felt intimidated or threaten. It can get tense, but usually there is talk and no shooting. In the case of Tamir Rice, the kid was in a open carry state... and black. The cops rushed in and shot him immediately. Same case with John Crawford who was in a open carry state, black, was holding a toy gun and was shot by a cop. Heck, a NYPD cop shot an unarmed blackmen in a stairwell just because it was dark and the cop got scared. There is a bias toward black people. They are seen as violent and a menace. Same with Muslims. Its ugly, but true.

If armed black people or Muslims did what these guys are doing, the narrative wouldn't be about peaceful protestors in a wildlife refuge.