Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
I knew it. "God" told him to do it
White Christian Terrorists
Where is the outrage?
wait.. wait...
BENGHAZI!!!!111169
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
More
Brief History on the Area:
The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was first settled in the 1870’s. In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt creates an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes despite the absence of Indians. The reservation later turns became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
1964 – The Hammond family purchases roughly 6000 acres of property grazing and water rights to the public land area. By 1970 the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service begins to pressure local ranchers in Harney Basin to sell their property, the Hammonds refused.
1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Government expand the refuge to cover over 187,000 acres, stretching over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. Hammond Ranch is now surrounded by the refuge.
FWS and BLM continue to pressure ranchers to sell their property by stating “grazing was detrimental to wildlife.” They start revoking ranch permits, water rights and grazing rights. Fees for grazing and irrigation skyrocket.
I suppose if the govt truly wanted to act with authority and a heavy hand:
em·i·nent do·main
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Dmt, it's severe but the law states 5 years and to impose less amounts to a judge making up the law. I think the reversal was entirely appropriate. As stated up thread, the merits of mandatory minimums are certainly debatable, but a judge needs to interpret the law correctly, and he/she blew it.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
So your beef is with the jury, correct?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
the ranchers set not one but two different fires of public land
they knew the land did not belong to them, they knew they were breaking the law
there is a federal minimum time of 4 years for doing what they did
they have not yet served the full four years and are therefore going back until they do
I don't understand how any of their behavior can be defended?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Supreme Court refused the case once. I suppose they could try the "cruel & unusual" punishment tack.
Does the 1996 law mention guns?
11,687 signers so far
http://savethehammonds.com/
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Actually Crankster, it's with the legislature. If the judge found it was cruel and unusual punishment, that would be one thing. But no one, appellate court concluded, found that.
I'm not sure five years is right, but a sentience of only one month for an arson used to cover up poaching, after receiving a warning previously, followed by a second arson in 2006 that could have killed several firefighters, was waaaaaaaay too light.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Dmt, it's severe but the law states 5 years and to impose less amounts to a judge making up the law. I think the reversal was entirely appropriate. As stated up thread, the merits of mandatory minimums are certainly debatable, but a judge needs to interpret the law correctly, and he/she blew it.
You argument builds on a premise that it was appropriate to try them under an Anti_Terrorist Act in the first place. So while you are technically correct in that the 5 year minimum is as the law states, it discounts the fact that the US Atty office should have never been allowed to try them under such charges. So the entire foundation of the case is nothing more than further evidence that when Big Daddy .Gov wants your sh#t, he's gonna get it.
Can I say sh#t here? I think I saw it somewhere else?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Do you know why they were sentenced under that act?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Again, it - 1,778,560 acres - was all Paiute Reservation by the Treaty of 1872 which was signed after a relentless genocidal campaign by the Army. But the treaty was [deliberately] never ratified by Congress and in 1876 President Grant opened the area to settlers and replaced a sympathetic indian agent with one of the commanders of the Army's genocidal campaign.
Chief Egan of the Paiutes at the time:
"Did the government tell you to come here and drive us off this reservation? Did the Big Father say, go and kill us all off, so you can have our land? Did he tell you to pull our children's ears off, and put handcuffs on them, and carry a pistol to shoot us with? We want to know how the government came by this land. Is the government mightier than our Spirit-Father, or is he our Spirit-Father? Oh, what have we done that he is to take all from us that he has given us? His white children have come and taken all our mountains, and all our valleys, and all our rivers; and now, because he has given us this little place without our asking him for it, he sends you here to tell us to go away. Do you see that high mountain away off there? There is nothing but rocks there. Is that where the Big Father wants me to go? If you scattered your seed and it should fall there, it would not grow, for it is all rocks there."
The legal case in modern times dragged on for 35 years. In 1969, after enormous legal fees were subtracted from the total settlement, 850 Paiute people received as little as $741 each for the loss of their land. This was because the price of the land was set at 1890 prices, approximately .28 to .45 cents per acre.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I also sympathize with them, up til the arson and intimidation. If you haven't had a farm or
ranch in yer family for generations then you might not understand the love for the land.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Dingus posted 4-years in the pen for starting a controlled burn, with the sentence lengthened by some federal judge, after they'd already served their original sentence?
That does seem like bullshit to me. This does seem a case of justice-amok.
Seizing federal property isn't right. But at least as I understand it, the ranchers themselves have been railroaded.
Anyone on the Taco pretending to know if this was a just sentence or not is full of crap. We know very few of the specifics and we are all relying on reporting which is often wrong and contradictory.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Do you know why they were sentenced under that act?
I don't know if its for similar reasons as the Defense Authorization Act but I know in those instances if you're suspected of terrorism all rights are suspended. Suspected not convicted. No attorney, no trial, no bond not even a phone call.
So the fact that a cowboy is convicted of terrorism for burning a pasture ought to terrify everyone. It does me at least.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
In case you haven't been paying attention, prosecutors have pretty much unlimited discretion in whether, when or how to bring charges. Once you get into the AEDPA maze it's almost imposszible to get back out.
-Franz Kafka
The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief[3] unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I don't know if its for similar reasons as the Defense Authorization Act but I know in those instances if you're suspected of terrorism all rights are suspended. Suspected not convicted. No attorney, no trial, no bond not even a phone call.
So the fact that a cowboy is convicted of terrorism for burning a pasture ought to terrify everyone. It does me at least.
Oh come on. They had attorneys, they had phone calls, they even had appellate review. Your suggestions otherwise amount to pure speculative tin foil hat nonsense.
And you do know that there was more to the story than simple pasture burning. Quit cherry picking facts.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Dingus posted Cool. I don't pretend to know the facts. I'm not going to assume I do. So I won't take your or Norton's or anyone else's words as fact, either. :D
But I still sympathize with those ranchers and think that sentence is excessive.
I didn't mean it as a personal attack, just pointing out that we all tend to jump to conclusions on these issues and quickly line up rooting for one side or the other. I think we all can sympathize with holding on to a family farm but it's also not cool to be setting federal land on fire repeatedly. And, yes, I very much was including myself in that statement. Anyone who hasn't been following this closely for years is basically making sh#t up.
dirt posted Oh come on. They had attorneys, they had phone calls, they even had appellate review. Your suggestions otherwise amount to pure speculative tin foil hat nonsense.
It's still quite possible they got railroaded. Government agents will happily use whatever statutes they can. It's one of the reasons we owe it to ourselves to take the legislation we pass that can be used to curtail civil rights very seriously.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
We the people should really wake up to the facts regarding how the feds are defining "terrorism" and then using such a definition to strip people of rights without due process of law or by trying people according to "laws" that really have no reasonable application to them.
The academic community sweepingly recognizes that rigorously defining "terrorism" is an intractable project, as the term is so emotively-laden that legal objectivity is impossible to achieve. Thus, in the wake of 9-11, our government has played on the emotive elements of possible definitions to arrive at (according to the FBI) one that is so sweeping and generalized that even intentionally speeding (by any amount) as an act of civil disobedience can be cast as an act of "terrorism."
I have very limited sympathy with the father/son ranchers (limited to an acknowledgement of their love of the land and their lifestyle). But trying them as terrorists seems to me FAR beyond the pale, and that seems to me to be the fundamental overreach on the part of the feds. That said, it's hard to discover the whole story in this case.
My biggest concern is the fact that they were tried in the context of terrorism laws, because I have been afraid of misapplications of the federal "terrorism" definition for many years.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Don't care about the dole. I do care that they set a blaze that directly threatened wildland firefighters who were already fighting an active fire, by setting blaze below their camp, and incurred millions in taxpayer costs to deal with their rash actions.
I have good friends that are wildland firefighters, smoke jumpers, etc. They've had several of their comrades killed in the line of duty, in the last few years.
I agree the sentence is excessive. But as I said before, there are remedies: clemency, pardon, or legislative process. Terrorism is not a remedy.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
"Do you know why they were sentenced under that act?"
Because the statute of limitations for arson in Oregon is 3 years. Federal statute is 5 years. They couldn't be charged with Arson under state or federal law.
When the law doesn't allow something, find another law - that is how our overlords work in America today.
Oh, and the law doesn't apply to them...
"In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date."
Interfering with water rights used to be a hanging offense.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Dingus posted I'm not lining up. I'm not rooting for my team. I just don't like the vilification of the ranchers though. That whole 'they took Federal dole' angle is what prompted me to post... so f*#king what they took dole???
It's a hypocrisy issue. Liberals decry those they see as vilifying "takers" but are happy to do so themselves. It's a complete assumption to project that onto this situation. We're all victims of media-centric political worldviews.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|