Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
kief
Trad climber
east side
|
|
The expansive definition of "terrorism" advanced by some on here would have applied to the civil rights protesters who closed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in 1965. It would have applied to the folks who refused to leave the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon in 1967. It would have applied to the students who occupied Hamilton Hall at Columbia University in 1968.
I'm not buying it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Maybe now we can elect some legislators who aren't cowards.
That whole post was spot-on, DMT!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Dingus posted
Hypocrisy is a crime now?
I'm pretty sure we were talking about the mocking of them taking the dole...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Thanks Dave, but my point is that none of us know why they were sentenced under that terrorism act. Mostly, we are speculating.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
I for one don't think ranchers are evil.
Interesting how I attach my own bias to spin the info they way I want it to go. I for one believe that Ranching, particularly burger ranching, is an evil, arcane holdout of Manifest Destiny arrogance and no less a crime against the environment than Poaching and Arson (the crimes in question). Five years (they were credited time served) is light.
I sympathize with the Paiute and the wildlife.
I also believe that Terrorism was the premise used by the Feds to eradicate the Paiute and any other troublesome brown people and that none of the ranchers were complaining about Gov overreach when they bought their acreage.
And the Press? Liars and Sodomites every one. NTTAWWT.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
True, dirtbag. It's a dick move by the feds. Can't deny that.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I'm not so sure about that either. I think serving only one month would have been far too light.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Thanks Dave, but my point is that none of us know why the were sentenced under that terrorism act. Mostly, we are speculating.
Can we agree that the Hammonds were not running an ISIS safe house or secretly funding the Assad regime abroad? If so, do we need to know why they decided to try them under a terrorist statute to not like it?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
But I still sympathize with those ranchers and think that sentence is excessive.
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.
The Hammonds can thank Clive Bundy & Co. for the Feds now taking a hard line on this sort of thing...
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
Yup. Poaching.... Only evidence of which came from this "witness"...
"Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The Hammonds can thank Clive Bundy & Co.
Yeah, and the irony there is that the Hammonds just can't get 'em to stop "helping" even now. Sigh
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
They were sentenced under the 1996 act because that act set the minimum sentence for arson on federal land, regardless of whether you are a terrorist or not.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
The Hammonds can thank Clive Bundy & Co. for the Feds now taking a hard line on this sort of thing...
OMG, the new version of blame Canada.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
They could have been tried and sentenced under
1666. Destruction Of Government Property -- 18 U.S.C. § 1361
The penalties for violations of this section are tied to the extent of the property damage. As amended on September 13, 1994, if the damage exceeds $100, the defendant is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, ten years imprisonment, or both. See Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, § 330016, 108 Stat. 1796, 2146-47 (1994). When property damage does not exceed $100, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, one year imprisonment, or both. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3571.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
They were sentenced under the 1996 act because that act set the minimum sentence for arson on federal land, regardless of whether you are a terrorist or not.
then why are people here saying they are being treated like "terrorists"?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
then why are people here saying they are being treated like "terrorists"?
leading question?
because of the name of the act…..the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
I feel so used.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
if the damage exceeds $100
That's an amazingly low bar. You pretty much can't spit on the sidewalk without causing $100 in damage. So, pretty much, you can be charged with a felony and do 10 years in federal pen for bending a blade of grass.
Oh, and if you bent the blade of grass with "intent to make a political or social statement," you're a "terrorist" to boot. Property damage is included in the FBI definition of "terrorism."
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 4, 2016 - 10:00am PT
|
Mb, you got three choices, 1 don't bend Federal grass, 2 petition Congress to change the law, 3 lay siege to somr federal lands. It must suck living in your reality
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
The 1996 also set minimums for passport alteration, forgery, bribery, smuggling, etc. Acts that we don't necessary label an offender as a terrorist.
They gave a catchy name to the entire act so it would get broad support if it was positioned as anti-terrorist.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!