Posted                          

quote:

---

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” the Oregon police said in a statement on Sunday.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How can anyone justify support for armed action against the government of their country? How is this anything other than treason?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How can anyone justify support for armed action against the government of their country? How is this anything other than treason?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Given the US habit of trying to overthrow legitimate governments (and sometimes succeeding), on what basis can USA argue that seeking to interfere with or overthrow a government is bad behavior?

Others who do not endorse or participate in efforts to overturn governments might have a leg to stand on.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're a shining, glaring, blinding example of white privilege. Anybody else would be toast by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The definition of treason in the Constitution is:

quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

How is an armed force occupying a government building not "levying war"?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're a shining, glaring, blinding example of white privilege. Anybody else would be toast by now.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

If a group of urban, east-coast, middle-class college kids with a self-righteous bee in their collective bonnet about some perceived injustice took over a building and defied the government, we would regard them as passionate idealists, and characterise any attempt to evict them as fascist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
John Harrington (1560-1612)
(alleged to have also invented the flushing lavatory)

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
When you have shit for brains and a proof-texting response to any document - be it the Bible or the US Constitution

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If a group of urban, east-coast, middle-class college kids with a self-righteous bee in their collective bonnet about some perceived injustice took over a building and defied the government, we would regard them as passionate idealists, and characterise any attempt to evict them as fascist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The "Occupy" movement, for instance? It does feel to me like these guys and Occupy are two sides of the same coin.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting how the language being used about this situation is being seen as so obviously racially biased.

A group of Muslims who did this would be instantly described as "terrorists", black people likely described as a "mob" or that they were "rioting", whereas when they're white, somehow it is acceptable to describe them as a "milita" - with implications of an honourable history back to the early history of the US Constitution.

Also it is pretty hard to imagine a Muslim group being allowed to do this for more than, well, 5 minutes before a swat team is sent in to kill all of them - even if they'd not fired a shot.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's interesting to note that both MrCheesy and the media use "Muslim" as a racial term when, of course, it isn't.

But in many peoples' minds "Muslim" is largely equated with "Middle Eastern" and "Central Asian" - yet there are millions of Muslims in places such as Bangladesh, Indonesia or Malaysia.

And, of course, some Muslim extremists have been converts from "respectable white backgrounds".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

However, it's perhaps not entirely fair to make accusations of double standards. Part of the question is how the authorities perceive the threat. Islamist terrorists have an unfortunately good record of shooting first and actually being prepared to die for the cause rather than just claim to be so prepared. These guys? Not so much, perhaps.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

One (Paine?) said flat out that we'd need a bloody revolution, once in a while.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, and I guess the fact that black, unarmed men are regularly killed by the police is a function of a demographic that regularly endangers law enforcement personnel.

Funnily enough, I don't accept that analysis.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not quite sure how we jumped from armed white "yee-hahdists" to black victims of police shooting, but do you seriously believe the bunch holed up in the wastes of Orgeon pose as lethal and immediate a threat to the civilian population as IS-inspired terrorists, and that the law enforcement response should be exactly equivalent?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Equivalent, maybe not - I don't know the details about the level of threat here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Equivalent, maybe not - I don't know the details about the level of threat here. This whole thing could easily end in a bloodbath, I've no idea how you're able to tell that this is automatically less dangerous than a group of Muslims with guns.

---

quote:

---

Either way, the plain fact is that they're terrorists who have taken over a federal building by force. That's a serious crime which warrants a serious response (and, I understand, if convicted would lead to very serious jail time).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
For a start, nobody's done any shooting yet. From what I can tell, about 15 people took over a deserted national park refuge in the middle of nowhere. As Alan says, it's sedition or insurrection rather than terrorism, especially so because they have broken into Federal property. On the basis of the track record of such groups, they are likely to get bored and cold quite soon.

---

quote:

---

It's easy to try and score "oppressed minority" points by attempting a comparison with how a foreign terrorist group would be treated, but the fact is that they didn't go in guns blazing and look highly unlikely to attack civilians as things stand.

---

quote:

---

Their rhetoric of staying for "as long as it takes" and going out in a blaze of glory is not fuelled by the facts, first and foremost because local militia groups and the people whose imprisonment they are claiming to be opposing have distanced themselves from these nuts.

---

quote:

---

Doubtless the offence is serious - taking over a federal building no matter how humble appears to be right next to flag-burning in the American psyche - and yes they should face serious jail time, but there is plenty more opportunity for negotiating with these people than there has been with any IS terrorists in action that I've noted.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(why would guns be needed at peaceful event?)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the significant difference is the likelihood that the group in question will attack others. The stereotypical "group of Muslims with guns" (as you put it) actively seeks to use those guns to kill others, whereas this group says they only intend to use their guns to fight off any others who come to attack them.

---

quote:

---

There are many other nuances to this incident, of course. But the immediate threat to innocent lives is distinctly different - this incident could only end in a bloodbath if federal troops attack the building, whereas a different terrorist threat would end in a bloodbath if the group wasn't confronted. And the hypothetical bloodbath in this case wouldn't involve any innocents (unless the occupiers have taken any children with them).

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ryan Bundy, the apparent leader of this episode, has been reported as saying that he is prepared to kill, or be killed. That sounds like a fairly significant threat to me.

---

quote:

---

I never said anything about "foreign" terrorist groups, I was talking about Muslims and Black people - both of whom could be USAmericans.

I'll say again: US citizens who happen to be Muslims or Black are very unlikely to be treated with kid gloves in the same situation. There is no need to be making any comparison with IS, and I haven't made that comparison.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
White terrorists have in the past murdered police officers, set off bombs, holed themselves up in sieges and so on.

---

quote:

---

In fact the evidence suggests that white terrorist groups very often become violent in these kinds of circumstances.

---

quote:

---

A (admittedly very stupid) group of Muslims could get guns and take over an isolated federal building in exactly the same way and be treated differently to this white group

---

quote:

---

Only if we're assuming all Islamic groups would act like IS and the Paris attackers and the white militas just give up without violence. I'm not sure how anyone can be so sure about this.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The last time something like this happened (I can't rememebr the name of the incident) the Feds sat outside for 80 days or so until the occupants gave up. No loss of life involved.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If a group of urban, east-coast, middle-class college kids with a self-righteous bee in their collective bonnet about some perceived injustice took over a building and defied the government, we would regard them as passionate idealists, and characterise any attempt to evict them as fascist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Those who proof-text from the First Amendment to argue anti-religion measures of which the Founding Fathers would never have dreamt, are every bit as brainless as the gun nuts to whom they consider themselves intellectally superior who proof-text from the Second Amendment.

---