The standoff in Oregon at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge was meant to be a peaceful protest. The protesters brought their sidearms because it’s their Second Amendment right and it’s the west, not New York City where only gangbangers and police carry guns. However misguided their idea was, the causes they were standing up for were the perceived and real injustices heaped on ranchers and farmers by government, specifically the BLM, and the liberal courts.
The approach the Bundys and their men took was wrong and we’re not trying to defend it but are they terrorists?
This standoff began over the ongoing maltreatment of the farmers and ranchers of the West as the government squeezed them off their land. The government unconstitutionally owns 25% of the land in the United States and over 50% of the land in the West but they want more, especially the mineral-rich lands.
There’s a good story on the cowboy standoff at The New American.
Be that as it may, it’s now being used as a reason for the DOJ to seek legal changes that will allow the government to treat domestic anti-government terrorists as if they were ISIS.
They want to combat the “clear and present danger” of extremist domestic groups, they say.
There is no doubt they’re out there but are cowboys doing what they’ve done for centuries on that list?
John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, told Reuters in an interview. “Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment.”
They are tooling for tools like those they use against ISIS. They want laws that prohibit support of designated terrorist groups.
What exactly does that mean? Disbanding due process? Guilt by association? It will have to be watched.
The problem is it could put a chill on any domestic rebellion against an unjust government. It’s particularly concerning as our administration inches towards totalitarianism and a communist is running for president.
Carlin and other Justice Department officials declined to say if they would ask Congress for a comparable domestic extremist statute, or comment on what other changes they might pursue to toughen the fight against anti-government extremists. Everyone wants anti-government extremists controlled and for law enforcement to have the tools they need to fight them but not at a loss of our constitutional rights. We need to know where they plan to go with this.
The DOJ wants to make it illegal to provide material support. It already is illegal but they want perpetrators to face the same charges domestically as ISIS faces.
In the case of the Hammonds, they were ranchers who were overcharged as terrorists. The Hammonds were lumped in with potential Timothy McVeighs.
The government demonizes all militias but many militias are comprised of law enforcement and soldiers. They represent a long tradition in this country and are formed to protect against an abusive government. Real militias are not violent and could be called up by the governors.
Over the past two years, 27 defendants have been charged with plotting or inciting attacks within the United States in the name of Islamic State. They have faced charges that carried a median prison sentence of 53 years – half of the defendants faced more, and half faced less.
In the same period, 27 adherents of U.S.-based anti-government ideologies have been charged with similar activity. They faced charges that carried a median prison sentence of 20 years.
Carlin said they are taking a “thoughtful” look at the domestic terrorism threat and look for enhancements to better combat those threats.
Counsel has been appointed to identify cases that can meet the federal definition of domestic terrorism.
Do they want constitutional rights disbanded?
There are domestic terrorists but who will they define as antigovernment terrorists? We know they labeled the peaceful Tea Party – comprised mostly of senior citizens – as barbarians and terrorists. Catholics, Evangelicals and Conservative Jews made the terrorist list in an Army training manual when Janet Napolitano was the DHS chief.
It’s particularly suspect because the Obama administration has continually drawn moral equivalence between terrorists and tea party types, claiming they are terrorists, and turning around claiming hate groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter are patriots and Islamic terrorists are merely criminals.
These new laws, should they see the light of day, need to be monitored.