Terrorists They Are, Terrorists They Should Be Treated As

Right now at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, a bunch of armed militia men have taken over the headquarters of the park, and say they will occupy it indefinitely. They are doing so because the Hammonds, a pair of ranchers from the county, are reporting to jail today on an arson conviction that was tried under an anti-terrorism law from 1996, because it was on federal land (as a note here, that was at least partially inspired by the Oklahoma City bombing). The Hammonds chose to start some fires, routine in ranching, but on the federal land next to their land, not on their own ranch. As a result, they are going back to jail today (a federal appeals court is sending them back because the trial judge gave them less than the minimum). The case itself is somewhat complicated, and the relation to this armed occupation requires a little reading.

Regardless of controversial, and complicated, federal land use law, what is happening at Malheur is not okay. In the United States, when you don't like federal laws and rules, you either sue or vote. You don't take up arms and take over buildings. Normally if you do, we negotiate with you for a bit, and then go in and remove you. Normally, we call you a terrorist. For some reason though, these militia men in Malheur are hailing themselves as "patriots," and the press is giving them a platform to reiterate this nonsense. The precedent being set here is dangerous at worst, and stupid at best.

Many of these guys in question are veterans of the Bundy Ranch fiasco, and in fact the racist, Cliven Bundy's sons are amongst the leaders of this fight. These guys drive around the country and seek out battles between locals and the federal government over property and land use, and then they took over with their guns and try to provoke an armed conflict with authorities. These people are terrorists. This is not how a civilized society runs. You don't take up arms when you are unhappy about laws and policies. You don't claim to be in open rebellion any time you don't get your way. This is far from okay.

Let's be clear here, we don't normally allow this either. Whether we're speaking about the Waco, TX stand-off, or Philadelphia's decision to bomb the MOVE activists after taking over an apartment, we usually give you a limited amount of time to negotiate a surrender, and then we remove you. If a group of anti-American, ISIS member Muslims, or the Black Panthers, or even more peaceful groups were doing what these anti-government nuts are doing, we'd hear cries from the right to "get tough with them." Instead, we have some people trying to defend these loons. It's not just insane and stupid to argue this is okay, it's dangerous and unacceptable.

Obviously, as in any case, I hope this is resolved peacefully, but not at any and all costs. I certainly don't want these people given months in the spotlight, effectively rewarding them for armed insurrection against the government. They should be offered the opportunity to exit the federal land safely for a limited period of time, and then if they refuse, they should be forcibly removed and arrested. These people are terrorists- they are seeking to use their weaponry to force their will and ideology on our government, which is elected by our citizens. This is not an acceptable form of political speech, and we should not treat it as a legitimate movement with a point to make. Groups like that stage sit ins, they hold rallies, they even might get themselves arrested for the cause, but they do not show up armed and start taking over public property to make their point. We cannot, and must not allow these militiamen the chance to be taken as a serious and real movement. They are terrorists. We should treat them as terrorists. That may not be pleasant, but it certainly beats allowing the precedent that this is okay. It's not.