Osler's Razor

A Quick Take:

1. Just off the top of my head, one difference between BLM (Black Lives Matter) in Minneapolis and the protest against BLM (Bureau of Land Management) in Oregon is that it is apples and oranges and bananas: BLM in MN seemed big and effective at temporarily shutting down important transportation and commerce points in a major metropolitan area (with a major metropolitan police force). As you rightly point out, whatever is going on in Oregon (save the firearms) seems silly and makes me wonder why CNN and MSNBC are doing wall-to-wall coverage. "Why is this on my TV set?" But, more basically, OR seems much less of a public nuisance than MN (give credit to BLM in MN for better organization and more success at least in the way we measure public protest).

And, of course, OR is not being ignored ("ignored" seems very much the wrong word); it is being monitored by the media and the FBI. I trust you are happy that the feds have not launched a dawn raid on OR. In fact, I give the FBI high marks in their response so far.

2. Terrorists? Not even close. Armed insurrectionists maybe. They remind me of the Native American protesters of the 1970s---some of whom ended up dead in the end at the hands of the feds; and of course there is no need to remind us that many anti-government whites have ended up dead at the end of a long federal seige in the past (which, again, see above, is clearly driving the subdued federal response). Oklahoma City was terrorism. San Bernardino was terrorism. This is clearly something else. Calling this terrorism only clouds that culture-war conversation about the definition of terrorism.

3. The mandatory minimum side of this drama seems excessive based on what I know about the facts of this case. A better question, I think, seems to me what is your opinion? I presume you see this as another instance of misuse of federal prosecutorial authority. But I would love to hear you articulate it.
 

Riotous, violent protests in urban areas that cause property damage and endanger lives need to be contained. A group of Christian terrorists in the middle of nowhere can simply be isolated and starved out. The Feds learned this the hard way at Waco and other stand offs.

Lee
 

WF-- I am against all mandatory minimums. Some are more damaging than others-- for example, the narcotics minimums are used far more often and create more severely corrupted law enforcement priorities than those for arson-- but the basic idea is flawed, as I have laid out many times before. But… how do you distinguish "armed insurrectionists" from terrorists? And isn't it a key difference between BLM and whatever these guys are called that one is heavily armed and they other isn't, given that they have seized a building and vowed to defend it with force? The BLM protesters did not resist the police, and very few arrests occurred.

Lee, I suspect you are right, but what will be revealing will be whether or not they are prosecuted once they leave the building and go home.
 

I agree with Lee and WF... big difference between protests in the middle of a city that can affect tens of thousands and a group setting up camp in and around an unoccupied building in a remote area.

And as has been pointed out, the experiences of the Feds at Ruby Ridge and (outside) Waco seems to have informed the actions of the authorities here.

And yes, it will be revealing to see if these guys are prosecuted.

These guys are protesting specific policies and enforcement activities of the Federal Government and the BLM in particular. The Black Lives Matter people are going after a societal problem.

In my limited free time I have tried to understand the land management issues that these ranchers are upset about (along with trying to understand North Korea, the Shi'ite/SUnni divide and Putin's latest outrageous lie, not to mention the frightening Republican nomination fight). It's arcane to a suburbanite like me. I can see the point of trying to protect certain lands, but at the same time, it also sounds like the ranchers have been squeezed pretty hard.
 

It is my understanding that the Oregon problem stems from an issue of grazing rights on Federally managed lands and I suspect the fees required to use the land. Setting fire to this land on purpose should be punishable - 5 years is excessive but I suspect the damage to the land had a longer term impact than the 5 years.

As for Black Lives Matter in Minneapolis, I must live in a bubble as I missed this entirely until I read the piece you posted on FB this morning. I, like the writer, have also struggled to wrap my head around the movement and this piece made it much clearer to me.
 

Hi Mark,

Armed insurrectionists are people out to overthrow the government, which isn't quite these guys--but close enough that I won't quibble. Terrorists are people who commit indiscriminate acts of violence aimed at unsuspecting and vulnerable citizens in pursuit of political aims.

As you have argued before (a point with which I don't completely agree), carrying a firearm is not necessarily a violent act. If I remember correctly, you have argued that carrying with the possibility of using, carrying with the intent to use, and using are three very different grades of activity--and only one is a violent crime.

As for the comparison to BLM, as I have said before, there really is no comparison. I totally agree with you.

BTW: if Lee is right, I probably am too.
 

Probably, it is too early to put a definitive label on the Oregon gang-- there is an endgame still to play out. So, on that I will wait and see.

By your definition, WF, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not terrorism. It certainly wasn't indiscriminate-- it was carefully targeted at a military target. That's the problem: "Terrorism" is a very hard thing to define, and it is much easier to poke holes in proffered definitions than it is to come up with a good, objective standard for the term. Thus, it becomes politically defined. The Palestinians and the Arabs both call the other "terrorists," and it is common in some places to refer to US military actions the same way.

Probably in most instances there are better descriptive words.

 

I feel like we are mostly on the same page on all of this, Mark.

Perhaps "indiscriminate" was a poor choice of words. I was going for "random" and thinking from the perception of the victims (surely there is much discrimination in all these cases of terrorism from the perspective of the perpetrator).

But "indiscriminate" in the sense that these are acts that cannot be predicted by the objects of the terror. Surely, there is some logic to the Pentagon for terrorists intent on striking at the US military (or a federal building for anti-government terrorists). But, for the office guy at Murrow, or the office gal at the Pentagon, being attacked must have seemed pretty indiscriminate. Why us? Why now?

I agree that terrorism is not easy to define--but most words are hard to define. Language is very frustrating form of communication. But I actually think we are pretty close on this one. I am happy to entertain an edit on indiscriminate--if you have any suggestions.

 

Ranchers on BLM land have contracts with very specific usage rules - number of livestock, hunting rules, rules on when grazing is allowed, water rights, and others. All are aimed at preserving the land for future generations to use. If the rules are violated, the livestock must be removed and the land returned to the BLM for releasing, or resting.

The Bundys broke the contract and refused to remove the livestock. They were overgrazing, too many head of cattle per acre, and many other violations. They were warned, refused to comply, and ordered to remove all the stock and cease all operations on BLM land. They offered armed resistance, whipped up the right wing nuts into a frenzy, and the feds backed off to let it calm down.

This is the same bunch that is in Oregon. Now the Bundy son is claiming that God spoke to him and told him to do this. When someone talks to God, that is prayer. When God talks back, that is schizophrenia!

Hope this helps with the confusion.

Lee
 

Ranchers on BLM land have contracts with very specific usage rules - number of livestock, hunting rules, rules on when grazing is allowed, water rights, and others. All are aimed at preserving the land for future generations to use. If the rules are violated, the livestock must be removed and the land returned to the BLM for releasing, or resting.

The Bundys broke the contract and refused to remove the livestock. They were overgrazing, too many head of cattle per acre, and many other violations. They were warned, refused to comply, and ordered to remove all the stock and cease all operations on BLM land. They offered armed resistance, whipped up the right wing nuts into a frenzy, and the feds backed off to let it calm down.

This is the same bunch that is in Oregon. Now the Bundy son is claiming that God spoke to him and told him to do this. When someone talks to God, that is prayer. When God talks back, that is schizophrenia!

Hope this helps with the confusion.

Lee