Oregon Standoff

Are the Malheur Militants Really 'Terrorists'?

Not by the reasonable definitions of the word

|

I have an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today about the occupation in Oregon. Here's an excerpt:

Don't drone me, bro.
Darwinek

"Heavily armed domestic terrorists have occupied a wildlife preserve in Oregon," military historian Tom Mockaitis wrote in the Huffington Post. In the Daily Beast, columnist Sally Kohn complained about "the federal government's hyper-passive response to such flagrant acts of menacing and threats of domestic terrorism." Former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, now the host of a podcast called Security Mom, declared on CNN's website that the occupation in Oregon is terrorism "by any definition."

Really? By "any" definition?

The question of what qualifies as terrorism is hotly contested, but the most compelling definitions hinge on whether the perpetrators target civilians. The political philosopher Tony Coady, for example, says that terrorism involves "intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes," while Peter Simpson, another academic, refers to "acts of indiscriminate violence directed at civilians or nonhostile personnel."

That framework would certainly include Islamic State's slaughter of 130 people in Paris in November. It would also include the racist massacre of nine worshipers at a Charleston, S.C., church last summer. But breaking into an unoccupied building?

The occupiers do have guns, and they have said they're willing to use them if the cops come storming in. Yet they have no hostages, they haven't fired at anyone, and if they do fire they will almost certainly not aim at a civilian but at someone professionally charged with removing them from the premises. You can call that a lot of things, but it's absurd to call it terrorism.

To read the rest, go here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Worst Argument Ever Against Ted Cruz Is Donald Trump's Birther Claim

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The political philosopher Tony Coady, for example, says that terrorism involves “intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes,” while Peter Simpson, another academic, refers to “acts of indiscriminate violence directed at civilians or nonhostile personnel.”

    Would blowing up weddings or bombing charity hospitals fall under that definition?

    1. No. Look at the BIG picture, Hugh. Morality changes with altitude.

      1. Morality apparently changes depending upon whether or not you are wearing a uniform or are employed by a government in an official capacity.

        1. That’s not even up for debate. Putting on that uniform changes someone from a mass murderer to a genuine American hero.

          1. True. And if you develop a conscious, as Private Manning did, and expose the crimes of your fellow uniform-wearing coworkers, you will wind up in the brig and will be treated more harshly than those who are in there form committing actual crimes.

            1. conscious = conscience.

              I really wish this thing allowed edits.

            2. “And if you develop a conscious, as Private Manning did, and expose the crimes of your fellow uniform-wearing coworkers….”

              1 – what, he dropped acid?

              and

              2 – the state department doesn’t wear uniforms

              1. Gilmore, he exposed the crimes of his coworkers. He gave a batch of documents to Wikileaks.

                The U.S. Army does wear uniforms. Private Manning was (and still is) in the U.S. Army.

                1. “” he exposed the crimes of his coworkers.””

                  Half of what he “exposed” in the wikileaks data-dump were diplomatic cables.

                  The few things that exposed errors or misconduct by the actual military went largely un-commented upon. They weren’t “Crimes” in any case. However the ‘intelligence’ stuff was pretty rich, and is what he got prosecuted for.

                  1. Gilmore, are you aware what a war crime is?

                    1. Sure. Why the rhetorical Q?

                    2. To be clear = there was no violation of the ucmj or geneva convention exposed by Manning that was ever subsequently prosecuted… Or even something which had been previously unknown to the public. We’d accidently bombed weddings before he showed up.

                      By contrast, his indiscriminate dump of diplomatic comms was unprecedented and served no public benefit other than to embarrass State dept and compromise intel sources

                2. No, he didn’t. And there were many ways he could have dealt with it if he had evidence of an actual war crime. He could have gone to IG, to a recognized media outlet, to the Justice Department, he could have sent evidence to his fucking senator, and he would have been fine. He sent it to a foreign national in a huge data dump. He is a liar and a thief. Snowden at least had real evidence of real wrong doing, and a justified fear of retaliation. Manning did not.

                  1. “He could have gone to IG, to a recognized media outlet, to the Justice Department, he could have sent evidence to his fucking senator,”

                    If he had done any of these things he probably would have “committed suicide” or had an “auto accident” and we never would have heard the evidence.

                    “He is a liar and a thief.”

                    What did he lie about? As far as being a thief, he stole nothing – he SHARED his information so that the American people could see what the government that claims to “represent” them is doing in their names.

              2. They should wear uniforms. Having dealt with State Department employees this morning, I believe it should be something obvious and shameful.

                1. They should wear those WWI German helmets w the spike on top.

                  I.e. ‘pinheads’

                  1. Except with a big floppy dildo instead of a spike.

                    I.e. ‘dickheads.’

                    1. +1 Dildozer

      2. Look at the BIG picture, Hugh. Morality changes with altitude.

        So THAT’S why Clinton had us bombing from 30,000′.

        1. Not quite the “until you see the whites of their eyes” is it?

  2. If you ignore the guns, how is this occupation different from the OWS crowd?

    1. There’s probably less rape in this case.

      1. Any they’re not making a mess of the place.

    2. They will likely leave the place as clean as they found it, and there won’t be any rapes?

    3. But … but … guns! And … they’re right wing … and … uh … they’re Rednecks! Rednecks with Guns!

    4. Everyone is going to make wild guesses based on what the mainstream media says. The honest answer is they have no idea.

    5. The OWS crowd were protesting against capitalism.

      These guys are protesting the government nationalizing land.

      On the left, it’s about motives.

    6. OWS wanted free shit from the government, while these guys just want to be left alone. So obviously that makes them evil.

      1. Have they actually made their demands public yet?

        1. I don’t know if they’ve released an enumerated list on Power Point, but the gist is that they want the feds to quit mismanaging all that land and let the ranchers use it and manage it as they have been for generations.

          1. IOW, taxpayer-funded subsidy.

            1. Yeah…

            2. What subsidy?

              It’s not their fault that the federal government buys up this land, and once the land is owned by the feds no one pays property taxes on it.

              It’s not their fault that the feds try to prevent the land from being put to any productive use that might grow the economy and the tax base.

              It’s not their fault that the feds mismanage the land so badly that it is ripe for fires that destroy property and have to be put out at the taxpayers’ expense.

              1. What subsidy?

                Are you fucking joking? It’s not land that they have bought and paid for, but they get to use it for their enterprise. That’s as subsidy as you get.

                1. OMWC, you need to realize when the government changes the longstanding rules one has been operating under with little to no notice or recourse, when they inflate the value of the property one must buy by limiting the acreage on the market and rig the rules in an attempt to force ranchers to sell, you really aren’t operating in a market that exists without subsidies.

                  But understand that those subsidies are imposed on these ranchers in order for them to survive in a marketplace largely manipulated by rule makers that can change the way they have to do business on a whim.

                2. For the last couple decades, the federal government has been “reclaiming” (buying) land and holding onto it. That’s the policy. There’s no way to buy the land from them now, so the most a private enterprise can do is obtain use permits from the various agencies. Maybe those agencies lease their lands at too low a price, but that’s not really the fault of the permittees.

                  1. Fault isn’t the question. It’s still a matter of subsidy, of a private enterprise using that public facility. If the rules change, well, you have chosen to be in a business which depends on public largess. Do something else for a living if you don’t want to run that risk.

                    1. I don’t see the use of public land as a subsidy. Who is being taxed and who is getting a check? That’s like saying a tax break is a subsidy, even though the person getting the break is still paying into the system. That’s like a robber stealing your wallet at gunpoint, giving you a fiver out of it, and then expecting you to be grateful.

                    2. Public largesse is a handout. The government honoring leases is far different.

                    3. Did they really choose to be in a business dependent on public largesse when the “public” arbitrarily cancels leases and changes terms without notice? When the “public” tells the, that the water contracts they agreed to will not be honored and no compensation will be given?

                      Talk to the farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin valley about public largesse.

                    4. Did they really choose to be in a business dependent on public largesse when the “public” arbitrarily cancels leases and changes terms without notice?

                      Yes, that’s exactly the point. They chose to be in a business that depends on the use of taxpayer assets and rules set by bureaucrats. What a surprise when bureaucrats change the rules in an arbitrary way! This (points) is my shocked face.

                      If you want less arbitrariness, go into a business where you own the property and the facilities.

                    5. So never go into business where you lease property and expect the other party to honor the lease in good faith?

                      Well, there goes ever opening a restaurant or a food shop until I have enough money to buy the ideal property.

                    6. So never go into business where you lease property and expect the other party to honor the lease in good faith?

                      If it’s the government, you understand that they have the FYTW Clause in the lease. If you can’t live with that. lease from a private entity where there’s recourse.

                    7. So you’re basically saying that because the Feds don’t always act in good faith that the other party is at fault when the government fucks them over?

                      Wow.

                    8. So you’re basically saying that because the Feds don’t always act in good faith that the other party is at fault when the government fucks them over?

                      No, I’m saying that if you’re in a business that depends on taxpayer largess administered by bureaucrats, that arbitrary changes in your business conditions are expected. If you can’t tolerate that, buy your own land or go into a different business.

                    9. Right, so you should have no expectation that the government should honor its agreements. Got it.

                    10. And even that doesn’t address the farmers who agree to a certain amount of water only to have the government tell them they will not be getting the agreed-to amount.

                    11. The ranchers were there long before the feds started buying land and pressuring owners to sell.

                      Kinda like that scene from the Dukes of Hazard where Uncle Jesse tells the boys to give up a slot machine because gambling is illegal, and when asked about their still he says that the Dukes were doing that long before the feds said they couldn’t.

                    12. Fault isn’t the question. It’s still a matter of subsidy, of a private enterprise using that public facility. If the rules change, well, you have chosen to be in a business which depends on public largess. Do something else for a living if you don’t want to run that risk.

                      Couldn’t your point be applied to roads, too? I guess everyone receives a subsidy, since it is impossible today to do anything without using a public facility.

                    13. Couldn’t your point be applied to roads, too?

                      In a sense, yes, if you’re a trucking company. Speed limits and inspection requirements can change, gas and road taxes can change. That’s part of the risk you take for your business. But taxpayers aren’t buying your gas for you, so the analogy is a weak one.

                    14. But taxpayers aren’t buying your gas for you[.]

                      Where’s the equivalent of “taxpayers buying your gas” in the context of federal land leasing?

                    15. That’s how the cows get fed, right?

                    16. But you’re paying for the right to use it.

                    17. But you’re paying for the right to use it.

                      And if you’re a trucking company, you pay taxes and tolls, which can change.

                    18. BTW, my same argument applies to oil leases.

                    19. I get that, but how is that a subsidy? I think there’s two separate arguments you’re making here. The first is that federal land lessees get a subsidy, which I’m not yet convinced they do. The second is that doing business with the government carries risk. These two arguments don’t seem related.

                    20. I get that, but how is that a subsidy?

                      You don’t have to buy the land that you run your business on.

                    21. OMWC, your entire argument boils down to: if you do business with the government, you have nobody to blame but yourself when they violate the terms of the agreement.

                      Do you feel different about a woman who has an agreement with a government actor that says he won’t rape her?

                    22. Do you feel different about a woman who has an agreement with a government actor that says he won’t rape her?

                      Is this part of a business arrangement?

                    23. Does it matter? You’re victim blaming.

                      Furthermore, I’m talking about the federal government not honoring lease terms. You’re comparing apples to oranges when you talk about fuel taxes that are changed within the legal framework and are applied across the board. The terms of these leases are far from evenly applied.

                    24. The terms of these leases are far from evenly applied.

                      Again, that’s something you know when you decide to base your business on the use of taxpayer assets. If you don’t want to risk that, go into a different business or buy your own land. Or lease it from a private entity so that terms are enforceable.

                    25. Tough to lease land from a private entity or buy your own when the government owns nearly all of it in the area.

                      Yes, dealing with government is a risk, but that doesn’t excuse their heavy-handed actions either. Going back to the trucking angle, it’s as is you’re saying, “Hey, your tolls weren’t covering your usage of the roads, so you were being subsidized. And now that the government has decided to stop letting anyone use the roads at all, you should have known better!”

                      Perhaps that’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that cutting off access to the roads unilaterally is a pretty shitty thing for the government to do.

                3. So the Indians and settlers were all subsidized because they hadn’t bought and paid for the land.

            3. Not necessarily. In many cases, the feds just simply shut off access to grazing permits. They don’t auction them, they don’t sell them, they just say no. There’s no chance to buy the range either.

              Not to mention the problem with easements. My family has land in the Sierra Nevada completely encircled by BLM land going back to the late 1800s. We had an access easement along an old, unmaintained fire road. That is, until the BLM unilaterally declared the whole area “roadless” and prohibited motorized access. No consultation, no appeal, no review. That sort of shit happens all the time with the BLM.

              1. Hmmm. Weighs “the government bureaucracy fucking with people unnecessarily” vs. “the government is trying to create an even playing field” arguments. Tough call.

              2. Not to mention the problem with easements. My family has land in the Sierra Nevada completely encircled by BLM land going back to the late 1800s. We had an access easement along an old, unmaintained fire road. That is, until the BLM unilaterally declared the whole area “roadless” and prohibited motorized access. No consultation, no appeal, no review. That sort of shit happens all the time with the BLM.

                Their goal is to make the land unusable, forcing you to sell it to them. Same shit they’re doing to these ranchers.

                1. Their goal is to make the land unusable, forcing you to sell it to them. Same shit they’re doing to these ranchers.

                  Yup.

        2. The local Congresscritter detailed some of the backstory about the grievances here.

          http://bit.ly/1OOac4s

        3. Apparently they had a news conference on monday where they came up with a OWS/BLM style name for themselves, and listed their grievances. Of course its near impossible to find an actual un-editorialized transcript.

          1. Yeah, that’s the trouble I’m having.

          2. Did they use Jazz Hands during the conference?

    7. The OWS crowd had fewer oppressive white men, that’s for sure.

      The OWS crowd had more impressive drum circles.

      The OWS crowd had a higher rate sexual disease transmission.

      The OWS crowd protested something simple, like white men in suits.

    8. If you ignore the guns, how is this occupation different from the OWS crowd?

      The OWS crowd wanted more government action, and was protesting Wall Street and its lack of government oversight. Also, OWS were against bank bailouts, but demanded bailouts for student debt and other carefully targeted programs.

  3. To the leftist mind, arguments are decided by identifying the biggest victim.

    Calling the protesters “terrorists” is just an attempt to delegitimize them as victims.

    1. “Calling the protesters “terrorists” is just an attempt to delegitimize them as victims.”

      yeah, more or less.

      the media just wants to call any grievance coming from the wrong people, “Anti-Government”, as though Government is by its very nature an endless font of goodness, which conveniently allows them to write a dozen articles about these particular protesters without ever even pretending to suggest that they have a *legitimate reason* for their discontent.

      Frankly i’m shocked at the gleeful vigor leftiest have shown in declaring these characters “Terrorists”… immediately after their equal desperate efforts to play down the claims of terrorism in the aftermath of San Berdoo. Even in the wake of a mass murder, they seemed to think the REAL story for the front page was to suggest that Non-Islamic terror is an ‘equal if not greater threat’

      It really reveals how desperately they’ve dug themselves in a hole with this idiotic idea that Islamic radicals are somehow blameless (or justified), while some bumpkins waving the constitution around are some pernicious threat. They seemed to have decided that Culture War needs a body count.

  4. Those terrorism definitions seem to apply to governments in general, isn’t that interesting…..

    It amuses me how the most strident voices calling for instant execution, drone strikes, etc, come from the proggies who otherwise claim the high ground in protecting civil rights and human rights, and claim to have cornered the market in human decency for even the most downtrodden of society.

    Could it be that the only people they want to claim to aid are those who cannot speak up and protest at being unwilling wards of a bunch of inept strangers? Anyone who can fight back and assert independence is their enemy.

    1. Those definitions don’t apply to the government really. Unless you think they just pick a dot on a map and drone it to terrorize people. But they don’t.

  5. Are the Malheur Militants Really ‘Terrorists’?

    Yes, because they terrorize Marxians. And for Marxians, they are the only people who count.

    1. You know, I love this. The fucking collective is all that matters to these assholes and they will use bureaucracy, archaic laws, public shaming to get what they want. Fuck them.

  6. I have an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today[.]

    Prepare for derpy comments.

  7. Former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, now the host of a podcast called Security Mom, declared on CNN’s website that the occupation in Oregon is terrorism “by any definition.”

    Why burden oneself with clearly defining terms if you can simply encompass every possible misconstruction by qualifying the noun with the adjective “any”?

    In the Daily Beast, columnist Sally Kohn complained about “the federal government’s hyper-passive response to such flagrant acts of menacing and threats of domestic terrorism.”

    That woman’s horse face is a flagrant act of menacing domestic terrorism.

    1. As one would expect from a former pub-seccer, she gets it wrong.

      If something is terrorism by “any” definition, that means it meets each and every definition of terrorism. She’s saying “point to any definition of terrorism at all, and this counts”. All that’s needed to falsify the statement is a single definition of terrorism that doesn’t fit.

      1. What if she was generalizing? I’ve been told that makes it okay.

        1. Generalizations are all bad. All of them, all the time.

        2. You can only make that claim if you’re vague as to precision. If I claim that Muslims are baby rapists, it could mean all of them are, or only that at least two are. But if I said all Muslims are baby rapists, thats a precise universal claim. I could maybe hide behind hyperbole (or in the case above, thoughtlessly employing a figure of speech) but not that I was just generalizing.

          1. I thought the TSA was the baby rapist group.

  8. I love that Reason keeps referring to them as small-o occupiers. Keep doing that. Make people think, whether they like it or not.

    Well played, Walker.

  9. the occupation in Oregon is terrorism “by any definition.”

    Not until someone is terrified by it. Is anyone terrified by these guys?

    I didn’t think so.

    1. I am terrified by any white man carrying a gun.

      1. I am terrified by any white man carrying a gun.

        This makes you just like Adam Lanza.

  10. It’s called radical redneckist extremism.

    1. I think you mean XTREEMISM. Now in Slammin’ Constitutional Nacho flavor!

      1. Nachotutional?

    2. And we now have “Exibit A” of the Statist-Left’s bigotry against people who have a rural-Western or Southern culture.

    3. Because wanting to manage the land that their cattle graze on, without asking permission and obeying orders from government idiots, is radical and extreme.

      Than you, Tony. You can always be counted on for adding radically extreme stupidity to any conversation.

      1. Should I count you as part of the property-theft-supporting wing of the libertarian movement?

        1. I thought the govt owned this property for which the govt is of the people such that these folks are apart?

          1. The government manages it for all of the people of the country. Letting any thieving asshole do what he wants with government-owned property completely defeats the purpose of having government own (and protect) land.

            1. Please define “government” as a noun, Tony.

            2. The government manages it for all of the people of the country.

              Totally meaningless.

              And what did these people steal, exactly?

              Did you call the property-damaging BLM and OWS people thieving assholes? Or do you only call others that when they intrude on the King’s land?

            3. Yea and they are the people are they not? This is ironic coming from someone who wants to steal from others via taxation to pay for stuff you want….hint this doesnt make you noble or compassionate.

              You seem miserable imo and full of hate. From this to saying blacks are lazy the other day, you seem like a scrooge

          2. “The People” is everyone else. These folks can’t use the land because it’s being saved for everyone else. Any individual who wants to use it cannot, because they’re not “The People.” So basically no one can do anything with the land, since no one is “The People.”

            1. So you throw all your strong property laws stuff out the window when it comes time to choose a team in political football… and you side with the inbred sheepfuckers. I don’t get you guys at all.

              1. Isnt the property here owned by the people and these folks are part of the people?

                1. That means individuals don’t get to go setting huge fires on it whenever they want. The whole point of government owning it is to protect it from things like that.

                  1. How about when the government negligently dumps heavy metals into rivers?

                    1. How about when the government negligently dumps heavy metals into rivers?

                      They sink.

                  2. The whole point of government owning it is to protect it from things like that.

                    Like when the government prevents anyone from cleaning up deadwood and dry brush, making the land ripe for fires, and then acting surprised when lightening sets off a massive blaze that must be put out at the taxpayer’s expense?

                    My goodness you are stupid. Painfully so. I mean it just hurts to read the stupid shit you write.

                  3. That means individuals don’t get to go setting huge fires on it whenever they want.

                    Right, because only the government is competent enough to perform control burns.

                2. Isnt the property here owned by the people and these folks are part of the people?

                  No. “The People” is everyone else. No individual is part of the people. Same idea as when the cops demand that you obey under penalty of death. That is them serving and protecting the people, as in everyone but you. It’s magical thinking that basically allows government assholes to do whatever the fuck they want. Because they’re serving “The People,” and anyone who questions them doesn’t count because “The People” is everyone else.

              2. How have you determined that they are indeed inbred?

              3. What are you bleating about? You yourself say the government is the people and owns land on their behalf. So what’s wrong when one of the people occupies an empty building on remote government land?

                1. Because they weren’t invited to do so by the owners?

                  1. But he is an owner. You said so yourself.

                    1. But he is an owner. You said so yourself.

                      The government is the people except when it is not. The public is everyone except when it is not.

                      hth

              4. Please define “government” as a noun, Tony.

                1. I’d like to see you define “government” as something other than a noun.

                  1. He wanted you to define it

                  2. Tony, can we get your take on a young Eric Holder and his companions taking over the Columbia ROTC offices, while armed?

                    He’s admitted to it, so should charges be filed? If it’s not too late for Cosby it’s not too late for him.

                  3. “I’d like to see you define “government” as something other than a noun.”

                    I was asking you to define it, as Frankjasper1 pointed out.

              5. inbred sheepfuckers

                Oops, you let the mask slip. Dehumanizing your political opponents it’s step one. Step two usually usually includes mass murder.

        2. What’s this “property-theft-supporting wing” of the libertarian movement? Is that just more projection? Besides, we’re against the federal government here.

          1. I’m against libertarians but that doesn’t mean I think it’s OK to steal their property.

            1. So are against taxation now? Good to know.

            2. Tony|1.6.16 @ 11:19AM|#
              “I’m against libertarians but that doesn’t mean I think it’s OK to steal their property.”

              No, you support stealing anyone’s property so long as you support its use.
              You’re a liar.

            3. The federal government steals land all the time (in the form of conquest and eminent domain. You should be against the feds then.

            4. why are you against libertarians? what have they done to you? Doesnt seem very tolerant or inclusive

              1. They want to take over the world and leave him alone.

    4. Once again, Tony shows he’s a racist.

    5. What evidence do you have to support the redneck claim? What is a redneck? Why is this extreme to you?

      1. You have to identify who they are and what belief system they come from. If you don’t stir up bigotry against similar types of people who haven’t done anything wrong, you’re with the terrorists.

        1. Tony, please define the term “Redneck” as you use it.

        2. Um what? Please define what you mean. Calling people names to make yourself feel better isnt very nice

          1. Tony isn’t a very good person. He’s also not particularly intelligent.

        3. Tony|1.6.16 @ 11:17AM|#
          “You have to identify who they are and what belief system they come from. If you don’t stir up bigotry against similar types of people who haven’t done anything wrong, you’re with the terrorists.”

          Did the cat run across the keyboard? WIH does that mean in English?

          1. Just going with the Republican strategy for defeating terrorism–making sure to call it a certain name.

            1. This is a libertarian site, not a Republican one. Why are you trying to make a point here against libertarians by mocking neocon strategy?

              1. I was just trying to make a joke we can all be in on since we’re all definitely not Republicans here.

            2. What? I dont understand your post here

              1. We’re so mean to Obama that we must be Republicans. That’s what Tony’s saying.

            3. Tony|1.6.16 @ 11:53AM|#
              “Just going with the Republican strategy for defeating terrorism–making sure to call it a certain name.”

              So it’s a particularly lame attempt to satirize a third party?
              An un-funny joke at the expense of a strawman. Way to GO!

    6. Re: Tony the Marxian,

      It’s called radical redneckist extremism.

      Aww, and you made that one up yourself! Schnookums!

      The government manages it for all of the people of the country.

      Because all the people can possess it at the same time. Good one!

      See how cute he is? I can’t wait until the little Marxian is potty trained!

    7. These people are not rednecks. Rednecks are a peaceful people. Rednecks everywhere condemn this monstrous act of trespassing.

      1. As far as I can tell nearly every protest ever occurs on public land so I don’t see how that’s notable let alone trespass. Public propert is typically open unless there’s some justification.

  11. Once terrorists became sooo dangerous that constitutional protections didn’t apply to them, of course the meaning of “terrorist” expanded. Sexual harassment used to mean physical contact or threats of being fired unless sexual favors were granted. Now it means looking at someone in ways they don’t like. Racism used to mean discrimination on a basis of race. Now it means micro aggressions or even micro expressions.

    When the goal is control definitions will mutate in ways that increase government power and diminish the individual.

  12. They are as much terrorists as the Students for a Democratic Society.

  13. Former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, now the host of a podcast called Security Mom

    *barf*

    1. I’d like to make her feel secure, if you know what I mean.*

      *I mean sexually secure.

      1. If she had any talent at all, she’d have called her blog The Rubaiyat of Juliette Kayyem. She loses 10 points just for that oversight.

        1. Looking over her wikipedia page, her qualifications for being a security expert are having degrees from Harvard and being hired for homeland security jobs.

          She is actually the poster child of the type of person who works in homeland security, which is one of the reasons why I frequently shit my pants.

          “How can you protect us?”

          “I went to Harvard.”

          “Hired.”

          1. I’m guessing it’s more complicated than that.

            “I went to Harvard.”

            “…”

            “And you know my father.”

            “Hired.”

            1. She is married to David Barron, who wrote a White House legal memo endorsing the execution of Americans by drone strike, and is now a judge. Of course, he also went to Harvard.

          2. She is married to David J. Barron, a Judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

            Or “You know my husband.”

            1. Sadly, it is not complicated.

    2. Also the author of “Protecting Liberty in an Age of Terror”. I guess her definition of liberty is something along the lines of “ask for permission and follow orders”.

  14. Who is being terrorized?

    And what is “hyper-passive”? I can’t believe Kohn is paid for her writing.

    1. I wonder if she is trolling for hits and or just delusional

    2. Sally’s angry the feds haven’t murdered everyone at the refuge yet. I mean, those terrorists trespassed on the King’s land; a swift death is good and proper.

  15. A few guys “take over” an empty cabin in the middle of nowhere, and it is news? Why is this news? Who do I blame?

    1. Are there guns, and has someone mentioned God?

  16. Tony said he would give me 3K for birth control since i can’t pay on my own….as part of the social contract. But yet i have seen nothing from him in terms of compensation.

    I thought liberals walked the walk? Were kind and compassionate?

    1. And i told you then that he prefers if you go through the proper procedure: have some men with badges go to his house and collect the donation at gunpoint.

      1. Excuse me, i meant his MOM’S house.

      2. Tony would you support this? Ill just call them a collection agency

        1. I’m not going to continue attempting to teach kindergarten civics to you.

          1. What does this have to do with civics? You said others should pay for my birth control and you would.

            Walk the walk man

          2. Tony|1.6.16 @ 11:52AM|#
            “I’m not going to continue attempting to teach kindergarten civics to you.”

            Given you don’t understand the subject at that level, we’re relieved.

          3. Maybe you should try to, i don’t know, advance past the kindergarten level in your own understanding of society? I know it’s probably way beyond your capabilities, but it’s just a thought.

  17. I see Tony has been visiting his echo chamber and thought he would just wipe you off the planet with his sophistry. Evidently watching the BLM fuck with people’s lively hood gives him a hard on.

    1. He’s all about property rights, as long as that property belongs to the Federal Government.

      1. All property belongs to the Feds, you’re just lucky they let you use it.

  18. Hey Jesse, you missed Dean Obeidallah over at CNN calling out Trump. Apparently, if Trump doesn’t call this “siege” terrorism then he fully supports white supremacists.

    1. Got to love the left….i am not sure what this has to do with white supremacy but for some reason insist on calling it as such.

      1. Yeah that’s been interesting. They went straight to the race card but I haven’t seen a coherent connection. I’m sure they have their best people working round the clock to flesh those talking points out and disseminate them.

        1. Top. Men.

  19. Tony do you support battling climate change as a way to reduce terrorism? If so, what is your plan?

  20. Ooh, I’ve,got,an even better (and more accurate) headline:

    Are the Malheur Tresspassers Really Militants?

    1. They’re white, they have guns, and they have names like Ammon. Therefore, yes, they are militants.

  21. Former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, now the host of a podcast called Security Mom

    Are you fucking kidding me?! Seriously, fuck all these people. I bet she also has no qualms about being “nosy busy body mom” or “you better bend over backwards for my precious little snowflake mom”. God. Fucking. Dammit. I hate people.

    1. Hey, keeping soccer mom’s panic stricken is a tough job but somebody has to do it.

  22. The fun part of this is that the armed redneck militia isn’t doing anything more violent than hanging around not littering while peace loving tolerant lefties are on hate-free social media howling for the government to summarily execute the non-litterers.

    Revealed preferences and all that.

  23. I confess that one of the many reasons that I can’t see these guys as terrorists is that what they’re doing seems so ineffective. How does occupying a wildlife refuge give them even the slightest leverage over the feds? I spend a lot of time at wildlife refuges (wildlife photography is a hobby of mine) and the only people who go to them are “bird nerds” like me. These guys could occupy the refuge until hell freezes over; the feds don’t care about birders any more than it does any other citizens.

    1. But they don’t have permission!

    2. Well, nobody had a clue who they were, or that they were getting fucked before this.

  24. Under the definitions listed here, wouldn’t there be a better case against the Black Lives Matter movement as terrorists then the Bundys? I mean, I seem to remember violence against civilians in Baltimore and Ferguson for political reasons. Just playing devil’s advocate

    1. They also haven’t restricted their protesting to public property.

  25. Could the ranchers get a religious exemption if the planted a large silver Festivus Pole out in the yard?

    1. UGH! IMPOSING THEIR RELIGION ON FEDERAL PROPERTIES

  26. Of course they’re terrorists: They’re exactly the sort of wingnut racist bitter-clinger straight white male extremist sorts that the Dems intended all those anti-terrorist laws and policies to apply against in the first place. Pretending that they were intended to fight “Islamic terrorism” was just a ploy to fool the rubes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.