Again, not condoning or endorsing the content of this article.
Also have no idea what tags to use.
Well, considering the Oregon ranchers are not among the protestors, none of this fucking matters in the slightest. These are carpetbagging yahoos that had never even visited the site before December and whatever overwrought narrative they wish to construct about the two men in jail is utterly and completely irrelevant to the problem. That said: 1) They still own their land 2) They've demonstrated zero financial impact from the wildlife refuge 3) Cattle are fucking hell on waterways and keeping cattle out of a wildlife refuge is hardly government overreach 4) A rancher that can pay half of a $400k fine out of petty cash can bloody well institute a civil suit for unintentional tort, and neither Dwight nor Stephen Hammond have ever sued the government 5) My home town was nearly wiped out by a controlled burn performed by licensed and regulated firemen; I have zero sympathy for a yahoo rancher who thinks he knows better than the USFS when he can burn or not 6) Fuckin' Old Man Baca used to shoot rock salt at any hiker that attempted to cross into his land even though you couldn't get to Jemez Springs without crossing it and it wasn't until a goddamn presidential order that 89,000 acres were suddenly open to the public to walk around on without fearing for their lives, land that was mutherfucking given to them, which they were then unable to subdivide and sell off for McMansions. So... yeah. Fuck this article and all other bullshit articles of its ilk.
After the pinko commies start to allow marriage with cattle, we will be viewed the same as cattle and the government will be allowed to herd us around as well. We must take a stand now and prevent the government from herding anything.keeping cattle out of a wildlife refuge is hardly government overreach
I think two issues are being conflated here: I don't know the details of the case, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine a prosecutor over charging for a crime in an attempt to get a plea deal. If there' no plea, then the full charge goes into effect. Prosecutors can be ruthless. That said, of course the government is going to fight for the minimum sentence once the guilty verdict comes in. If a precedent is set up that a terrorist can get less than the mandatory minimum, then what's the point of having a statutory minimum? The government has fought tooth and nail over mandatory minimums in countless drug cases. That mandatory minimums exist is of questionable moral value, but as long as they're a thing, the government will fight to protect them.There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time.
Niggling details, but they were prosecuted under standard federal law. The sentence, however, was affected by anti-terrorism legislation, and the minimum was raised, thereby making their original stint in jail insufficient. The Hammonds fought it, lost, and were returning voluntarily to jail when ranching's answer to the Westboro Baptist Church showed up and derailed the media train...
I like the conspiracy theory tag, but there's one problem that I have with the theory that the BLM wants to persecute the Hammond's into selling the land instead of letting private ownership continue. What is their motive to do that? Why are they buying up the land adjacent to the BLM refuge?