A group of upwards of 150 armed men have taken over a building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns Oregon.

But don’t let CNN or other parts of the “mainstream” media fool you. This is not an act of “protest” by concerned “patriots”. This is terrorism by anti-government vigilantes.

This is the culmination of a long trail of events leading back to 2001. You can look here for a name-by-name breakdown of events, but I’ll give you the CliffsNotes version.

Over the New Year holiday, a group of about 300 protesters marched through Burns, led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy, sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, best known for refusing to pay about $1 million in taxes and engaging in an armed stand-off with the Bureau of Land Management back in 2014.

They were marching in protest to the sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were found guilty of arson of federal and public lands.

By Friday, Ammon had led his group to take control of the refuge, claiming that they would control the building for years if they had to.

Do those sound like the words and actions of protesters to you?

If you said yes, congratulations, you’re part of the problem.

You see, this is being handled very differently than say when there were protests and riots in Ferguson, MO or Baltimore.

In both those cases, the entire 24/7 news cycle covered the events. With every major TV news station talking about nothing else for weeks.

For this story? Well, CNN had it on the front of their website, while ABC used the term “peaceful protest”.

Oh, and another thing that occurred in both the above cases that hasn’t happened yet in Oregon. The National Guard was called in.

“Here’s the problem: what the terrorists will ask for is something the federal government can’t give them.”

In Ferguson, there were armored vehicles patrolling the streets. And that was against (primarily black) people armed with stones, bricks, and foul language.

A federal building is being held by (white) people carrying semi-automatic weapons. They are being negotiated with.

Let’s just call this what it is and get it over with. This is terrorism. Plain and simple.

I won’t go into a long spiel about why it is because I’ve already done that. Different names, different places, different reasons, same conclusion.

There is no argument. As I see it, the more interesting questions are how will the federal government respond.

In a situation such as this, only two options are readily apparent. You either attempt to settle this peacefully, or you send in the military.

To me, the correct choice is the latter.

Historically, law enforcement and the government have preferred peaceful settlement. It is not only cheaper, but it saves lives. No reason to put soldier’s lives at risk if it isn’t necessary.

Here’s the problem: what the terrorists will ask for is something the federal government can’t give them. They will ask for the release of the (rightly) imprisoned Hammond men. This is impossible as it would be a slap in the face of the justice system.

Also, these terrorists, or at least the leaders, can’t walk away scot-free. Even though the building they are holding was empty and they have not brought injury or death to anyone, they still perpetrated an armed take-over of a federal building. Doesn’t matter if it’s on a small wildlife refuge or the White House, same rules apply.

The final problem with this arrangement is that it could open the doors for other like-minded people to take similar actions. They will feel emboldened by the fact that “those guys in Oregon got away with it, why not me?” Who’s to say in that scenario that such a thing couldn’t then happen in Texas, or Florida, or Minnesota?

So how would I suggest they bring this act of terrorism on US soil to an end? Well, I’m not a military man by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have an idea.

All the Oregon National Guard (and whomever else the government decides to send out) has to do is create a perimeter around the building and wait. They know exactly where the building is, and they know that it is solely occupied by terrorists. What they have is the makings of a good old-fashioned siege.

The terrorist leaders have called on others to join them, and to bring guns and supplies. You nip that in the bud by closing off the roads and paths. One guy in a truck will probably turn back at the sight of 20 guys with guns in his way.

As for how long this will take, Bundy has said that they plan to stay for years. I give it to the end of the week. They will realize that they are surrounded, out-gunned, and haven’t eaten well. Morale will be low and the “patriotic” gusto which started this ordeal will be nonexistent.

Then the final question is what to do after the terrorists’ surrender? That boils down to whether or not this action constitutes treason. According to US law, treason is defined as:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

The phrase “levies war” is the kicker. It’ll be up to the Justice Department to determine that one.

But regardless of how this plays out, the men holed up in that building in Oregon should be considered terrorists by both the media and the law.

To do any less is an indictment upon the character of the media and an indication of what stories we can expect in 2016.

Cover Photo Credit: Ken Lund/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

What Do You Think?

comments