# BLM Discussions



## Dame (Apr 28, 2014)

So, is the Texas land grab part of this thread or do we start a new one?


> *BLM responds to Texas land grab accusations: It’s already ours*
> The bureau announced Wednesday it was taking control over the land, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has sworn to fight it. Now, Texas General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson has joined the battle, disputing the federal government’s position.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04...land-grab-accusations-its-already-ours-115097


----------



## AWP (Apr 28, 2014)

We'll continue discussing the Bundy affair here along with any other BLM "bidness."


----------



## Scotth (Apr 28, 2014)

It will be interesting to see how the Texas case plays out.  At first glance it seems they have more of a claim to the land especially if taxes were paid locally.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 28, 2014)

_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, _*That Congress doth consent the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government*, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2. _And be it further resolved_, *That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: *

*First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments*; and the constitution therof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.

_Second_, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of Texas, *shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owning to said Republic of Texas; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands,* after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.

_Third_, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And as such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted to the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking permission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

3. _And be it further resolved_, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgement and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,

_Be it Resolved_, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extant and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

Approved, March 1, 1845.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 28, 2014)

The 1850 Boundary Act

The Boundary Act of 1836 established the entire length of the Rio Grande as the southern and western boundary of the Republic of Texas, even though colonization was confined principally to the territory between the Nueces and the Sabine. When Texas entered the union, these territorial limits were retained, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo confirmed the Rio Grande as the southern boundary between Texas and Mexico.

President Mirabeau B. Lamar and Governors George T. Wood and Peter H. Bell attempted to extend Texan control in the Santa Fe and New Mexico area. Their efforts failed: the Santa Fe Expedition was captured by Mexican forces in 1841 and post-annexation extension of Texan influence met with great opposition in the New Mexico territory.

By 1850, New Mexicans had ratified a proposed state constitution, one which defined boundaries well within territory claimed by Texas, Governor Bell convened the Texas Legislature to enforce the state's claim, President Millard Fillmore threatened to resist any such claim with military force, and a series of bills were offered in the Congress in an effort to resolve the problem. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri would have had Texas cede all land west of 102° longitude and north of the Red River, divide Texas into two states, and pay $15 million for the lost territory. Senator John Bell of Tennessee would have had Texas split into three states. Yet another proposal would have drawn a straight line from El Paso to the point where the 100th meridian meets the Red River, in exchange for an unspecified payment.

The bill proposed by Senator James A. Pearce of Maryland offered $10 million in 5% U.S. bonds in exchange for ceding to the national government 67 million acres of land north and west of a boundary beginning at the 100th meridian where it intersects the parallel of 36°30', then running west along that parallel to the 103d meridian, south to the 32d parallel, and from that point west to the Rio Grande. At least half of the $10 million payment would be dedicated to retiring the public debt of the Republic of Texas.

The Boundary Act also provided "That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything contained in the 3rd article of the 2nd section of the "Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States," approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of Texas, or otherwise.

Texas voters accepted the proposal with a three to one majority, and Governor Bell signed the act on November 25, 1850.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 28, 2014)

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mgb02

BOUNDARIES. In the middle of the twentieth century the boundaries of Texas were 2,845.3 miles long, counting the great arc of the Gulf Coast line and only the larger river bends. If the smaller meanderings of the rivers and the tidewater coast line were followed, the boundary was 4,137 miles long and enclosed 263,644 square miles of land and 3,695 square miles of water surface. The location of Texas boundaries has been the subject of international and interstate conflict resulting in treaties, litigation, and commissions from 1736 to the present. Controversy over details continues, as the tidelands controversy and the Chamizal disputeqqv illustrate. In 1995 the state legislature authorized a Red River Boundary Commission to fix the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas, where the still-shifting Red River has frequently changed course and muddied the issue for two centuries.

The eastern boundary was the first to become the subject of controversy and the first to be marked definitely. Both Spain and France claimed the area of present Texas, and by 1716 Spanish presidios at Los Adaes and French trading posts at Natchitoches were separated by only a few miles. In 1736 the commanders at the two outposts agreed on the Arroyo Hondo, a Red River tributary between the Sabine River and Natchitoches, as the boundary between Louisiana and New Spain. After Louisiana was ceded to Spain in 1762, the Arroyo Hondo continued to be regarded as the boundary between the province of Louisiana, a subdivision of the captaincy-general of Cuba, and the province of Texas, a subdivision of the commandancy-general of the Provincias Internas. When the United States purchased Louisiana in 1803, the boundary of the purchase was not defined, but early in 1804 President Thomas Jefferson decided that the territory extended to the Rio Grande. To refute this claim Spain began to investigate her historic claim to the Texas area; Father Melchor de Talamantes and later José Antonio Pichardoqqv made detailed studies of the limits of Louisiana and Texas. While they made academic investigations of the historic boundaries, Spanish forces, in 1806, moved east of the Sabine River to repel an anticipated invasion by Aaron Burr. In order to avert a clash, James Wilkinson and Simón de Herrera,qqv the United States and Spanish military commanders, entered into an agreement that established the Neutral Ground, the area between the Arroyo Hondo and the Sabine River, as a buffer. The makeshift arrangement lasted until 1819, when the Adams-Onís Treaty between Spain and the United States defined the eastern boundary of Texas as beginning at the mouth of the Sabine River, continuing along the west bank of the river to its intersection with the thirty-second parallel, and running due north from that intersection to the Red River. Spain delayed ratification of the Adams-Onís Treaty until 1821. By that time Mexico had declared her independence of Spain and refused to recognize the treaty boundary line. In 1828, after repeated efforts by the United States, the Mexican administration agreed to a survey of the 1819 line, but the Mexican congress refused to confirm the survey treaty until 1832, and then the line remained unsurveyed. Meanwhile, between 1819 and 1836 the Neches River was occasionally advanced as the eastern boundary of Texas. In 1840–41 a survey was made of that portion of the line between the Republic of Texas and the United States from the Gulf of Mexico to the Red River by a joint commission representing the two countries.

On July 5, 1848, the United States Congress passed an act giving its consent to the state of Texas to move its eastern boundary from the west bank of the Sabine River (including Sabine Pass and Sabine Lakeqqv to the middle of that stream, and on November 24, 1849, the Texas legislature enacted a law to that effect. The boundary was unchallenged from that time until November 27, 1941, when Louisiana governor Sam Jones wrote Texas governor Coke Stevenson, asserting that Louisiana's western border was the west bank of the Sabine River. Louisiana's claim rested on United States treaties of 1819 with Spain, 1828 with Mexico, and 1838 with the Republic of Texas, all of which designated the west bank of the Sabine as the boundary of the United States. However, the boundary of the United States at the west bank of the Sabine River was not identical to that of the Louisiana boundary, which extended only to the middle of the river. The state of Louisiana contended that the United States was negotiating on Louisiana's behalf and consequently had no authority to grant Texas the western half of the river in the act of 1848. It was more than twenty-seven years after Governor Jones's letter to Governor Stevenson before Louisiana participated in any legal proceedings. United States district judge Robert Van Pelt, special master for the United States Supreme Court, heard the claims and recommended to the court, in a report filed in May 1972, that the boundary between Texas and Louisiana should be the geographic middle of the Sabine River, Sabine Lake, and Sabine Pass. He also recommended that Louisiana be awarded all islands that existed in the river on April 8, 1812 (the date Louisiana was admitted to the Union), subject, however, to any claims that Texas might make to any such islands by reason of acquiescence and prescription; that all islands formed in the eastern half of the Sabine River since 1812 be awarded to Louisiana; and that all islands formed in the western half of the river since 1812 be awarded to Texas. Sixty-one square miles of the river and lake was involved in the dispute; at stake were more than 35,000 acres of land, four producing oil wells, and $2.6 million in oil lease bonuses collected by Texas. Both states filed exceptions to the recommendations by the special master in July 1972, and after answers to each state's exceptions the Supreme Court was to rule on the master's report. The case was argued before the court in December 1972; the court's ruling came early in March 1973, saying, in effect, that the boundary was the geographic middle of the Sabine River. However, the case was sent back to the special master for further study in regard to the ownership of islands and also to determine the extension of the boundary into the Gulf of Mexico.

Except for the possible claim of the Rio Grande as the western boundary for the Louisiana purchase, the western boundary of Texas had no significance in international relations and practically no mention in Mexican interstate relations before Texas independence. In 1721 the Medina River was considered the boundary between Texas and Coahuila; in 1811 the Nueces River was the boundary between Texas and Tamaulipas. Provisions of the secret treaty of Velasco, which bound the Mexican army to retreat beyond the Rio Grande and Texas not to claim land beyond that river, was the beginning of the Texas claim to the Rio Grande as the western boundary. On December 19, 1836, the First Congress of the republic declared the southern and western boundary of Texas to be the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source and thence a line due north to the forty-second parallel. The Texan Santa Fe expedition of 1841 was an unsuccessful attempt to assert Texas authority in the New Mexico area embraced in that land claim. Texas claimed the same western limits after annexation. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) affirmed the Rio Grande boundary to El Paso as the international boundary, but the Texas claim to New Mexico, then occupied by United States troops, remained in dispute. Texas decreed a county, Santa Fe County, to include the area, but the people of New Mexico protested the Texas claim. After prolonged debate in Congress and the Texas newspapers and near-armed dispute, an adjustment was reached in the Compromise of 1850. The compromise line ran the Texas western boundary from El Paso east along the thirty-second parallel to the 103d meridian, up that meridian to 36°30" latitude, and along that line to the 100th meridian, thence down the 100th meridian to the Red River. The thirty-six-thirty line was chosen since Texas was a slave state and that line had been established in 1820 as the Missouri Compromise line between slave and free territory in the Louisiana Purchase. After 1850 the line was apparently fixed, but the boundary was not. An error in the surveying of the western line gave Texas a strip about two miles wide west of the 103d meridian; Congress confirmed the boundary, as surveyed, in a joint resolution of February 16, 1911. Shifts in the channel of the Rio Grande necessitated other changes. In 1929 the Supreme Court assigned to Texas 25,000 acres of former New Mexican land lying on the western side of the channel of the river. The Rio Grande Rectification Project, authorized in 1933, provided for the exchange of 3,500 acres of land, part of it in the El Paso area, between the United States and Mexico. The International Boundary and Water Commission is a permanent agency with jurisdiction over the boundary questions on the Rio Grande.

As defined in the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, the northern and northwestern boundary of Texas followed the course of the Red River westward to the 100th meridian and north along that meridian to the Arkansas River, the whole line as depicted in the Melish map of 1818. Then the Compromise of 1850 placed the north line of the Panhandle at 36°30". No problem arose over this boundary until 1858, when A. H. Jones and H. M. Brown, who had been employed to locate the 100th meridian in making surveys of grants to various Indian tribes, discovered that the Melish map had erroneously located that meridian 100 miles too far east. In 1852 Randolph B. Marcy discovered that there were two main branches of the Red River lying between the Melish line and the 100th meridian. The supposedly correct meridian was surveyed in 1860, the same year that the Texas legislature decreed Greer County. Because of the Civil War and Reconstruction,qqv Greer County was not organized until 1886 and was in process of being settled when the United States land commissioner protested the Texas claim to the land north of the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River. The controversy went to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled on March 16, 1896, that the Texas boundary was the south or Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River and the astronomical 100th meridian.
The northern boundary again became controversial in 1919, when Texas drillers discovered oil in the bed of the Red River just north of Burkburnett. Oklahoma claimed the bed of the river and sued Texas for title in the Supreme Court. The Greer County case had defined the Texas boundary as the south bank of the Red River, but Texas claimed that the south bank in 1919 was not the same as the south bank at the time of the Melish map and the treaty of 1819. The contest became a three-cornered suit, with Oklahoma claiming the entire riverbed, Texas claiming title to the south half, and the United States disputing both claims and asserting ownership of the south half as trustee for the Indians. The decision in the four-year suit was rendered on January 15, 1923. In it the Supreme Court defined a riverbank as the bank cut by the normal flow of water, or where vegetation stopped, gave Oklahoma the north half of the bed and political control of the entire bed, and gave the United States the south half of the bed as trustee for the Indians, but allowed Texas to retain control of the oil wells in the floodplain between the riverbanks. To prevent further dispute, the court ordered a survey of the south bank as it was in 1819 and the placing of concrete markers along the survey line. The report of Arthur Kidder and Arthur H. Stiles, the commissioners who made the survey, was accepted on April 25, 1927.

In the meantime, in 1920 Texas sued Oklahoma on the grounds that the surveys of the 100th meridian made in 1858 and 1860 had erroneously placed that meridian a half mile too far west. Surveys made in 1892 and 1902 had not solved the problem of ownership of an area 134 miles long and between 3,600 and 3,700 feet wide. One Oklahoma resident complained that she had not moved a foot in forty-five years but had lived in one territory, two states, and three counties. In 1927 the Supreme Court ordered Samuel S. Gannett to survey the meridian. He worked from 1927 to 1929, largely at night to avoid the aberrations of heat waves, and placed concrete markers at every two-thirds of a mile. The court ruled in 1930 that the Gannett line was the true meridian. Oklahoma tried unsuccessfully to buy back the strip that the Texas legislature incorporated in 1931 in Lipscomb, Hemphill, Wheeler, Childress, and Collingsworth counties. Higgins was the only town in the ceded area. See also NECHES RIVER BOUNDARY CLAIM, TREATIES OF VELASCO.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bunyan H. Andrew, "Some Queries Concerning the Texas-Louisiana Sabine Boundary," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 53 (July 1949). Jacqueline Eckert, International Law and United States-Mexican Boundary Relations (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, 1939). Grant Foreman, "Red River and the Spanish Boundary in the Supreme Court," Chronicles of Oklahoma 2 (March 1924). Herbert P. Gambrell and Lewis W. Newton, A Social and Political History of Texas (Dallas: Southwest Press, 1932). Charles W. Hackett, ed., Pichardo's Treatise on the Limits of Louisiana and Texas (4 vols., Austin: University of Texas Press, 1931–46). J. Evetts Haley, The XIT Ranch of Texas and the Early Days of the Llano Estacado (Chicago: Lakeside, 1929; rpts., Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953, 1967). Webb L. Moore, The Greer County Question (San Marcos, Texas: Press of the San Marcos Record, 1939).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 28, 2014)

So anyway, going back to the original agreement for annexation of Texas 1845, we would control all lands and be able to use said lands to resolve debts of the Republic of Texas. Those debts and boundaries were resolved in the boundary agreement of 1850. Than the oil boom sparked some bullshit with Oklahoma (which used to be part of Texas to begin with) on the Red River northern boundary. The Red River like any other river, changes as it floods and recedes. Well the law suit went before the Supreme court and was resolved as Oklahoma maintaining its southern border as to the middle of the northern red river, while Texas got fucked out of the southern portion under a Native American trust agreement.

Problem, is much of these lands are privately owned, they reside within Texas 1850 boundary agreement, however, the federal government asserted ownership by trust for native Americans.

Well recently, the BLM asserted ownership to the flood plain, meaning the southern boundary of the Red river where it might flood too. These lands are also privately owned and managed by Texan’s.

So what does this all mean? Texas entered into the union under very clear agreements, we ceded lands to clear debts, and established a border of the Red River, Not the bottom half, not the midway point, we ceded all lands “north” of the red river (i.e. we should hold title to all lands and waters south of the northern border of the red river). Meanwhile, we have Texas land owners with title to lands, being acquired by the BLM/Federal government, in complete contrast to our annexation agreement of 1845 and our boundary agreement of 1850, at it is all be done under the notion that the Supreme Court and our Federal gov’t can change agreements that were made between two Independent nations, the Republic of Texas and the United States. We lost over half of our lands, and we are still losing lands, it really is ridicules.


----------



## Scotth (Apr 28, 2014)

Jab I feel like I back in school with a huge reading assignment tonight.

Thanks for all the good info.


----------



## AWP (Apr 28, 2014)

Heh.... @JAB made me think of the engineering student know-it-all with his posts. Now I have to run to Wikipedia for a rebuttal.


----------



## Dame (Apr 28, 2014)

Really excellent explanation by a Texas rancher on how the BLM interprets things to their own advantage.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 28, 2014)

The top two posts are historical documents I copied and pasted to save on time, the write up is educational piece that I included the link for. The last post is my personal opinion based on the 3 prior posts. No wikipedia or BS stuff, just wanted to paint the proper picture within the framework of the way the annexation agreement was made, the way the boundaries were made, how the Red River came into the Supreme Court, and why all of it is bullshit and IMHO voids the annexation agreement with the United States.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 28, 2014)

Good find Dame, thank you


----------



## AWP (Apr 29, 2014)

JAB said:


> The top two posts are historical documents I copied and pasted to save on time, the write up is educational piece that I included the link for. The last post is my personal opinion based on the 3 prior posts. No wikipedia or BS stuff, just wanted to paint the proper picture within the framework of the way the annexation agreement was made, the way the boundaries were made, how the Red River came into the Supreme Court, and why all of it is bullshit and IMHO voids the annexation agreement with the United States.


 
I'm busting your balls, no more. My apologies if the initial sarcasm wasn't clear.


----------



## Dame (Apr 29, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> Good find Dame, thank you


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 29, 2014)




----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 26, 2016)

Saw this posted on Vice News Facebook page. Looks like 1 person is dead after Bundy is stopped at a traffic stop and a shootout ensued.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 26, 2016)

Yeah those fucktards are just asking for life in prison or death by 5.56 injection.


----------



## talonlm (Jan 27, 2016)

Whether or not you believe they're right, those "fucktards" believed enough in what they're doing to do it in the first place. 

I think this situation actually just got a lot worse.  With no leader, no spokesperson and minimal control over the message getting out, their chances for a peaceful settlement that addresses their concerns are pretty slim.  The federal government is applying more pressure and obviously being more proactive than they have been recently.  So what is the endgame of the occupiers?  Surrender?  Suicide?  Bundy's Last Stand? 

If they don't fight, they lose any credibility they have and they all wind up with felony charges--no vote, no firearms, jail time, fines-- in addition to losing everything they claim they were fighting for.  If they do, they're the new heroes of the militia crowd (and, more likely than not, martyrs) but they'll also make pariahs of the stronger conservative beliefs the nation over. 

Does anyone think they thought this through to this point?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2016)

The other thing, is what the videos (if any) show of the actual stop.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 27, 2016)

talonlm said:


> Whether or not you believe they're right, those "fucktards" believed enough in what they're doing to do it in the first place.
> 
> I think this situation actually just got a lot worse.  With no leader, no spokesperson and minimal control over the message getting out, their chances for a peaceful settlement that addresses their concerns are pretty slim.  The federal government is applying more pressure and obviously being more proactive than they have been recently.  So what is the endgame of the occupiers?  Surrender?  Suicide?  Bundy's Last Stand?
> 
> ...



The problem is they went to a community they are not part of, with weapons, seized a building, and issued ultimatums. They did this with a political intent to cause influence on the federal government. This legally is a act of terrorism. Agree or disagree with the message, is moot and the local, state and federal governments cannot allow this to take place, as it will happen everywhere over any thing.

I actually agree that the federal government has seized lands, that they shouldn't have, that these"ranchers" have legitimate grievances. However, the method they chose was foolish and only left the government two options. 1) allow them to leave peaceful and arrests them at a later date (this method has been attempted for several weeks with no success), or 2) arrest them through force (the current attempts taking place).

What will likely take place now, is the "militia" will dig in and ready for a fight, they will be emotional about the killing of one of their "leaders" after two-three days a few will realize their situation and bailout in the middle of the night. A few will remain. The FBI will wait a few more days, allowing the small remaining group to weaken their defense's, become more complacent, and than they will conduct an assault. Those who give up will live to face life in prison, those who fight will die.

This ain't the first rodeo for the FBI, they have evolved and learned. 

These "militia" members have one last chance to make it out alive and face some criminal charges. If they don't they will be fucked either way. Ball is in their court, play stupid games win stupid prizes.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 28, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> The problem is they went to a community they are not part of, with weapons, seized a building, and issued ultimatums. They did this with a political intent to cause influence on the federal government. This legally is a act of terrorism. Agree or disagree with the message, is moot and the local, state and federal governments cannot allow this to take place, as it will happen everywhere over any thing.
> 
> I actually agree that the federal government has seized lands, that they shouldn't have, that these"ranchers" have legitimate grievances. However, the method they chose was foolish and only left the government two options. 1) allow them to leave peaceful and arrests them at a later date (this method has been attempted for several weeks with no success), or 2) arrest them through force (the current attempts taking place).
> 
> ...




Called it...lol


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

Here's the video of the shooting






Skip to 5:40


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Here's the video of the shooting
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am guessing by the way he collapsed he was shot in the head. Looks like he was surrendering and than starts reaching in his jacket. Hard to tell...


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 29, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> This legally is a act of terrorism.


While I am not arguing in support of or against what has gone on, from a strictly legal standpoint, this is incorrect. The FBI definition of terrorism clearly defines the criteria for a federal charge of terrorism:


> 18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
> 
> 
> Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; *and*
> Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).


Also, consider that the warrants put out for their arrest are for interference in a federal officer's duties, and not for terrorism. Most legal definitions of terrorism involve violent acts against non-combatants. Such as the Department of State:


> Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.


 or even the much looser definition provided by the United Nations: 





> any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act



EDIT: If you look at 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, the "creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States" would make it near impossible for the state to argue that their occupation of the empty refuge caused any risk to a citizen.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 29, 2016)

Was a take down and not a traffic stop.

Why all the redactions on the video feed?  Pred footage?

Good roadblock

They did not think things at all (amateurs), how they thought they could leave the compound and not get rolled is beyond belief.


----------



## AWP (Jan 29, 2016)




----------



## AKkeith (Jan 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> They did not think things at all (amateurs), how they thought they could leave the compound and not get rolled is beyond belief.



I was surprised to see this as well. They thought their freedom of movement was going to uninhibited forever? Then to take, what seems to be, all of the leaders to a single point and all travel in one vehicle. Seems they didn't think things through too well.


----------



## AWP (Jan 29, 2016)

This is kind of funny. A prepper site outing the militia's radio capabilities, frequencies, etc. I saw a few "odd" things when skimming the article, but it can be summed with "What a bunch of maroons." I really like how the radios display their frequencies. Amateur hour all around.

Militia Radio Frequencies



> This article focuses on some of the radio gear and channel frequencies utilized by various groups. Radio comms now play an active role in armed confrontations, as part of rump militia training, in outreach, and in organizing groups.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2016)

well... being honest, military radios display their freq's as well, unless your commo dude's got the brains to actually name the channels. It's the default configuration for those baeofangs anyway, and those SDR radios are glorious anyway since they default to chinese for the menus and shit out the box plus as a default. Plus, as they're using MURS freq's, every person with one of those radios can also get hit with FCC charges because it's not like they all really, you know, fall under a family license, nor are using type rated equipment on freq.... but, it gives interoperability between everything from those radios running out of band, to motorola talkabout handhelds, to MURS intended handhelds, as well as some mobile and repeater units... 

It's not like someone with a freq counter with a memory function couldn't have just walked around to get those freq's anyway, and as it is, crypto for civvie radios is generally a PITA to get.  Closest thing you can do is digital, which only "protects" against immediate eavesdropping from standard scanners. All the digital protocols have open-source decoders anyway, but encryption happens at a layer higher (usually) so it goes "information to be sent, either data or voice or both>encrypted>digitally encoded>transmitted".


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> While I am not arguing in support of or against what has gone on, from a strictly legal standpoint, this is incorrect. The FBI definition of terrorism clearly defines the criteria for a federal charge of terrorism:
> 
> Also, consider that the warrants put out for their arrest are for interference in a federal officer's duties, and not for terrorism. Most legal definitions of terrorism involve violent acts against non-combatants. Such as the Department of State:
> or even the much looser definition provided by the United Nations:
> ...


I stand corrected, it was my understanding that the threat and or planning of any such events qualified the terrorism charge. That is obviously incorrect, thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> well... being honest, military radios display their freq's as well, unless your commo dude's got the brains to actually name the channels. It's the default configuration for those baeofangs anyway, and those SDR radios are glorious anyway since they default to chinese for the menus and shit out the box plus as a default. Plus, as they're using MURS freq's, every person with one of those radios can also get hit with FCC charges because it's not like they all really, you know, fall under a family license, nor are using type rated equipment on freq.... but, it gives interoperability between everything from those radios running out of band, to motorola talkabout handhelds, to MURS intended handhelds, as well as some mobile and repeater units...
> 
> It's not like someone with a freq counter with a memory function couldn't have just walked around to get those freq's anyway, and as it is, crypto for civvie radios is generally a PITA to get.  Closest thing you can do is digital, which only "protects" against immediate eavesdropping from standard scanners. All the digital protocols have open-source decoders anyway, but encryption happens at a layer higher (usually) so it goes "information to be sent, either data or voice or both>encrypted>digitally encoded>transmitted".



A lot can be coded with a simple alpha/numeric grid code sheet.

I know my old platoon used XV1100's with a daily change of program w/freq and private code hop. Not really an encryption but our commo dude said it was GTG. That lasted until we got ICOM, with encryption fill, which sucked compared to the XV100's. About a third of the range and horrible clarity in transmission.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2016)

And this is where communications neophytes, like 99.98% of commo guys in the entire army outside of SOF commo, make me sad.

Not to not just rain, but shit all over your parade like an angry orangutan from a treetop, but all those "private codes" are, is configurable tone squelch. That's it. 

What that means, is that there's a subaudible tone that is transmitted with your transmission you send WHICH IS IN THE CLEAR, which when heard by another radio, makes the RECEIVER open squelch and you hear whatever is being transmitted.  

Anyone with.. well, any rudimentary grade bubble pack ham radio like those baofengs, could not only hear every single transmission you sent, but also would have been able to determine what tone you were using, and could have just rubber band held down a PTT button on a plugged into the wall handheld and you would have been listening to Rick Astley or whatever the hell they wanted, especially if they had a higher wattage transmitter than you. AKA Jamming.  In fact, basically all amateur handhelds you can buy worldwide out-power that radio wattage wise by 4 watts, and mobile units at 35+ watts would ensure you'd never get a message across at all, as changing freqs only takes 3 keystrokes to open up a visual spectrum analyzer and determine what frequency you're on now, and another 2 to determine the PL tone, then you're never gonna transmit a status up, no matter how you want to tell higher how you're feeling.  

And you would have been able to dick all about it, since it's not like your average radio operator humps around a directional antenna to even try to determine where something's coming from so you can go and blow it up or whatever.

Those radios are also completely incapable of doing anything remotely resembling frequency hopping.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Not to not just rain, but shit all over your parade.



Love it!

That's completely different than how it was explained to me, but not at all surprised as I'm sure the same guy who explained it was the driving force in buying those radios. That said, encryption (or lack there of) those radios worked way better than the ICOM's we eventually were issued.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 29, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> And this is where communications neophytes, like 99.98% of commo guys in the entire army outside of SOF commo, make me sad.
> 
> Not to not just rain, but shit all over your parade like an angry orangutan from a treetop, but all those "private codes" are, is configurable tone squelch. That's it.
> 
> ...


I feel like I learned something very important today.


----------



## Brill (Jan 29, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> And this is where communications neophytes, like 99.98% of commo guys in the entire army outside of SOF commo, make me sad.
> 
> Not to not just rain, but shit all over your parade like an angry orangutan from a treetop, but all those "private codes" are, is configurable tone squelch. That's it.
> 
> ...



Why the fuck don't you work for Harris?..or a USG agency that needs people who know this shit?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 30, 2016)

I was but a lowly Infantryman in the Army just shy of a decade ago. Even with the war's going on, anyone who isn't military and asks what I did generally still thinks along the lines of a campaign hat and tree, not a beret and rifle. I'm only good for carrying heavy things, making rude comments and noises generally directed at the female sex, and flagellation of my manhood either textually, verbally, or physically.

How would *I* know this stuff, eh?

Going further, without knowing me personally like some do here, there's no effective way to be able to articulate intelligence nor adaptability in today's job market which has the first gatekeeper a digital watchman which requires a perfectly postulated resume in the language they want.


----------



## AWP (Jan 30, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> the first gatekeeper a digital watchman which requires a perfectly postulated resume in the language they want.



I wanted to hire you years ago when I was a Lead. When I reached out to my manager who makes those decisions he stated you'd never make it past the gov't (USAF and DoD GS') screeners because of your lack of "communications experience and education".  Instead we've seen the same group of clowns who had the right schools under their belts but bullshit attitudes and ethics. I understand why the policy's in place, but it prevents guys like you who would be an asset from making it to HR's desk. The system presumes formal education guarantees quality and will not budge from that view.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I wanted to hire you years ago when I was a Lead. When I reached out to my manager who makes those decisions he stated you'd never make it past the gov't (USAF and DoD GS') screeners because of your lack of "communications experience and education".  Instead we've seen the same group of clowns who had the right schools under their belts but bullshit attitudes and ethics. I understand why the policy's in place, but it prevents guys like you who would be an asset from making it to HR's desk. The system presumes formal education guarantees quality and will not budge from that view.



:)  Didn't know about it, but I appreciate the effort.  Regarding the process, glorious, isn't it?  

It's ok, this coming week there's an entry level gig I'll be applying for at a semi-local (hour drive) electronics design/manufacture company.  They pride themselves on designing shit right the first time, so the testing prototypes ARE production models (obviously as long as the client doesn't decide they need different specifications) and builds some interesting equipment for the DOD, at least what they advertise out the gate. I really just want to find the right place to be able to "plant my flag" and just do a good job in a good job with a organization that has both people and process intent of the same.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I am guessing by the way he collapsed he was shot in the head. Looks like he was surrendering and than starts reaching in his jacket. Hard to tell...



Yeah looking at it, it sure looks like he reached for something. Knowing they were armed it doesn't surprise me he got smoked.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 1, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> I was but a lowly Infantryman in the Army just shy of a decade ago. Even with the war's going on, anyone who isn't military and asks what I did generally still thinks along the lines of a campaign hat and tree, not a beret and rifle. I'm only good for carrying heavy things, making rude comments and noises generally directed at the female sex, and flagellation of my manhood either textually, verbally, or physically.
> 
> How would *I* know this stuff, eh?
> 
> Going further, without knowing me personally like some do here, there's no effective way to be able to articulate intelligence nor adaptability in today's job market which has the first gatekeeper a digital watchman which requires a perfectly postulated resume in the language they want.



I will attest that the Sasquatch flies in the face of what people think when first meeting him... intelligent, well spoken when he wants to be, and owning a shit pot full of common sense...  along with a size, stature and scowl of a Neanderthal makes for an interesting dichotomy...  but he's a brother and he don't scare me (well, not much...  ok he scares me, dammit - but everything I said is true)


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 1, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> :)  Didn't know about it, but I appreciate the effort.  Regarding the process, glorious, isn't it?
> 
> It's ok, this coming week there's an entry level gig I'll be applying for at a semi-local (hour drive) electronics design/manufacture company.  They pride themselves on designing shit right the first time, so the testing prototypes ARE production models (obviously as long as the client doesn't decide they need different specifications) and builds some interesting equipment for the DOD, at least what they advertise out the gate. I really just want to find the right place to be able to "plant my flag" and just do a good job in a good job with a organization that has both people and process intent of the same.


You are self taught vis-a-vis computer/networking skills?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 10, 2016)

Live stream from the Oregon standoff:


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 9, 2016)

Uh Oh.....


Fatal shooting of Oregon occupier deemed justified, but FBI team faces investigation

"An elite FBI hostage rescue team is under investigation after one or more federal agents apparently lied or failed to admit that they shot at Oregon occupier Robert “LaVoy” Finicum during a fatal showdown in January, officials revealed Tuesday."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 9, 2016)

Oh man...I have a brother-in-law who may be literally creaming his jeans right now.

In other news...

Facebook overloads and shuts down.  Government is to blame...


----------



## RetPara (Mar 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Oh man...I have a brother-in-law who may be literally creaming his jeans right now.
> 
> In other news...
> 
> ...


UAV Control Station.....


----------

