Regarding the radical paramilitants who have taken over a federal bird sanctuary in Oregon to defend arsonists and poachers (and whose supporters have issued death threats for months against the local sheriff for not using his Mythical Constitutional Sheriff Superpowers), there has been a little discussion over whether or not they should be called terrorists. Well, there’s a better term, and it’s a doozy (boldface mine):
18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Seditious conspiracists. I can work with that. It does avoid pointless arguments about whether or not these particular bozos are terrorists, while aptly and correctly describing what they’re doing.
Related: The Hammonds burned 139 acres to cover up evidence of poaching. To put 139 acres in context, the subdivision in which I lived during part of my childhood was around 20 acres. The Dupont Circle neighborhood in D.C. is 170 acres. The ‘heart’ of Boston’s Back Bay (the rectangle bounded by Boylston, Beacon, Arlington, and Massachusetts Ave.) is about 160 acres. This is not a backyard fire that gets out of control.