Jan 4, 2016 3 min read

There was a cartoon that appeared on the website of the magazine the New Yorker Monday morning that depicted a bearded, rifle-toting rancher standing in the snow and exclaiming to a reporter, “We’re not terrorists, we just want what any true patriot wants: to take down the United States of America.”

The cartoon referenced the standoff at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service building in rural Oregon that, as of Monday, was in its third day. Since Saturday, a ragtag group of around a dozen armed far-right extremists had taken over the building, threatening to stay for weeks, months, or even years, and they want alleged “patriots” across the country to come and join the fun.

On an extremely slow weekend for news just after New Year’s Day, when most of us were making the last holiday returns, watching football or trying to shake off the lingering effects of Friday’s festivities, the occupation of the structure did set off a compelling debate on the type of nomenclature used to describe the far-right extremists. Were they mere “occupiers” and “protesters,” or were they, in fact, “terrorists?” And would, say, Black Lives Matter activists be described simply as “protesters” if they took over a federal building? Or, as Jannell Ross of The Washington Post pointed out, “If a group of armed Muslims took possession of a federal building or even its lobby to protest calls to surveil the entire group, it’s even more doubtful they could avoid harsher, more-alarming labels.”

But, no matter how they are designated, the extremists are breaking the law, and should be prosecuted once they are evicted from the building, presuming that happens peacefully. One other point must be underscored: the primary beef of the right-wing extremists, that they should be allowed to use federal land to graze their cattle, or that miners and loggers also be allowed to use federal land as they see fit, is entirely without merit.

Two of the protesters are, in fact, the sons of the notorious Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. Bundy, you will recall, engaged in a standoff with federal officials in 2014 when they tried to sieze his herd because Bundy long refused to pay the necesssary fees to have his cattle graze on federal land – he was, essentially, using someone else’s property for his own benefit. Bundy and his followers argued the federal government, in fact, has no right to own any land, and it should be under state sovereignty.

As the website Think Progress points out, however, this argument is, to use their words, “gobbledygook.” The Constitution clearly states the government can own and regulate land, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously backed that up in a 1976 ruling. Much of the land owned by the United States is being held in trust so all Americans can enjoy it, like Yellowstone National Park, to cite one example, or that its habitat can be preserved and protected from development. It’s not for some nefarious, underhanded purpose.

Of course, the proper venue for these extremists to air their grievances would have been through the courts. If they feel like they are getting a raw deal, they should have hired lawyers and gathered evidence. Seizing a federal building makes them nothing more than reckless lawbreakers. They deserve the sympathy and support of absolutely no one.