Even as the occupation reaches day 15, several questions remain unanswered: Why did the government decide to charge the Hammonds under a terrorism statute? Why was it so fixated on a five-year sentence? Did prosecutors renege on a deal not to appeal the original sentence?
For whatever reason, this part of the story troubles me.
I do not agree with the armed occupation of the wildlife refuge, or with the demands that the land be handed over to miners, loggers, and ranchers. But the Hammonds seem to have been unfairly singled out for starting two small fires on their own land, which spread onto a small part of BLM land, and unfairly sentenced as "terrorists." This is what troubles me.