On Monday's CNN Newsroom, Deborah Feyerick touted how anonymous "critics" were likening Ammon Bundy's group that took over a wildlife refuge facility in Oregon to Islamist terrorists: "Everybody remembers Ruby Ridge...and the government certainly does not want something like that. But...critics are arguing that if this was another group...there are different hashtags out there now mocking this group, calling them 'Vanilla ISIS;' calling them 'Yeehadists'....if this were members of ISIS...who had taken over a facility, is it fair to say the response would, in fact, be very, very different?" [video below]
Correspondent Sara Sidner first cited such chatter on social media during her report on the armed protest: "They've been here for now two days — going into a third day — and that has a lot of folks talking on social media, as you might imagine. There's a lot of criticism — saying, well, if there were armed militia that took over, for example, another kind of government building, and they happen to be African-American; or they happen to be Muslims — that the response would be very different. We can't say that."
Feyerick then turned to CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson for his take on the issue. She first asked, "So Joey, just listening to Sara's report, and also knowing that the head of this, Ammon Bundy, is walking in and out, giving interviews, he must have control of the situation. You've got dozens of white, American, so-called patriots who have taken control over this. Where is the federal government?"
Jackson answered, in part, that "we will see the federal government. What the response will be, however, remains an open question." The fill-in anchor followed up by likening the protest to a previous movement on the left: "Last night, Bundy Tweeted that, 'We are not terrorists. We are men who believe in our rights.' But...he's also said that they're planning on staying there, perhaps, for years...if need be. This is like a real sort of Occupy movement, and there's even a hashtag to that effect."
Later in the segment, Feyerick hyped the "Vanilla ISIS" and "Yeehadists" attacks on Bundy's group by liberals online. The analyst replied, "I think it's a legitimate concern. I think it's a legitimate argument to have — that the government's response would be different." However, Jackson soon added that "I think as an initial matter, if it can resolve itself peacefully, we all benefit, as opposed to the government coming in and using heavy-handed tactics that they have the resources, of course, we know, to use."
The transcript of the relevant portion of Sara Sidner's report, along with the full transcript of the Joey Jackson segment from January 4, 2016 edition of CNN Newsroom:
DEBORAH FEYERICK: And, Sara, just very quickly, do you see any, sort of, National Guardsmen; any police; any federal agents — either FBI, ATF — anybody who is there keeping an eye directly on the situation and these men who are inside this wildlife refuge?
[CNN Graphic: "Oregon Face-Off: Armed Protesters Take Over Federal Building; Group leader: 'If force is used against us, we would defend ourselves;' Anti-Govt. Protest Leads To School Closures"]
SARA SIDNER: That's a really good question; and the answer to — to that is, no. There are no members of law enforcement out here that we can see. And it is a very flat land; so, we'd be able to see any cars that were out here. There's nobody from the federal government; nobody from the local government that we have seen out here.
They've been here for now two days — going into a third day — and that has a lot of folks talking on social media, as you might imagine. There's a lot of criticism — saying, well, if there were armed militia that took over, for example, another kind of government building, and they happen to be African-American; or they happen to be Muslims — that the response would be very different. We can't say that. All we know is that the response here — that there is no law enforcement right now. However, we are told from the local sheriff's department that, indeed, they will be setting up a command center shortly. So. we're not sure exactly when that's going to happen, but that is planned for today.
[CNN Graphic: "FBI Working To Bring 'Peaceful' End To Protest; Father-Son Ranchers Head To Prison Today: Convicted arsonists' family distances itself from protesters"]
FEYERICK: All right. Sara Sidner for us there, keeping an eye on the situation — thanks so much. We'll check back in with you a little later on.
And with me now to talk about the legal issues of this protest: CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. So Joey, just listening to Sara's report, and also knowing that — that the head of this, Ammon Bundy, is walking in and out, giving interviews, he must have control of the situation. You've got dozens of white, American, so-called patriots who have taken control over this—
JOEY JACKSON: Right—
FEYERICK: Where is the federal government?
JACKSON: All right. Well, let's start generally, Deb — good morning, by the way—
FEYERICK: Good morning—
JACKSON: And then, specifically. There are many people, of course, across the country that have grievances with the federal government — very principled grievances that are held near and dear to their heart. However, there's a legal way in which to go about that.
Now, the federal government, where they are now exactly — don't know. But remember — you know, it's a matter between escalating and de-escalating. So I'm sure they're weighing their options. The fact is, is that whenever you occupy federal property and go onto federal property, there's some criminality that's associated with that — you know, with regard to trespassing — how did they get into the federal building? They're indicating they're — they're going to occupy it for as ever long as it takes—
FEYERICK: Right—
JACKSON: Those are criminal actions. And so, there's a way in which to resolve things — no matter what your grievance is with the government — but those are through courts of law, not necessarily instances like this. I think we will see the federal government. What the response will be, however, remains an open question.
FEYERICK: And last night, Bundy Tweeted that, 'We are not terrorists. We are men who believe in our rights.' But they've also — he's also said that they're planning on staying there, perhaps, for years if that — if need be. This is like a real sort of Occupy movement, and there's even a hashtag to that effect—
JACKSON: Yeah—
FEYERICK: So — so, have authorities lost vital ground in trying to get these people out?
JACKSON: You know, Deb, I think authorities have to be very careful about what the response is going to be here; because, remember: these are people who are occupying this space who, again, feel they have a very principled disagreement with the government regarding government treatment; regarding their sovereignty as people to occupy whatever space and land they want to occupy. And so, when the government comes in, these people are armed. And so, how is it going to resolve itself? Is there going to be negotiations, so that the people will — their grievances could be heard and, potentially, respected and could be resolved peacefully; or is there going to be a shootout with the government, where people's lives are going to be lost? And I think the government, assessing their response — they have to be very mindful of the potential consequences that could come about as a result of that.
FEYERICK: Sure, we all — everybody remembers Ruby Ridge; everybody remembers many bad things that happened; and the government certainly does not want something like that. But, you know, critics are arguing that if this was another group — you know, there are — there are different hashtags out there now mocking this group—
JACKSON: I've seen them—
FEYERICK: Calling them 'Vanilla ISIS;' calling them 'Yeehadists.' They're sort of making fun of the people in that building. But, at the same time, if this were members of ISIS, or proclaimed members of ISIS who had taken over a facility, is it fair to say the response would, in fact, be very, very different?
JACKSON: I think it's a legitimate concern. I think it's a legitimate argument to have — that the government's response would be different. However, if you're looking at the government resolving things, there's ways to resolve them. And I think the initial way — and we've talked about this — even as it applies to state responses — you know, there has to be a — sort of, a use of force continuum up the line. And first, of course, I think it would be incumbent upon the government to speak to them and attempt to resolve it peacefully. After that ends, perhaps, it will move to the issue of escalation. It will move to force. I think you may see the government — you know, have a show of force in that area — to say, hey, we're serious. But I think as an initial matter, if it can resolve itself peacefully, we all benefit—
FEYERICK: Right—
JACKSON: As opposed to the government coming in and using heavy-handed tactics that they have the resources, of course, we know, to use.
FEYERICK: And to be clear: the protest had started peacefully. There were two ranchers who were going back into prison because they failed to serve maximum — or minimum maximum penalties on the crimes that they committed — both endangering firefighters, but also poaching on their land. So, from that, it was—
JACKSON: That was a very big issue, too — yeah—
FEYERICK: That was a huge issue, so it's not in a vacuum that this happens. Joey Jackson, thanks so much for your insights, as always—
JACKSON: My pleasure, Deb — thank you.
