I know you guys all think these oregon militia guys are assholes, but please just hear me out:
This is more than just a charge of arson. This is about corrupt practices that they are fighting against.
The two people who are in jail are Dwight Lincoln Hammond and Steven Dwight Hammond. They were charged for arson(forest fires) in 2001 and 2006. The 2001 case was purportedly done to cover illegal poaching, and the 2006 fire endangered volunteer firefighters who were nearby. In the 2001 case, they lit a fire and it spread into government property. BUT, what you weren't told, is that in the 2001 fire, the Bureai of Land Management(BLM) who owned the government land, did NOT have a burn ban. They were also found not guilty of poaching. In the 2006 case the Hammonds lit the fire to protect themselves, although there was a burn ban. In the 2006 case, a bolt of lightning struck a tree and caused a fire. The Hammonds, wanting to prevent the fire from spreading onto their land and even potentially their homes, lit a fire to control the other fire, a common tactic used in firefighting.
The day after this the BLM had them arrested for arson, but the DA dropped the charges against them because he knew he wouldn't get a conviction.
5 years passed, and then the BLM, who had been interested in taking the Hammond's land for a while now, tried to have them charged again. Except, this time they were charged with violating the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This Bill has a clause for arson that states that
"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They keyword here is MALICIOUSLY. They did not the light the fire with the intention to do harm, they did it to protect their property. To add on to this, there's actually evidence that the Hammonds were given an unfair trial. To start with, The DA prosecuting them was given 6 days to prepare a case, and the Hammond's attorney was only given 1. On top of this, one of the witnesses was Dusty Hammond, only 13 at the time of the 2001 fire and at the time of the trial had mental problems. The judge even admitted that Dusty was not a credible witness yet used his testimony anyway. And finally, the DA and the Judge picked jurors who did not understand rancher rules or customs and lived far away, sometimes having to drive 2 hours just to get to the courtroom.
They were found guilty and the judge decided to give them less than the minimum 5 years, 3 months for Dwight and 12 months for Steven. They served their time, and then when they got out, the BLM appealed to the 9th District Federal Court, to resentence them and have them serve the full 5 years. Oddly enough, during the proceedings, the Hammonds were ordered that if they were to ever sell their land, they would have to sell it to the BLM.
However, this is only the surface level, if we go back decades, you'll find the BLM has a long history of using questionable practices to obtain land. In the 1970's the BLM wanted to possess the land adjacent to the Blitzen Valley. This land was to be added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Many ranchers willingly sold their land, however a few, including the Hammonds, refused to. Realizing that some couldn't be bought, they changed their tactics. The first thing they did, was revoke the rancher's permits and raised the fee for ranchers to graze their land because according to them, grazing was detrimental to wildlife(a 1975 study by the BLM actually found the opposite, that the BLM's land policies actually drove away wildlife and not the ranchers). In 1980, the BLM diverted water away from vast meadow lands into the rising Malheur Lakes. Eventually, this lead to flooding, destroying many of the rancher's lands. Many were forced to sell their land, but some like Hammond did not.
In 1990, the Hammond filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the right to water from Oregon. The BLM challenged their right to water in the Oregon State Circuit Court. The case was struck down. In 1994, the BLM began illegally building a fence around the Hammonds' water source. The Hammonds tried to stop them and the BLM called the police and had them arrested. After this, the BLM tried to barricade a road that the Hammonds had to go through to get to their house. The Hammonds tore the barricades down and the BLM responded by revoking their part of their grazing permit. This lead to considerable financial hardship.
This protest is not just a group of paranoid assholes who think the illuminati is trying to take their rights away. This is response to a legitimate and sustained effort by the Bureau of Land Management to force the Hammond family to give up their land even with methods that are questionable. I highly recommend everyone google the history of the Bureau of Land Management starting with "BLM land grab texas". This is not an isolated incident. The BLM has been known to use violent often illegal methods to obtain people's land. It's gotten so bad that the governor of texas is actually calling for the BLM to get the fuck out of texas.