OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Equipment and Frequencies (wordpress.com)

An anonymous reader writes: On January 2, 2016, the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, United States, were occupied by armed members of rump militias in one of the longest-running law enforcement standoff in American history. The Radiomasterreport blog, using publicly available information, wrote an OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Radio Equipment and Frequencies. The research results has astonishing conclusions: far-right patriot militas openly carrying +3000$ AR15 rifles and US military body armour also use cheap 30$ unsecure chinese Baofeng walkie talkie radios with no encryption whatsoever. Any simple ham radio operator , police scanner owner, or even some folks with a Software Defined Radio can receive those militia communications.

Comments

Wannabe soldiers

[spiritplumber]

have no concept of operational security. And now to Ric Romero with the news!

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[OverlordQ]

Well a non-trivial number of these guys are former military and so during that time, they just had some poor asshole who carried the radio and even if they used it, they never had to worry about encryption, it was somebody elses job.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nidi62]

Patriots standing up for civil rights.

I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution. Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.

Also, I like how you complain both about how the police now have to wear body cameras in one sentence and then complain about them turning them off in another. Nice cognitive dissonance there.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[bobbied]

Look, to be fair, off the shelf radios with encryption are not easy to afford and are difficult to manage.

But that doesn't mean they don't have OPSEC here, it just means they don't encrypt the audio. There are other ways to obscure what you are saying enough that the listener may not be able to easily figure out what you are communicating. Using code names for things, altering numeric data in reversible ways all are easy to implement, don't require encrypted radios and provide a measure of OPSEC without the expense or logistical key distribution problems.

Besides, all the tactical information the government really needs would be observable even if they had encrypted radios. The problem is that once you hit that transmit key, it's like you are striking a match in a dark room and revealing your position no matter what you say. Tactically, knowing where things are is the most important, followed by knowing when they are communicating. Anything more is nice, but unnecessary if you are interested in making an armed assault.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nidi62]

Further, the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire.

An "accidental brush fire" that happened to burn up evidence that the two men in question had committed numerous offenses related to poaching and was corroborated by a member of their own family. The two men in question also publicly stated that the people occupying the facility in no way spoke for them, and most of the locals, including local Paiute Indians, wanted the "protesters" to leave as well. As I said several times already, these people committed a modern day Jon Brown's Raid, committed an openly hostile act against the United States government, and should be treated accordingly.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[TsuruchiBrian]

It seems as though a few in the latest standoff have been lying about their military careers.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

>the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire

No, there was no 'double jeopardy'. They were not convicted twice of the same crime. The sentencing judge failed to follow the legal sentencing guidelines, so the State appealed the verdict, and the appellate court imposed the legally mandated sentence. There was no 'double-jeopardy' happening here - that's just dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by morons who don't understand the law.

No, nobody got persecuted for 'accidentally' setting a brush fire. The criminal conviction was for INTENTIONALLY starting a fire on PUBLIC land for the purpose of hiding the evidence of illegal poaching of game animals from that public land.

Again, there is nothing to that 'accidental' story but more dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by morons with a political agenda of violent revolution and anarchy.

And REGARDLESS of the intention behind the illegal acts committed by these anarchists, if you point your weapon at, or charge at or in some other way threaten the police, bad things are gonna happen. Simple as that. It doesn't matter WHAT they thought they were protesting. When you threaten a policeman, you die. I'll bet you're ok with Mike Brown getting killed, and Eric Garner getting killed. Is that because they were black, and black lives do NOT matter to you?

Note carefully how the PEACEFUL and UNARMED protesters of the 'occupy' movement were beaten, maced, and otherwise abused by the police. Were you objecting to that? Or is that different because you didn't happen to agree with their 'cause'? Do you think if some group other than Bundy's Yall-Queida group had done the same thing that the FBI and police would have been so forbearing? If those 'protesters' were black, they'd be called 'armed criminals', and would have been removed from the federal property within 24 hours, probably in body bags. If those 'protesters' were Muslims, they'd be called 'terrorists', and also would have been gone long before now. If they were Native Americans or environmentalists, they'd have been labeled 'armed radicals', and also would have been killed or jailed weeks ago. But no, they're white good ol boys, so they get treated with kid gloves, and are called 'protesters' in the press, rather than the TERRORISTS that they are. There's your 'leftist' media. Not.

This is a classic example of 'white privilege'. For a cop to shoot a white person, the person has to be charging AT the cop. While black people are shot while running AWAY from the cop.
N_J

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[istartedi]

I think you mean Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[bkr1_2k]

The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots.

This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.

And this is the problem with people who spout "left" or "right" instead of thinking for themselves. they over-simplify issues, generalize the "other" as "stupid" or "thoughtless" or just as a whole, rather than as thinking individuals, and they make themselves look like assholes.

The "left" and "right" are both wrong. Thinking about a subject on its merits (rather than because it's your side's point of view) is the only way to rationally and intelligent consider anything.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[WaffleMonster]

I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.

Due to Medias complete and epic inability to provide any useful context as to "why" these people were there in the first place I felt it necessary to waste hours reading legal transcripts of jury and sentencing to try and sort it all out.

It is very easy for someone who lives in cities to make these comments about setting fires portraying the Hammonds as crazed pyromaniacs. Controlled fires are routinely used to control invasive species and pests, reduce potential for dangerous uncontrolled fires, provide for growth of grasses used for grazing. Fires are set regularly to manage public and private lands all over the world. Sometimes controlled fires get out of control and cause unintended damage.

What the Hammonds did was sneaky, dangerous, stupid and illegal. They did not properly get permission to set their fires, they set a fire to cover for illegal deer hunting, trespassing, strong arm a ranger into not telling on him..etc. They were sentenced and did time for their transgressions.

The problem with Hammonds going back to jail has to do with total complete and utter bullshit. A "terrorism" bill invoked by setting of fires even though none of this had anything to do with anything even remotely related to terrorism demands a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. The Judge who originally handed out the sentence deemed this to be way over the top for crime and refused to invoke the mandatory minimum sentence.

Eventually this argument was lost in a higher court who upheld the mandatory minimum sending Hammonds back to jail. These people are not terrorists, militia members, rebels or freedom fighters they publically stated they don't want Bundy's help, they just wanted to go to jail and do their time.

Text of a totally unrelated terrorism bill is overriding common sense of Judges imposing unnecessarily harsh minimum sentences on an old man who is regarded highly in his local community and all everyone talks about is the stupid assholes with guns occupying little shit buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.

Personally I'm waiting for more facts to be known about the circumstances of his death before making a judgment. If he died pointing weapons at law enforcement then he deserves what he got.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Cramer]

True. But the radios the US military uses don't have to obey any rules of any nation. They sure as shit don't listen to the FCC. Look up the specs on those fancy Harris encrypting radios they have everywhere. (I could go to jail for just holding one of those things. :-))

First, those chinese radios are, to the letter of the law, illegal in the US -- they violate MANY rules for GMRS and FRS radios; plus, if they're like the ones I have, they arrive with FM transmit enabled. Encryption is absolutely illegal; and the cost and complexity keeps it out of the market.

(as with all things, the loophole is encrypting things before it gets to the radio. i.e. WEP/WPA/SSL over WiFi, VOIP + TLS, etc. In short, the radio didn't encrypt it.)

Prohibited

[PPH]

Encryption is prohibited for amateur radio communications.

Re:Militia ?

[smooth wombat]

It's distinguished from terrorism because the tactics are a bit different - they almost never aim to directly create mass civilian casualties or property damage

This is what the FBI has to say about the definition of domestic terrorism which you will note does not include the need for casualties:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. Â 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

1. Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
2. Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including  930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and  1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

Link for reference

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

So the takeover of an abadoned building in the middle of nowhere

Not really abandoned. Most likely it was just shut down for the season. The refuge contains a large breeding area for birds and is a major migration stop, with over 320 different species of birds. So it's busiest seasons are most likely spring, summer, and fall. At most they might see a few hikers in winter, so there's really no need to fully staff the park then.

But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes. Some definitions of terrorism (important clauses bolded):

UN General Assembly: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d): Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

I'd say the bill fits, they need to wear it.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[yodleboy]

Yet USMC recruits qualify with the M16 at 500 yds with iron sights. The push for optics on standard issue military weapons was a response to the increase in close quarter combat brought on by a decade of urban war in the middle east. Many of these optics (like the very popular Trijicon ACOG) have little to no magnification (1x or 4x fixed magnification) You don't need a $1500 scope to be effective, you don't need a scope period.

For that matter, a $3000 dollar AR is no more lethal or accurate than an $800 dollar AR at the ranges that the vast majority of their owners are ever likely to shoot in either a self defense or hunting use. I have an AR I bought shortly before Sandy Hook from a local builder for $800 (goes for $1200+ now). It has proven to be extremely accurate, shooting decent factory ammo in 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards and 1 MOA groups out to 300 yards. So, in the 5 shot groups I usually shoot when testing handloads or new factory ammo, that's 5 shots in approximately 1/2 inch at 100 yards and 5 shots in approximately 3 inches at 300 yards. When you are aiming at a man sized target with a vital area in say, a 12 inch circle, how much accuracy do you reallllly need? Even the crappiest AR available for sale will do 3 MOA at 300 yards, giving you a 9 inch "hit zone". A lot of the guys with expensive AR's are either compensating for poor shooting skills, trying to impress their friends, or are doing competition shooting (particulary 3 gun, with the requirement of shooting on the move having, the most inherently accurate rifle possible helps compensate).

They got off easy

[Sir_Eptishous]

If you look at what the Hammonds have done over the last twenty years or so, what the "militia" up there has done, etc; These clowns got off easy.

Because they quote "scripture" and wear cowboy boots, they have gotten the soft approach from law enforcement, and everyone knows it.
Just imagine if something similar had taken place, except the "militia" was composed of African Americans, say, in Oakland or Memphis? It would have been a blood bath from the get go.

Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want? WTF?!? That is what criminals do. Isn't this obvious enough?

Re:"Standoff"

[Nidi62]

Considering what happened to the Native Americans, why is this a surprise to anyone?

These constitution-loving folks seem to have forgotten exactly how the west was won.

"Well, I didn't think they'd do it to white people..."

You do realize even the local Paiute tribe wanted these idiots to leave, right? And that local ranchers actually already had grazing rights on the refuge. They even took down the fence of a local rancher to "help" him and he said he didn't even want them there either.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

And the violence committed was?

A group of people standing in your office protesting is a sit in. A group of people standing in your office protesting with guns is an occupation and a hostage situation. By entering the facility with weapons they made the implicit threat (and following statements such as Bundy's and Finicum's made it explicit) that you are willing to use those weapons. That's the violence.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Perhaps, but I don't see where their actions provoked a state of terror in the public or was violence perpetrated against a noncombatant or bystander. At most this is trespassing, breaking and entering, refusing a lawful order and resisting arrest with a possible "while using a firearm" enhancer..

Their actions were intended to force a particular response,was carried out in a violent way, and had a political purpose. And it was perpetrated against you. Your tax dollars help fund the wildlife refuge and their actions prevented people from the ability to use the facility and caused damage to the facility (removal of fences, cameras, etc).

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Who are the hostages in this situation?

Metaphor much? The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

"For that matter, a $3000 dollar AR is no more lethal or accurate than an $800 dollar AR at the ranges that the vast majority of their owners are ever likely to shoot in either a self defense or hunting use."

Or a $500 AK given a couple hours of love to smooth the action and clean it up. But a $3000 AR is one with a gas system conversion that makes it MUCH more reliable than the $800 AR but not more reliable than the $500 AK. So if trying to arm hundreds of men on private funds, save the $300 vs the $800 AR and save the $2500 vs the $3000 AR and just buy the AK and run through a couple youtube videos worth of cleaning it up (take maybe 2-4hrs). Spend the rest on ammunition, which for real militia scale self defense is going to be a much more serious bottleneck.

As for the $3000 AR, that is pretending the AR is a sniper weapon and that puny round is not a sniper weapon. You'd be better off putting high quality optics on a .308 bolt action rifle or if you can find one a good quality nagant (you've got about 5 shots before barrel expansion becomes a problem but arguably if a sniper has shot more than 5 rounds it's time to move on especially in the kind of fighting against a superior force a militia is likely to be engaged in). A 50 cal is even better but the ammo is much much much more expensive and you probably don't have anyone in your group who is a good enough sniper that the round is needed.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

"All I did was point a gun at the shopkeepers head and say that I would murder him in front of his family if he didn't give me all the money in the register. I didn't commit any violence. I was just exercising my right to freedom of speech."

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself..

They committed a violent action (and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action) with a political purpose to coerce the government to free prisoners. That's pretty much the definition of terrorism.