Even though Government has the ability to change the rules and move the goal posts in the middle of the game , it still appears to me that the Feds overstepped their authority on at least several occasions with the Hammonds and that they were also belligerent and vindictive in most of their dealings with them. And yes setting fires can be legal.

Have you read anything about the history of this situation or just the ridiculous satire from the New Yorker and the fluff piece from the Oregonian to which you linked? If you have not you might consider reading something written by someone with a different perspective. The piece that Evo linked is interesting, although it also should be taken with a grain on salt. That being said it would be hard to argue with the validity of many of its assertions

We should all realize that in a situation such as this, much of the information provided to us by the mainstream media basically comes from the government, Federal, State and local, so one should not be surprised if much of it is self serving.

I am not trying to defend the "militants" but I can understand the frustration that having to deal with an all empowered and belligerent agency can cause, and I stand by my claim that if such agencies go unchallenged we must expect even more poor behavior.