FBI acknowledges mystery flights

[captainv]

FBI

Flywithastick,

i'm in the middle of a trip at the moment, but i'll dig up some references of my own when i get back, just give me a day or so. TMMT had expressed a desire to let it go, so i didn't bother.

quickly though, by military hardware i was thinking of the .50-cals the Davidians used on ATF in the initial raid. i fully support your right to own a shotgun, AR-15, or whatever else is legal. the day Congress makes owning a machine gun legal, i'll support your right to own that too, but for now they're considered military hardware.

as for Ruby Ridge, whole new can of worms there. on the government side, one of the main problems was the SAC's improper rules of engagement. Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper, was later cleared as he was operating within those rules. unfortunately, Weaver moved as the shot was fired, and Weaver's pregnant wife was tragically killed by accident. the SAC was ultimately held responsible. Horiuchi was devastated by what happened... And while everyone remember's the tragic death of Weaver's wife, who remembers the U.S. Marshall who was murdered by Weaver's sons before the standoff as he tried to serve a warrant?

both are examples of government bungling to spectacular degrees. but in both cases deadly force was initiated by the suspects. why is their behavior never brought up in these debates??

again, i'll do some digging when i get back.

captainv

 

[flywithastick]

other side of the story - Ruby Ridge

the day Congress makes owning a machine gun legal, i'll support your right to own that too, but for now they're considered military hardware.

and legal to own and operate, if properly licensed.

unfortunately, (Randy) Weaver moved as the shot was fired, and Weaver's pregnant wife was tragically killed by accident.

She moved?! the professional aimed the weapon, pulled the trigger and killed the mans wife. "Sorry Mr. Weaver, we were really trying to shoot you in cold blood - but we, er, shot your wife accidentally!" IMO, this was vengence against Weaver for the death of the Marshall.

the SAC was ultimately held responsible.

What's a SAC? you an insider? now I see why you're defending these actions! Anyone doing the shooting or in command get fired? do any jail time? Nope! AFAIK, the only punnishment dealt was for the subsequent cover up attempt.

And while everyone remember's the tragic death of Weaver's wife, who remembers the U.S. Marshall who was murdered by Weaver's sons before the standoff as he tried to serve a warrant?

That's terrible. He didn't deserve to die. But they were all "high" on the situation, I believe. They were there to serve a warrant based on trumped up charges, no less. Also - why were they wearing masks and camo?! Who's the enemy here, capt?! Wearing that "uniform" and armed as they were, I can only assume is that the Marshalls were going in to shoot up the place. More vengence for Weaver due to his refusal to be an govt informant.

Being an apparent insider, then you know quite well how his son was killed. don't sugar coat it! The kid was shot in the back as he ran away. The Marshall shot the kids dog and I'm convinced he didn't ID himself first - warrant or not. Someone dressed up like a gun toting Ninja shot the kids dog. With that kind of emotional, scarry situation, I'm not suprised the kid shot back. Who are the trained professionals here anyway? They have the burden of doing the right thing.

both are examples of government bungling to spectacular degrees. but in both cases deadly force was initiated by the suspects.

Apparently dressed up like 10 yr old Ninja wannabes, the cops shot the kid's, I mean suspect's, dog. *They* fired first.

why is their behavior never brought up in these debates??

because the cops are supposedly *trained professionals*. They have the burden of proof and a standard of excellence to uphold. It's for them to do the right thing and the smart thing. They did neither.

JUST like Waco - most of the violence was all about vengence. Vengence by a bunch of gun toting, soldier wannabes with a volunteer fireman mentality. Sorry VFD guys - but a few have been known to start fires just so they could run with the lights and use the equipment.

Capt, I wish you well with your flying. We obviously see this differently. If your have some credible info of another scenario - I'm all ears. My point in countering your post was just to hopefully inform those reading this and not familiar with the other side of the story and prevent it from happening again.

 

[captainv]

FBI

flywithastick,

OK, first things first. I'm not an insider per se, although i do have an inherent bias in support of the FBI.

I am, as advertised, a First Officer for a regional airline. My brother is an FBI Special Agent, although he joined in 1997 and has no connection to either of the incidents we're discussing. Like most FBI agents, he spends 98% of his time as a police detective might, interviewing witnesses/suspects, examining crime scenes, testifying at trials, etc... Another agent we know spent over 30 years in the Bureau and in that career pulled his weapon in the line of duty a grand total of four times. Like the vast majority of agents, he has never fired a round in the line of duty.

What frustrates all of us is this perception that the FBI/ATF/fill in the blank, is some kind of rogue police group, killing U.S. citizens out of revenge or bloodlust. On the contrary, if you were to spend a day at your local FBI office, i think you'd find one of the most intelligent, compassionate, patriotic groups of people you'd ever met.

That said, I'm not naive enough to believe every agent is like that. Just like there are bad cops, there are bad agents. What i disagree with in these two cases is the overall perception that the ATF/FBI went in there looking for blood. i.e. "Vengence by a bunch of gun toting, soldier wannabes with a volunteer fireman mentality." are there agents or even commanders that fit this description? absolutely. but that's why there is a chain of command. it's not their decision. in the case of Waco, Attorney General Janet Reno had the final say. at Ruby Ridge, honestly, i don't know who had the final authority. i do recall that the SAC (Special Agent in Charge) established rules of engagement that violated FBI rules.

In both cases, they were attempting to confront highly armed extremist groups that were extremely hostile towards ATF/FBI. You suggest ATF/FBI brought an attack upon themselves for wearing body armor/camo. I agree it didn't do anything to help the situation, but it would've been lunacy for them to knock on the front door in a suit and tie with a six-shot revolver on their belts. The philosophy is to provide maximum protection to the agents in a hostile situation. the whole idea behind SWAT-type teams is to overwhelm the suspect(s) with superior firepower/manpower. if the suspect(s) would give us peacefully, we wouldn't need such teams. and even so, the primary objective is to use smoke/tear gas/flashbangs etc to incapacitate the suspect and resolve the situation peacefully.

again, i am not trying to excuse what happened at both Waco and Ruby Ridge. Both are horrible tragedies. But was ATF/FBI justified in trying to resolve these situations? Yes. did they do it the right way? Dear God no, as we all can see. both groups were facing serious charges and were considered armed and dangerous. if they thought the charges against them were baseless, they should have argued their case in front of a judge. that's how our society works. on the government side, the mistakes and miscalculations were tragic and inexcusable. yes, the government tried to cover up its mistakes, and like most cover-ups, it was exposed.

one caveat i need to make: what originally got me going on this tangent was your assertion that "the FBI has already demonstrated their expertise at activities like shooting, gassing and burning kids, e.g., Waco."

i countered that in fact it was the Davidians that shot the children in the final moments.

in fact, we're both wrong. i did find references to @ 20 Davidians that died from gunshot wounds rather than the fire (including Koresh) in the Washington Post article, among others, but there was no mention that any of them were children.

i'll end with a bunch of different links. some support my assertions, some support yours. most do both. as a former journalist, the least i can do is try to provide both sides. i have my opinions, and i respect yours. as you say, we have different views and so we must agree to disagree. for everyone else, i encourage you to read whatever you can and make up your own mind.

one last thing, i don't have a link for it, but i'd encourage you to read a book called No Heroes, by Danny Coulson. Coulson is the man who created HRT, the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. He was involved with both Waco and Ruby Ridge, but don't let that color your impression of him until you read his book. i think you'd be surprised at how critical he was of what happened... you should be able to find it at a local library....

Regards,
CaptainV

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/primary.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A99409-1995Jul18&notFound=true

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/21/waco.investigation.03/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/14/waco.verdict.02/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/25/wacos.dark.questions/index.html

http://www.time.com/time/daily/newsfiles/waco/

http://www.dallasnews.com/dmn/news/stories/022703dntexwacoraid.1fcd7.html