Clintonistas at War with America: Waco and Ruby Ridge

[TCBF]

"I would have preferred they send a SWAT team in and drag his non-compliant rear end into custody, shooting anyone and everyone (female or not) that provided armed opposition to them. Any deaths are the responsibility of Weaver for not submitting to the lawful authority of the government."

-You better develop a lot better logic than that if you want the Cdn Taxpayers to give YOU lawful command over their sons and daughters.

:

- So you think the Harris Govt/OPP Ipperwash solution was a bit too namby-pamby for your liking as well? Milder than Ruby Ridge, right?  I can't see how one can harbour the solutions of a Commie and a  Nazi at the same time.

;D

Tom

 

[Glorified Ape]

You've GOT to be kidding.....

I hope you never try to apply that theory in theater:  "Yes sir, that guy over there wouldn't submit to our authority, so we shot his 12 children to teach him a lesson".

Even with our lax legal system, I'm pretty sure YOUR life-sentence would really be a life-sentence....

Some guy refusing a search at a roadblock in his own country is one thing. I'm not against peaceful resolutions - I prefer them. When someone fires on you or your subordinates, though, then killing them is not unreasonable. You either deal with the recalcitrant quickly and effectively or things become unmanageable - they should have gone to his house and arrested him immediately upon his failing to appear at his trial. Given the tone in the messages he'd been issuing by mail to the government over his case, I don't think a SWAT team would have been over-doing it. SWAT gets employed all the time to execute warrants on individuals believed to be armed and/or dangerous. I'd wager a psychotic white supremacist with weapons up to his teets, pending weapons charges, and a history of sending hostile, deranged letters to the authorities would warrant a SWAT team.

"I would have preferred they send a SWAT team in and drag his non-compliant rear end into custody, shooting anyone and everyone (female or not) that provided armed opposition to them. Any deaths are the responsibility of Weaver for not submitting to the lawful authority of the government."

-You better develop a lot better logic than that if you want the Cdn Taxpayers to give YOU lawful command over their sons and daughters.

Better logic? Should the authorities have played patty cake with Weaver while he and his idiot family were busy shooting at federal marshals? How would you suggest the authorities deal with armed resistance - harsh language? If the government doesn't deal swiftly and brutally with overt, armed resistance to its authority, the whole system breaks down. The authority of the government ultimately rests on its monopoly of the means of violence and its legitimate use. Allowing anyone that doesn't want to attend their trial to flout the government's authority by sitting at home and writing wacko letters to the "Queen of Babylon" does nothing for the system or society, nor does reducing the government's standing and legitimizing criminal behaviour by negotiating with hillbilly klansmen for months over something that's supposed to be non-negotiable.

- So you think the Harris Govt/OPP Ipperwash solution was a bit too namby-pamby for your liking as well? Milder than Ruby Ridge, right?  I can't see how one can harbour the solutions of a Commie and a  Nazi at the same time.

The protesters were acting illegally and resisting the police. I support their claim but not their actions. If the protesters were armed, which is still undetermined, then the police were justified in using force proportionate to the threat. If protesters fired at police, the police were justified in shooting. If an armed individual acted in a way suggesting the threat or intent to shoot at the police, they're justified in shooting that individual. Ruby Ridge wasn't Ipperwash - you might as well compare the Ottawa pepper spray incident to Tiananmen Square.

No one seems up in arms about the crackheads, armed robbers, etc. that are shot by police executing warrants but all of a sudden, because it's some dillusional bigots in the hills of Idaho, it's a problem? Strange. It seems pretty simple to me - if you don't want to get killed or create the possibility of getting others killed, don't point weapons at the police and don't discharge weapons at the police. In general, don't screw with the police and do what they tell you, when they tell you, how they tell you.

 

[48Highlander]

Some guy refusing a search at a roadblock in his own country is one thing. I'm not against peaceful resolutions - I prefer them. When someone fires on you or your subordinates, though, then killing them is not unreasonable. You either deal with the recalcitrant quickly and effectively or things become unmanageable - they should have gone to his house and arrested him immediately upon his failing to appear at his trial. Given the tone in the messages he'd been issuing by mail to the government over his case, I don't think a SWAT team would have been over-doing it. SWAT gets employed all the time to execute warrants on individuals believed to be armed and/or dangerous. I'd wager a psychotic white supremacist with weapons up to his teets, pending weapons charges, and a history of sending hostile, deranged letters to the authorities would warrant a SWAT team.

My problem with your statements isn't your suggestion that they send a SWAT team.  That would have been justifiable, certainly, as was employing snipers around his property.  The problem with your statements is your suggestion that "any deaths are the responsibility of Weaver for not submitting to the lawful authority of the government".  That's the same type of thinking that resulted in this encounter turning into a slaughter.  The snipers were issued orders to shoot to kill, regaurdless of wether or not their "target" posed a threat.  There is NO justification for that.  Even in Afghanistan our ROE's are more stringent.

Better logic? Should the authorities have played patty cake with Weaver while he and his idiot family were busy shooting at federal marshals? How would you suggest the authorities deal with armed resistance - harsh language? If the government doesn't deal swiftly and brutally with overt, armed resistance to its authority, the whole system breaks down. The authority of the government ultimately rests on its monopoly of the means of violence and its legitimate use. Allowing anyone that doesn't want to attend their trial to flout the government's authority by sitting at home and writing wacko letters to the "Queen of Babylon" does nothing for the system or society, nor does reducing the government's standing and legitimizing criminal behaviour by negotiating with hillbilly klansmen for months over something that's supposed to be non-negotiable.

Well, first off, it's been established that Weaver was absent from court because they made a clerical error.  "Playing patty cake" would have been unneccesary if they had simply contacted him before declaring him a fugitive.  And as for him "and his idiot family shooting at federal marshals", I somehow doubt his wife would have been able to do much shooting while standing in a dorway and holding their baby.

No one seems up in arms about the crackheads, armed robbers, etc. that are shot by police executing warrants but all of a sudden, because it's some dillusional bigots in the hills of Idaho, it's a problem? Strange. It seems pretty simple to me - if you don't want to get killed or create the possibility of getting others killed, don't point weapons at the police and don't discharge weapons at the police. In general, don't screw with the police and do what they tell you, when they tell you, how they tell you.

No I have no problem with police shooting "crackheads, armed robbers, etc.", assuming that they're a threat to those officers.  I WOULD however have a BIG problem with those same officers being given shoot-to-kill orders which include not only the armed perpetrators, but their wives and children as well.

 

[Glorified Ape]

My problem with your statements isn't your suggestion that they send a SWAT team.  That would have been justifiable, certainly, as was employing snipers around his property.  The problem with your statements is your suggestion that "any deaths are the responsibility of Weaver for not submitting to the lawful authority of the government".  That's the same type of thinking that resulted in this encounter turning into a slaughter.  The snipers were issued orders to shoot to kill, regaurdless of wether or not their "target" posed a threat.  There is NO justification for that.  Even in Afghanistan our ROE's are more stringent.

The "shoot to kill" directive was not an unqualified, blanket "license to kill" as its been made out to be. The directive stated that snipers (and presumably other agents) should "shoot to kill" armed males. At one point, an unarmed male exited the cabin but wasn't fired on, as he was not holding a weapon. At the point which the directive was issued, it had been established by the prior firefight that each of the armed males constituted a very real and viable threat. I look at it as being (at that point) more of a war-like environment - you don't wait for an armed enemy to shoot at you before you kill him. The Weavers and Co. had already established their willingness and intent to kill federal agents.

Well, first off, it's been established that Weaver was absent from court because they made a clerical error.  "Playing patty cake" would have been unneccesary if they had simply contacted him before declaring him a fugitive.  And as for him "and his idiot family shooting at federal marshals", I somehow doubt his wife would have been able to do much shooting while standing in a dorway and holding their baby.

And his wife was killed accidentally, not intentionally. As for the clerical error, the agents didn't go storming in on Feb. 20 - he wasn't even indicted for failure to appear until March 14th, before which time a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest. He had already retained council (Hofmeister), hence knew of the warrants and issues pertinent to him. He was also contacted through intermediaries on numerous occasions before the incident:

In July 1991, he (Hofmeister)
  met with them and Rodney Willey, an associate of Weaver, in an effort
  to spur negotiations. On July 10, 1991, Hofmeister wrote Weaver and
  explained that the firearms charge was relatively minor and that he
  thought Weaver had a good defense to the charge. Hofmeister added,
  "the 'cause' in which you believe does not justify the damage you do
  to yourselves, because the offense Randy is charged with is not much
  greater than many traffic offenses.[FN287]
 
  Hofmeister reported to the marshals that soon after sending this
  letter he received two letters from Vicki Weaver, in which she state
  that they were resolute as it was "Yashua's plan" that they live or
  die on the mountain.[FN288] Hofmeister also contacted Richard Butler,
  leader of a local Aryan Nations Church, and requested that Butler
  write a note to Randy Weaver asking Weaver to come down from the
  mountain and face the weapons charge.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/ruby_ridge1.txt

No I have no problem with police shooting "crackheads, armed robbers, etc.", assuming that they're a threat to those officers.  I WOULD however have a BIG problem with those same officers being given shoot-to-kill orders which include not only the armed perpetrators, but their wives and children as well.

The wives and children were not included in the shoot-to-kill directive - it stated that:

[/quote]...they (the snipers/agents) could and should shoot all armed adult
  malesappearing outside the cabin. Operating under these Rules onAugust
  22, an FBI sniper/observer fired two shots in quicksuccession. The
  first shot was at an armed adult male whom hebelieved was bout to fire
  at a HRT helicopter on an observationmission. The first shot wounded
  Randy Weaver while in front ofa building at the Weaver compound known
  as the birthing shed. The second shot was fired at Harris while Harris
  was retreatinginto the Weaver cabin. The second shot seriously wounded
  Harrisand killed Vicki Weaver who was behind the cabin door.[/quote]

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/ruby_ridge1.txt

Indeed, I think the "adult" qualification in the directive was also unnecessary, as an armed adolescent can be just as dangerous. The directive should have stated "any armed individual" after the firefight, as it was an armed adolescent that killed the federal agent.

 

[TCBF]

"In June 1991, U.S. Attorney Ellsworth discouraged Deputy Director
  Stagg of the Marshals Services SOG from apprising Judge Ryan of the
  considerable danger his team faced in arresting Weaver. In March 1992,
  Director Hudson asked Ellsworth to consider dismissing the warrant
  against Weaver and reissuing it under seal. Hudson explained that the
  marshals thought an assault on the Weaver residence would pose
  unacceptable risk of injury to the Weaver children and Marshals
  Service personnel. Ellsworth and Howen refused to discuss the
  indictment, citing Judge Ryan's call for the arrest of Weaver. When
  Hudson offered to speak to Judge Ryan, Ellsworth did not respond to
  the offer. We are troubled that the prosecutors so lightly dismissed
  the offer by the Director of the Marshals Service to speak with Judge
  Ryan. Indeed, we question their judgment in rebuffing the Director's
  personal effort to break the year-long impasse. Neither Ellsworth nor
  Howen advised Judge Ryan of the Marshals Service's concerns. Such
  inaction on their part was neither reasonable nor well considered
  under the circumstances."

That is from your link.

Tom

 

[Glorified Ape]

"In June 1991, U.S. Attorney Ellsworth discouraged Deputy Director
   Stagg of the Marshals Services SOG from apprising Judge Ryan of the
   considerable danger his team faced in arresting Weaver. In March 1992,
   Director Hudson asked Ellsworth to consider dismissing the warrant
   against Weaver and reissuing it under seal. Hudson explained that the
   marshals thought an assault on the Weaver residence would pose
   unacceptable risk of injury to the Weaver children and Marshals
   Service personnel. Ellsworth and Howen refused to discuss the
   indictment, citing Judge Ryan's call for the arrest of Weaver. When
   Hudson offered to speak to Judge Ryan, Ellsworth did not respond to
   the offer. We are troubled that the prosecutors so lightly dismissed
   the offer by the Director of the Marshals Service to speak with Judge
   Ryan. Indeed, we question their judgment in rebuffing the Director's
   personal effort to break the year-long impasse. Neither Ellsworth nor
   Howen advised Judge Ryan of the Marshals Service's concerns. Such
   inaction on their part was neither reasonable nor well considered
   under the circumstances."

That is from your link.

Tom

The Marshals took quite extensive measures to avoid violence - the surveillance on the cabin was months long before the incident. The fact of the matter is that there shouldn't have been a threat - Weaver should have obeyed the law and surrendered. As it is, he didn't, and paid for it with the lives of his son and wife.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why is it they have to take these guys down at the house/compound, and not while they are shopping, hunting, fishing, etc away from the house/compound?

 

[48Highlander]

The Marshals took quite extensive measures to avoid violence - the surveillance on the cabin was months long before the incident. The fact of the matter is that there shouldn't have been a threat - Weaver should have obeyed the law and surrendered. As it is, he didn't, and paid for it with the lives of his son and wife.

There you go again.  HE didn't pay for it with their lives.  It's not paying if you're giving up something that doesn't belong to you.  THEY lost their lives.  And not because of Weaver.  You can bring him into it all you like, but he's not the one who killed them.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Why is it they have to take these guys down at the house/compound, and not while they are shopping, hunting, fishing, etc away from the house/compound?

He wouldn't leave the compound, nor would anyone else in the family - they stayed in the compound after charges were brought and had friends bring them food and supplies from town. From what I understand, they had quite the stockpile of food, etc.

There you go again.  HE didn't pay for it with their lives.  It's not paying if you're giving up something that doesn't belong to you.  THEY lost their lives.  And not because of Weaver.  You can bring him into it all you like, but he's not the one who killed them.

You're right - my phrasing was poor. He didn't pay, the son and wife did, but he's ultimately to blame.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>No one seems up in arms about the crackheads, armed robbers, etc. that are shot by police executing warrants but all of a sudden, because it's some dillusional bigots in the hills of Idaho

If you believe being "dillusional bigots" or "freaks" (in the case of Koresh's gang) justifies summary execution, fair enough.  My view is that I am unconvinced it was more important to risk killing the people caught up in the leader's vision than to simply wait it out as long as it might take.  If I were unwilling to execute condemned multiple murderers or killers-for-hire, I'd certainly be more generous towards isolationist flakes.

 

[Glorified Ape]

>No one seems up in arms about the crackheads, armed robbers, etc. that are shot by police executing warrants but all of a sudden, because it's some dillusional bigots in the hills of Idaho

If you believe being "dillusional bigots" or "freaks" (in the case of Koresh's gang) justifies summary execution, fair enough.  My view is that I am unconvinced it was more important to risk killing the people caught up in the leader's vision than to simply wait it out as long as it might take.  If I were unwilling to execute condemned multiple murderers or killers-for-hire, I'd certainly be more generous towards isolationist flakes.

I don't believe such people should be summarily executed, but I don't think the government should sit by while group X flaunts their non-compliance and makes the government look ineffectual. Peaceful attempts at reconciliation were made in both cases but apparently neither group wanted such a solution or they wouldn't have locked themselves away with weapons and fired on federal agents.

 

[48Highlander]

I don't believe such people should be summarily executed, but I don't think the government should sit by while group X flaunts their non-compliance and makes the government look ineffectual. Peaceful attempts at reconciliation were made in both cases but apparently neither group wanted such a solution or they wouldn't have locked themselves away with weapons and fired on federal agents.

So, by your logic....

When a few anti-social (one might even say mentaly ill) and armed, but largely harmless citizens refuse to comply with the government because they beleive that they're being targeted for oppression or assasination, thereby making the government "look ineffectual", it's fine for federal agents to move in with guns blazing, and kill a child an an unarmed woman.

But it's not ok to submit mentally ill individuals and children who have been convicted of serious crimes to the death penalty.

And it's not ok to invade a country whose "leader" (aka dictator) has been "flaunting his non-compliance", and making "the government look ineffectual" for a decade.


I really don't understand your sense of morals.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from GA,
.The fact of the matter is that there shouldn't have been a threat - Weaver should have obeyed the law and surrendered. As it is, he didn't, and paid for it with the lives of his son and wife.


So Ape, I'm sure you have no problem about what happened at Ipperwash then?
Dudley George could have left, no?   

 

[Glorified Ape]

So, by your logic....

When a few anti-social (one might even say mentaly ill) and armed, but largely harmless citizens refuse to comply with the government because they beleive that they're being targeted for oppression or assasination, thereby making the "look ineffectual", it's fine for federal agentstomove in with guns blazing, and kill a child an an unarmed wooman.

We already went over the unarmed women and children thing - it was accidental. If a group of nutters provides armed resistance to the government, then it's justified in using violence to subdue said group.

But it's not ok to submit mentally illindividuals and children who have been convicted of serious crimes to the death penalty.

One takes place while the nut(s) are armed and uncontrolled, the other takes place when the nut(s) are unarmed and in custody (incarceration). The difference seems pretty obvious to me.

And it's not ok to invade a country whose "leader" (aka dictator) has been "flaunting his non-compliance", and making "the government look ineffectual" for a decade.

What government? The world government? I must have missed that particular institution. Or did you mean the UN? I'm all for the UN enforcing its statutes but I can't recall the UN ordering any invasions on Iraq.

Quote from GA,
.The fact of the matter is that there shouldn't have been a threat - Weaver should have obeyed the law and surrendered. As it is, he didn't, and paid for it with the lives of his son and wife.


So Ape, I'm sure you have no problem about what happened at Ipperwash then?
Dudley George could have left, no?   

That was brought up in this very thread...

The protesters were acting illegally and resisting the police. I support their claim but not their actions. If the protesters were armed, which is still undetermined, then the police were justified in using force proportionate to the threat. If protesters fired at police, the police were justified in shooting. If an armed individual acted in a way suggesting the threat or intent to shoot at the police, they're justified in shooting that individual. Ruby Ridge wasn't Ipperwash - you might as well compare the Ottawa pepper spray incident to Tiananmen Square.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Good, that was just to make sure you were'nt sucking and blowing at the same time....

 

[48Highlander]

We already went over the unarmed women and children thing - it was accidental. If a group of nutters provides armed resistance to the government, then it's justified in using violence to subdue said group.

Accidental or not, it's still aresult of the use of armed force.  There's a reason why the government had to pay out several million dollars to the Weaver family after the incident; they knew full well that they were responsible for the unneccecary deaths of those individuals.  If the case were as clear-cut as you claim then no money would have been paid out.

One takes place while the nut(s) are armed and uncontrolled, the other takes place when the nut(s) are unarmed and in custody (incarceration). The difference seems pretty obvious to me.

Not when the " armed nut(s)" don't present a threat to anyone.  Being armed and crazy does not automaticaly sentence you to death - only when youpresent a direct threat to someone do you become a legitemate target.  Christ, that's even taught to us for use on overseasdeployments!  If I'm doing a cordon and searh op of a suspected insurgent house, I'm not going to burst into their living-room and shoot anyone who happens to be holding a gun.  If those rules hold for deployed SOLIDERS in a hostile environment, they should certainly apply to law enforcement personnel on our own (or in this case, US) soil.

What government? The world government? I must have missed that particular institution. Or did you mean the UN? I'm all for the UN enforcing its statutes but I can't recall the UN ordering any invasions on Iraq.

Not that it's relevant, but I am ofcourse refering to the US government.  You know, the one that Iraq asses in the 90's, but refrained from occupying the country on the condition that Sadam co-operate?  The UN was obviously more than willing to remain "innefectual", the US was not.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Accidental or not, it's still aresult of the use of armed force.  There's a reason why the government had to pay out several million dollars to the Weaver family after the incident; they knew full well that they were responsible for the unneccecary deaths of those individuals.  If the case were as clear-cut as you claim then no money would have been paid out.

Because mistakes are never made and PR plays no part in settlement decisions? The nation (read: the vocal minority) was up in arms (no pun intended) over RR, just as many were after Waco. The settlement was a mistake, IMO, as the deaths which occured were a direct result of the environment created by Weaver et al. when they fired on federal agents and, before that, when he barricaded himself in his cabin and refused lawful warrants/summons/etc.

Not when the " armed nut(s)" don't present a threat to anyone.  Being armed and crazy does not automaticaly sentence you to death - only when youpresent a direct threat to someone do you become a legitemate target.  Christ, that's even taught to us for use on overseasdeployments!  If I'm doing a cordon and searh op of a suspected insurgent house, I'm not going to burst into their living-room and shoot anyone who happens to be holding a gun.  If those rules hold for deployed SOLIDERS in a hostile environment, they should certainly apply to law enforcement personnel on our own (or in this case, US) soil.

Your analogy is off - it would go more like this: while doing your recce, you and your men are fired upon by two or three insurgents and one of your men is killed. You kill one of them and the other two retreat into a house. You set up snipers on overwatch of the house while you regroup and formulate a plan. Quite understandably and appropriately, you instruct the snipers to shoot any armed male insurgent from the house as there's no doubt of their intent - especially when armed. The snipers fire on the armed insurgents (the exact same ones which just previously killed one of your men) when they come out of the house and, unfortunately, one of their rounds does an in-and-out and hits an unarmed woman standing behind the door. Regrettable yes, but hardly your fault or the sniper's fault.

Not that it's relevant, but I am ofcourse refering to the US government.  You know, the one that Iraq asses in the 90's, but refrained from occupying the country on the condition that Sadam co-operate?  The UN was obviously more than willing to remain "innefectual", the US was not.

The US had no jurisdiction - all arrangements and negotiations were made through the institutional framework of the UN. The US was a part, not the whole. A more accurate analogy would be if a neighbour (Mr. X) holding a negative history with the Weavers blew their cabin into smithereens with a howitzer, ostensibly for the purposes of enforcing the government's laws (while breaking them) and removing the threat which the Weavers posed to himself (while isolated in their cabin) and the state of New York (read: nil). Afterwards, Mr. X moves his relatives onto the Weaver land and rents it to them, with logging rights, under the name of liberty and democracy and starts eyeing the next lot over, the owner of which (Mr. B) is still sore at Mr. X over the time he booted Mr. B's grandfather off his own land because he didn't like the way he organized his furniture, after which Mr. X installed squatters as the rightful owners which then had to be removed by Mr. B. 


;D

 

[48Highlander]

you're hopeless, you know that?    I get the feeling that now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  And I KNOW that this could go on for another 50+ posts easily.  So I think I'm done here.