Blog

Ruby Ridge – On Aug. 21, 1992, Six Heavily Armed, Camouflaged U.S. Marshals Sneaked Onto Mr. Weaver’s Property

The American people look forward to learning the truth of the Randy Weaver case. Unfortunately, that truth will have to come from someplace other than the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”   Jim Bovard responds to Louis Freeh, FBI Director (see Jim’s full response below)

2021 08 21 14 50

The Wall Street Journal
Monday, February 27, 1995
Letters to the Editor: The FBI Should Face the Facts

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh, in his Jan. 26 Letter to the Editor, denies the allegations from my Jan. 10 editorial-page article that the FBI has engaged in a coverup regarding its actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992. Unfortunately, Mr. Freeh’s comments indicate that his agency is not yet willing to face the facts.

Regarding the shooting of the U.S. marshal, Mr. Freeh asserts that “the deputy marshals did not try to provoke a confrontation; their intent was to retreat from the area without violence and they attempted to do so.” This is the same explanation that U.S. marshals on the witness stand first offered to the Idaho jury. After hours of cross-examination, a U.S. marshal admitted that the conflict began when a marshal shot and killed one of the Weaver’s dogs. Most American dog-owners would consider the shooting of their dog a provocation. And this is a peculiar way to “retreat from the area without violence.” Mr. Freeh does not even attempt to refute the fact that a U.S. marshal shot 14-year-old Sammy Weaver in the back as the boy was running away from the scene of the clash with the marshals.

Regarding the FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi’s killing of Vicki Weaver, Mr. Freeh asserts that the death was accidental and that “the FBI sniper was firing at a person he reasonably believed had, only seconds before, threatened to shoot at a helicopter carrying fellow law-enforcement officers.” The only thing that the FBI’s “helicopter rationale” for the shooting of Randy Weaver lacks is a helicopter. This was the same argument federal prosecutors made at trial in Idaho and it was thrown out of court by the federal judge. Other federal officials testified at the trial that no helicopters were flying in the vicinity of the Weavers’ cabin at the time of the FBI sniping. Chuck Peterson, an Idaho lawyer who was part of Mr. Weaver’s defense team, observed, “The Federal judge threw out the [federal charge that Weaver aimed at] the helicopter because it was so incredibly weak — it was not supported by anything.”

Mr. Freeh then states that the shot that killed Vicki Weaver “was fired to prevent the armed subject from gaining the protective cover of the cabin from which it was believed that he and others could fire upon the law-enforcement officers on the scene.” But Randy Weaver had never fired upon the FBI agents — he was merely a wounded man trying to struggle into his home and the arms of his family. Mr. Freeh’s doctrine essentially means that if a government agent shoots and wounds a private citizen, then the government agent must be presumed to have a right to kill the private citizen — because otherwise the citizen might shoot back at the government agent.

This is a peculiar guide for law enforcement in a free society, for a society in which lawmen are not supposed to be able to wantonly shoot private citizens based on mere suspicion.

Mr. Freeh mentions, regarding the shot that killed Vicki Weaver, that the shot “wounded its intended target and . . . also accidentally struck and killed Vicki Weaver. . . .” Mr. Freeh’s letter implies that the “intended target” was Randy Weaver; however, the sniper at trial claimed that he was shooting at Kevin Harris, a family friend staying in the cabin, who was near the door and was not even accused of aiming at the helicopter. Apparently, since he was in the vicinity of Randy Weaver, that was sufficient for the FBI to attempt to kill him. Mr. Freeh’s wording implies that the bullet first hit the “intended target” and then hit Vicki Weaver. However, the bullet first passed through Vicki Weaver’s head before hitting Kevin Harris. The sniper’s testimony at trial indicated that he may have thought that Vicki Weaver was actually Kevin Harris — but that is a lame excuse for shooting a mother who posed no threat to the federal agents.

Mr. Freeh seeks to justify the shot that killed Vicki Weaver by stating that she was standing (while holding her 10-month old baby) “unseen behind the outwardly opened door.” He claims that the shot was an accident, which others who have examined the case or were involved in the surrender negotiations deny. But what sort of hostage rescue team takes deadly shots by an open door of a single-room cabin occupied by a woman and children?

Mr. Freeh declares, “I support the public’s right to know about the workings of its government and the integral role the press plays in ensuring an informed public.” This is a fine sentence for a letter to the editor, but it is ironic that it comes just after a sentence in which Mr. Freeh invokes a confidential 542-page Justice Department report that he claims vindicates his agency. Why is the Justice Department refusing to allow the public access to its own review of the case? This confidential document reportedly concludes that the FBI rules of engagement “contravened the Constitution of the United States.”

In a case in which three people were shot dead, Mr. Freeh says he has taken “all necessary remedial actions” — i.e., “I publicly announced that FBI employees had exhibited errors of judgment, neglect of duty, inadequate performance and failure to exert proper managerial oversight. . . .” If this case was about how some city policeman’s negligence resulted in a major traffic jam, then Mr. Freeh’s action might be appropriate. But this is a case in which a federal judge and an Idaho jury basically found that the U.S. government was lying from top to bottom in the allegations it made in federal court. (The judge commented that 75% of the evidence that the U.S. government had presented at the trial had actually helped the defense.) Is it proper that FBI acting Deputy Director Larry Potts, the person in charge of the operation, received the same “penalty” (a letter of censure in his file) that Mr. Freeh himself received when he lost a cellular telephone?

Mr. Freeh claims there has been no “patchwork of deception” at the FBI regarding this case. But even the press statement issued on the day that Mr. Freeh announced the wrist-slaps on his subordinates contained false information. The FBI claimed that Mr. Weaver had been convicted of the original weapons violations charge. Actually, an Idaho jury ruled that Mr. Weaver had been illegally entrapped and instead convicted him only of failing to show up for the trial in 1991. The FBI claims to have been studying the Weaver case for more than two years — but still cannot even get the basic facts straight.

The American people look forward to learning the truth of the Randy Weaver case. Unfortunately, that truth will have to come from someplace other than the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

James Bovard

Washington

Jim Bovard articles on The Ruby Ridge killing

 

They Never Give Up And Neither Should We

They are well funded, they have institutional power, they have found a new home in the democrat party and they never back down.

2021 08 21 08 54

You would think that the Afghanistan debacle is another blow to neoconservatives: That the school of foreign policy experts inside the Beltway who gave us the Iraq war would be further discredited by the fall of Afghanistan. That America’s humiliating defeat and the Taliban’s swift return to power despite 20 years of our remaking that society in our own image would crush the neoconservative doctrine of using overwhelming American force to impose “democracy” across the Middle East and thereby create a friendly neighborhood for Israel.

And you would be wrong.

In fact the neoconservatives are landing on Trump and Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan to argue that it only proves the merits of their worldview: the military occupation of foreign societies works, the Afghanistan war and the larger “war on terror” was actually a great success, and now the United States’ loss of appetite for military force is creating a power vacuum that will embolden jihadists and compel the only democracy in the Middle East — Israel — to step up to the plate.

More here

Always anti-neocon – donate to antiwar.com

2021 08 21 09 06

 

 

 

Recent Interviews of Me

Scott Horton on withdrawal from the Afghan war – Kennedy

Scott Horton on the End of the War in Afghanistan – Pete Quinones

Scott Horton on the End of a Fool’s Errand – Kyle Anzalone

Scott Horton on What Just Happened in Afghanistan – Tom Woods

Scott Horton: U.S. Should Have Pulled Out Of Afghanistan Years Ago – Nick Gillespie

Houston Radio AM950 KPRC – Kenny Webster

Chicago Radio WIND AM 560 – Shaun Thompson

Tonight: Max Blumenthal

Thanks very much to Ed Huff.

Afghanistan Aftermath: No Firings? No Resignations?

Joe Biden, who says the buck regarding Afghanistan stops with him in the White House, claims that the Taliban’s final takeover of the capital, Kabul, provoking mass panic reminiscent of Saigon, 1975, happened more quickly “than anticipated.” If that’s true–spoiler alert: it ain’t–then we taxpayers should demand the mass firings and resignations of anyone in the America intel apparatus having anything to do with Afghanistan. We should also demand our money back. Intel isn’t cheap.

The U.S. government has been in that country for nearly 20 years with a political, military, and intel presence. The American taxpayers are forced to cough up about $85 billion a year for the lying, spying, killing, and torturing agencies benignly called the “intel community.” I realize that not all of that targets foreigners; some of it is devoted to spying on us. But still…

So even if Biden were telling the truth, it would mean that we’ve just witnessed a colossal failure and the clearest demonstration of incompetence imaginable.

What will be the consequences? There will be none.

Of course, Biden was lying, just as Trump, Obama, and Bush 2 and their people systematically lied to the American people about Afghanistan. This has been documented over and over. About this there can be no doubt.

 

Withdrawal Without Methadone

Here come all the opinion pieces. Here’s another.

I’m honestly surprised at the amount of folks critical of this withdrawal from AFG.

I’m sitting here this morning attempting to wrestle with the idea if they are truly critical of this foreign policy action, or is their reaction more aligned with ideology and they merely find themselves in the “opposed” camp because Biden currently rests within the Oval? I honestly don’t know.

I’m leaning toward politics for some, but certainly not all. I really am. Most of the voices I see on social media who stand opposed are generally “Right” leaning and Biden hating.

I hate Biden too. I have for a long, long time. Regardless of how right this move may be. I am stopping myself just shy of commending him for the withdrawal. Had Trump facilitated this withdrawal from AFG I absolutely would have praised him for such a move, but I’m stopping short of praising Biden.

Closeted Trump fan all along?

No

Perhaps my hesitation to congratulate Biden rests with this.

For a man who has been dealing with a lifelong stutter he miraculously managed to not stutter once as he brilliantly articulated his passionate stance to compel the Senate in ’02 to back Bush and his adventurism in the Middle East. Biden is equally to blame for the past 20 years as Bush, Obama, Trump or anyone else.

I’ve lost friends in AFG. I’ve lost friends to suicide DUE to AFG.

Many believe this withdrawal is wrong as it signifies a loss. It demonstrates that the loved ones we’ve lost have all been for nothing.

I’m not going to make an argument to help you believe that isn’t true. It IS true.

The problem? It will always be true. If we stay there another year, another 20 years, it will continue to be true. The only additional issue then would be us guaranteeing that future humans will also have to endure the loss of loved ones whose losses will also, be for nothing.

This is the sad reality, and, on some level, I truly believe every individual reading this today knows this to be true. Here is the saddest reality of all:

Every one of us, including Afghani’s, Iranians, Iraqi’s, has known from the very first day of this invasion that this was the inevitable outcome. Every human knew whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not, this would be the outcome. Even the politicians like Biden who put us here.

At least GW Senior had the decency to pull out. He knew too.

Evaluating Senior’s role with the CIA is dismal. Most of his job centered on managing the propaganda campaign around the Soviet Union. Finding ways to keep the American public just scared enough to recognize they couldn’t survive without a well-funded government. He even funded the very group we now propagandize as an eminent threat simply because they were fighting Soviets on Afghan soil.

Once the USSR fell in 1989 career officials panicked and scrambled to establish a foothold on their most foundational narrative. Who would the citizens fear with the Red Scare now behind us? Bush, with his experience was unfortunately just the man for the job. His adventurism in the Middle East was little more than and effort to create a new monster under the bed as Americans slept at night. That’s why Desert Storm was literally a 43-day operation. That’s all it took.

At least he was decent enough to pull out.

Some tell themselves that we can’t continue being the World’s policemen. True enough, but what’s even more important to understand is that we never were the world’s policemen. I enlisted in the Marine Corps thinking I would get to be a “world policeman” and truly help others who couldn’t help themselves.

I was wrong. All of us in service were. These issues today are not with boots, they’ve always been with suits.

As a nation we were shocked and appalled to find out the depths of the CIA’s drug trafficking activity in our own backyard. Fueling the crack epidemic of the 90’s in Southern California for no reason other than to generate black dollars to fund black projects. Off the books.

Even after all that coming to light, we’re somehow dumbfounded when the CIA obtains control of the world’s richest opium fields, has a mountain of black projects to fund while managing more proxy wars than ever before in our history, and the nation is bombarded with an opioid crisis.

What do we do? We blame doctors.

We were never in AFG to police. We were never there to protect Afghanis. We were never there to escort peace, freedom or democracy on to a willing populace. We never showed up to liberate women. No evidence exists anywhere to demonstrate, empirically, that we were ever there for any reason other than empire.

A close friend made the very real observation that the inevitability of this outcome is a poor salve to treat the wound the outcome creates.

I can’t make this statement or sentiment less true, however, perhaps it’s the existence of salves to begin with that allows these atrocities to perpetuate across successive generations.

Maybe it’s the salves that allow everyday Americans to remain complicit and quiet through invasion after invasion, decade after decade. Maybe it’s those salves that allow us to drool over the visceral attractiveness of an Obama while he confidently begins five new wars in eight short years?

Maybe the salves themselves need to end. Maybe every American, not just those of us who fought over there, pointlessly, and lost loved ones, pointlessly, need to experience this betrayal. Maybe it’s time we all finally lost trust.

They certainly never earned it.

We all knew this was coming. Like a long, sad, anticipated death, the knowledge and anticipation don’t make the reality any easier.

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest