Elian's MP5 holder speaks out!

W

Waitone

New member
The officer holding the MP5 finally gets to speak. It is long so I won't post it.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000605/ts/cuban_boy_raid_3.html

Once again I see a troublesome trend. This LEO action apparently was carried out in a technically proficient and professional manner. What was done was all apparently done in a manner which would make those in the LE community feel proud of the apparent professionalism.

My problem, someone at the tip of the spear did not question if what they were doing was right. A premium seems to be placed on "doing things right; rather than doing right things." I wonder if our military has done away with the concept of illegal orders?



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
I am not an authority on "search and destroy" techniques so I won't comment on that. But I do know something about court testimony. The comment about "had no memory" is a perfect defense if asked potentially incriminating questions. Do they train these officers to say that. Never mind, I answered my own question. So remember boys and girls, the next time you plan a covert action and wind up in court say, "I remember knocking politely on the door and then I forget the rest"! This guy is the perfect officer that NEVER questions orders, which is what it means to be part of the team. The problem? That's the same excuse the Nazi's used and many others. I was just following orders!
 
"The agent said the widely published photograph ``does not present a clear rendition of the entire event."

Fascinating.....

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
I saw that guy talking weeks ago! This must be old news.

He said, "Whassuuup!" ;)

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
The part of the story that caught my attention:

"Elian's cousin, Marisleysis Gonzalez, was not touched in any way."

Funny that they had to mention this.
 
I'll probably get flamed for this but here goes anyway and be kind please. Don't we want people in LE and in the military that follow orders instead of debating whether or not they should be carried out? Isn't it the ones who give the orders that we need to hold accountable. Do you really think that the LEOs that stormed the house should have all insisted on personally seeing the court order before carrying out their orders? How many wars would have ended differently if soldiers would have sat around debating orders in the heat of battle.

FWIW, I too am disgusted with the way this all has been handled. I also think that the little guy oughta be able to stay here, his life in Cuba surely will be hell. But, that's just my opinion. Personally I'm wondering why the Klinton gang is even trying to make this look legal. If Bill wants the kid in Cuba why doesn't he just stuff him in a plane and send him? So what if it's legal or not? He's done plenty of illegal things in the past and we (the country) haven't held him accountable for them yet. Why should we start now?



------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
I think this mess makes a good feignt for Clinton...and maybe ha's getting fresh Cuban cigars in trade for PR for Castro.
 
Muleshoe: Short answer? No, we don't. What's the point in requiring them to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, if our ideal LEO is somebody who will subsequently never pause to reflect upon whether an order is consistant with that oath?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I just keep getting a sinking feeling that we are slipping and sliding down a slope which other countries have slide (Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Korea, Cuba all come to mind). Post WWII trials made it clear that "just following orders" will not serve as an excuse for criminal behavior.

I would think it would be interesting for all participants to know something of the larger picture. After all, the command structure is asking those guys out on the pointy end to risk their lives AND kill someone else if necessary. Second point, it is clear to me these guys were not the crack tactical team they wanted to be. In other words, they were not experienced in these actions. Seems to me someone would want to know why this action is so different than their experience.

Muleshoe, you have a point. People in those situations have to act and not debate orders. No army can long tolerate such actions. However, how do we avoid the mess other countries got into because no one thought to question an order that was known to be immoral or illegal?



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
When you're told to raid a warehouse because it's beind used as a drug factory, you don't question.

When you're told to invade a house to intervene in a child custody case, I think you'd have to ask yourself "what the..."
 
I'll avoid the debate over following orders, and as a longtime photojournalist say only this:

The photo you saw was 1/125th of a second or so, and is but a slice in the event, taken out of context, without sound or continuity. It certainly doesn't reveal what video would have, and if there had been video, there would be less to debate about the tactics used.

It seems to me that the raid was conducted very professionally, and the decision to conduct it was made much further up the chain of command. I have to confess to having been diverted to personal affairs lately... was it ever determined whether the warrant was complied with, or that there WAS one? We can argue about the "just following orders" excuse, but that seems irrelevant here: no was was killed or injured, or abused or tortured.imho.
 
No one was killed or injured, including Elian I'll note, because nothing went wrong. Simple as that.

If anyone in that home had made a mistake and pulled a weapon on the fed's, those agents could not be positive a round wouldn't end up in the 'wrong' person. All over a child custody case.

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Someday, again (ala Waco / Ruby Ridge), fed's will kill a child / children, and will blame it on their adversary. It doesn't wash, IMHO.

Professional? Yes, to a degree. Lucky? Yes, as well. Force out of proportion? You bet.

Regards from AZ
 
I agree that just following orders is not a defense nor should we be following unlawful orders. But I don't think you guys realize the bad position line LEOs are in. As muleshoe touched on, we don't have the luxury of questioning every order we are given, that would equal termination of employment. Then who is going to pay my house payment, feed my kids, etc.

That said, let me share a recent experience with you guys so maybe you can understand the stituation line LEOs face. We were attempting to arrest a combative subject. This person was actively resisting but not assaultive to us. During the scuffle I was ordered by a superior to use a higher level of force, I did not for various reasons. The person was placed into handcuffs after a few minutes without any injuries to us or the person. Needless to say it was an "incident" which I was counseled about by the superior on the scene and someone farther up the food chain. I was told under no uncertain terms what I did was NOT acceptable. My way of thinking was I am responsible for my own use of force (and I could guarantee if things went sideways I would be the one ultimately on the hotseat). This argument went no where.

Just as background, I have been in law enforcement for thirteen years, have been a training officer, in specialized units, etc. I mention this just to say I am not a rookie, I don't have a problem using force when appropiate, didn't freeze up, etc.

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited June 07, 2000).]
 
So is it some folks opinion that no force can ever be used to enfoce court orders in a child custody case? That certainly appears to be what some of the posts on this thread imply...

Maybe you would have made a different decision if you'd been the court, but that's not the point. The court had decided that the people who were holding Elian had no legal right to do so, and they refused to turn him over - at which point they became kidnappers. Negotiations had, in the opinion of the government, failed. Maybe you disagree with the government negotiatiors, but you can't be positive they were wrong - in real life, negotions sometimes do fail.

No one seriously doubt that the government can sometimes legitimately use force to enforce laws when people refuse court orders. What, other than anticommunist ideals (which should be irrelevant), makes this case different?

--Ampersand
 
WHICH court determinded that Elian shouldn't be with his Miami relatives? There were two rulings which disagreed with each other.
 
In a shorter , private interview he was reported as saying " Kicking down doors has been very very good to me ".

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top