Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Benton,
The essence of our disagreement goes back to the earliest days of our Republic. You are on the side of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton or of a "broad" interpretation of the Constitution. I am on the side of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison or a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't have any problem with the commando tactics in hostage situations with a clear and present danger to the hostages. In all other situations, I have a very great problem with it.
If surveillance is in truth the purpose, well, two little old ladies dressed as bird watchers make more sense to me than the commando bit.
I have talked about the initial scenario at Ruby Ridge with many state and local LEO's. All of them agreed that there was no justification for those agents to be on that land equipped for an assassination with no warrant of any kind. Yes, there is justification for camouflage but justification for silenced weapons? No, silenced weapons are not necessary for self defense. Being equipped for assassination leads people to believe that the purpose was assassination.
I have bluntly asked LEO's this question without specifically referencing Ruby Ridge:
Camouflaged, automatic silenced weapons, no warrants, and totally covert penetration-what's the mission? In every case, the state or local LEO's answer was that they were there to kill. So even if you believe that this behaviour is justifiable you have a big, big problem with not only the civilians but with fellow LEO's when you decide to utilize such tactics. Therefore, the pertinent question is this: Are the potential gains of such tactics worth the known losses in respect and trust? In my view, the people who persist in using these tactics in the face of such massive suspicion and loss of trust are either idiots or, if not, perhaps they have goals that make loss of trust and respect irrelevant.
As I have posted on a similar topic previously, my 70 year mother is as patriotic and middle of the road American as you can get. God and country, apple pie. Has always voted for both Republicans and Democrats. She is worried that the people who brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco might come do the same to me for simply speaking my mind in forums such as this. Believe me, if a lady as middle of the road as she believes this, the so do millions of other "centrist" Americans. This is the results of such tactics. Are these tactics really worth such a result?
The essence of our disagreement goes back to the earliest days of our Republic. You are on the side of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton or of a "broad" interpretation of the Constitution. I am on the side of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison or a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't have any problem with the commando tactics in hostage situations with a clear and present danger to the hostages. In all other situations, I have a very great problem with it.
If surveillance is in truth the purpose, well, two little old ladies dressed as bird watchers make more sense to me than the commando bit.
I have talked about the initial scenario at Ruby Ridge with many state and local LEO's. All of them agreed that there was no justification for those agents to be on that land equipped for an assassination with no warrant of any kind. Yes, there is justification for camouflage but justification for silenced weapons? No, silenced weapons are not necessary for self defense. Being equipped for assassination leads people to believe that the purpose was assassination.
I have bluntly asked LEO's this question without specifically referencing Ruby Ridge:
Camouflaged, automatic silenced weapons, no warrants, and totally covert penetration-what's the mission? In every case, the state or local LEO's answer was that they were there to kill. So even if you believe that this behaviour is justifiable you have a big, big problem with not only the civilians but with fellow LEO's when you decide to utilize such tactics. Therefore, the pertinent question is this: Are the potential gains of such tactics worth the known losses in respect and trust? In my view, the people who persist in using these tactics in the face of such massive suspicion and loss of trust are either idiots or, if not, perhaps they have goals that make loss of trust and respect irrelevant.
As I have posted on a similar topic previously, my 70 year mother is as patriotic and middle of the road American as you can get. God and country, apple pie. Has always voted for both Republicans and Democrats. She is worried that the people who brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco might come do the same to me for simply speaking my mind in forums such as this. Believe me, if a lady as middle of the road as she believes this, the so do millions of other "centrist" Americans. This is the results of such tactics. Are these tactics really worth such a result?