Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 01/13/2015 10:14:04 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
It’s a morning Kenneth Wright will never forget: 15 armed agents break in his front door and grab him by the neck, still in the boxer shorts he slept in. For six hours, a handcuffed Wright sat in a cruiser parked outside with his three children, ages 3, 7, and 11, while agents searched his house.
“They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids,” the Stockton, Calif., resident told a local news outlet at the time.
Drugs? Weapons? Domestic violence? No. As Wright later found out, his gun-toting visitors were from the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). What the neighbors mistook as a S.W.A.T. team raid was really the execution of a search warrant in a student loan fraud case involving Wright’s wife, who wasn’t even there at the time.
“They busted down my door for this,” he exclaimed, “it wasn’t even me.”
The Department of Education took a drubbing from conservative and libertarian media but was unrepentant in its explanation. It offered no information on what the search warrant was for, other than to say that the OIG got it signed by a federal judge, and that the OIG routinely executes warrants for bribery, embezzlement, fraud, “and other criminal activity.” The department also said it “assesses” the danger of each search based on “a number of factors” before bringing the guns, like the whether the “persons” known to be at the house have a criminal or violent history.
Wright had no previous record, according to the above-mentioned report.
It might come as a surprise to most Americans, but the DOE considers its inspector general’s office to be its “law enforcement” arm and has outfitted it as such. In 2010, the department purchased 27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns to replace its old firearms. “OIG operates with full law enforcement authority,” the department said after the Stockton incident.
And it was right. After the 9/11 attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave inspector generals’ offices across the federal spectrum statutory authority to build up such law enforcement capabilities—including the right to carry weapons and arrest people.
Not surprisingly, as the nation debates the militarization of local and state police in the wake of several high-profile use of force cases, the proliferation of the law enforcement culture within the federal bureaucracy has largely gone unnoticed. The fact is, agencies whose prime directive is to audit and investigate regulatory transgressions like waste, fraud and abuse, are arming up with rifles and submachine guns—in essence, getting ready for battle.
“Not only is it overkill, but having these highly-armed units within dozens of agencies is duplicative, costly, heavy handed, dangerous and destroys any sense of trust between citizens and the federal government,” declared Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, in a statement to TAC. He plans to re-introduce language he sponsored in the last session that would repeal the authority given to the OIGs in 2002 and prohibit any federal agency outside “those traditionally tasked with enforcing federal law,” like the FBI and federal marshals, to get their hands on machine guns, grenades, and other military weapons.
In May last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) OIG put a bid out for 85 submachine guns (original solicitation here), specifically “.40 Cal. (Smith & Wesson), ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burst trigger group,” outfitted with “Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip), scope (top rear) and stock-collapsible or folding, magazine.”
In September, a contract went out to Heckler & Koch Defense Inc., a weapons outfit in Northern Virginia, for $126, 586 worth of “weapons” for the OIG with no additional detail available. On the Heckler & Koch website, the gun closest to the solicitation is the MP5/40 Smith & Wesson.
Broiled by bad press after news of the solicitation and subsequent contract to Heckler & Koch, the USDA OIG responded with a five-page backgrounder—and justification—in October. “OIG’s investigations handles, on average, over 800 criminal investigations each year, some of which place OIG agents in potentially life-threatening situations,” it read.
The USDA said its statutory authority dates back to the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 which gives the OIG authority to “make arrests, execute warrants for arrest, the search of premises or the seizure of evidence; and carry firearms.”
“Although most OID enforcement activities do not result in a use of force related incident, a seemingly routing action such as an interview, surveillance, or search-arrest warrants always has the potential to turn into a dangerous deadly situation,” the agency argued, going on to list 11 cases dating back to 1997 in which OIG investigators were directly or indirectly threatened, or involved massive amounts of drugs, weapons and criminal activity.
“Carrying situation-appropriate firearms and wearing ballistic vests, as necessary, can reduce the possibility that criminal suspects engage OIG special agents or other persons in physical violence or use of firearms,” the agency said. So what about the 85 sub-machine guns?
The agency says the guns are not “fully automatic” capable and would “be carried by OIG special agents only when a particular arrest or search warrant is deemed as high risk for danger.”
One might ask two things: 1) whether the “crime” and “danger” should dictate that traditional law enforcement like the FBI step in rather than the USDA’s OIG, and 2) Why the OIG, which is has traditionally looked inward to tackle fraud and abuse among USDA’s programs, is increasingly pursuing cockfighting rings and meth labs on farms.
It isn’t new, says Washington, D.C., attorney Patrick O’Donnell, whose work in part requires that he defend corporate clients and individuals in federal cases quite like the ones pursued by these OIGs every day. He says the complexity of federal law has pushed the boundaries of what violations of a regulation constitutes a “crime” and the OIGs have taken full advantage, pursuing the more “glamorous” path of arming up.
“Those who do this on the defense side don’t carry guns—I can’t carry a gun. I work in Washington D.C. where they are basically outlawed,” he tells TAC. “But I personally don’t feel the need to be armed.” He said aside from his government cases, he has defended clients in both white-collar crimes and in pro-bono criminal defense cases. “I’ve done a lot of them in rough neighborhoods with rough folks—I know what cases tend to be threatening or not threatening. So this strikes me as outlandish.”
O’Donnell and colleague Brita Strandberg recently penned an op-ed, “We Don’t Need a Pistol-Packing FCC Inspector General’s Office,” for the National Law Journal. The FCC’s OIG David L. Hunt has testified that his office would like to hire two criminal investigators, who would be armed, to carry out what he says are potentially dangerous investigations going on both inside the agency’s programs and outside fraud and theft cases, typically involving federal communications subsidies like the Video Relay Service or the Universal Service Fund and its four major programs.
Hunt has argued that the office lacks the tools to go after more of these crimes effectively and must wait for FBI/DOJ investigators, whose time is split, to do the job. “However, if we were to have the support of criminal investigators, we could develop a case to a further point on our own rather than consume DOJ and FBI resources,” he told a House subcommittee in September.
As for the guns, “OIG investigators will be able to securely enter premises to interview witnesses in situations where it may be unwise to do so without the assistance of the FBI,” Hunt said, pointing an ongoing cases where “we have been advised not to conduct interviews because of possible safety concerns.”
Hunt told TAC last week that, “the focus on the weaponry is frustrating; all we are saying is if you want to investigate crime you have to have people trained to do that.” He said his office oversees a nexus of $10 billion in taxpayer money and is their job to keep it from leaking out into the wrong hands—whether that is embezzlement on the inside or among potentially dangerous actors outside.
“We’re like internal affairs at a police department but with a huge program (Universal Service Fund)—a number of huge programs on the outside too,” Hunt tells TAC. “Congress did not just task us to look on the inside.”
O’Donnell says it’s no surprise that FCC and other OIGs “are turning outward in the world, and not inward to the agency. ” The former invites possible law enforcement action, is higher profile, and tends to get more press.
“There is nothing glamorous about taking a hard line on the FCC and critically pointing out its shortcomings,” he said, referring to internal audits required by the OIG. “But to say you helped bust someone ripping off a program and to say you helped prosecute them and you have to carry a gun as a federal agent—well that’s more glamorous.”
So far, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has been unwilling to green light Hunt’s request to add two criminal investigators to his 39-member staff. In a statement to TAC, Wheeler’s office said:
Chairman Wheeler values and supports the independence of the Office of the Inspector General. The question of whether to permit armed employees in FCC buildings and field offices raises important security and employee safety questions. The Chairman has not made a final decision. The Office of the Chairman has discussed public safety concerns with the Inspector General and is consulting other agencies on their practices.
Critics like O’Donnell and others suggest that once these agencies have the ability to build law enforcement capabilities, the need to justify them inevitably grows, too, as does the proliferation of their trappings, including weapons and “tactical” gear (the USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection service paid $10,000 for a sniper rifle in 2010, for example)—not unlike the militarization of local and state police departments everywhere in the nation today.
“We are already far down this road,” he said. “There is no shortage of law enforcement in America. Quite the opposite.”
Indeed.
>>I don’t have as much animosity for the actual shooters. They were just doing their job, though admittedly they should have refused the orders they were given.
Police states can’t exist if the police refuse to “just follow orders”. Lon Horiuchi is a murderer who is no different than a concentration camp guard. The actual shooters are the actual killers.
As a retired police officer this episode is extremely troubling to me on many levels. Sorry but cubicle dwelling bureaucrats should not be issued live ammunition and have police powers.
Also, I cannot imagine performing a dynamic entry in serving a warrant for evidence in an old student loan fraud case. The circumstances here are horrifying at a tactical and ethical level. The fact that the state STUDENT LOAN agency has the capability of launching such a screwed up operation, let alone pronouncing these tactics appropriate, is a moment of crystalline clarity that the tyranny is already here. The governor and legislature should be made to pay at the polls for allowing it to continue.
This case (and I’m sure there are others like it) should be Page 1 above-the-fold headlines right up until the polls close next Election Day, and beyond. Sadly, I doubt it will be. I’m not a big one for proclaiming Second Amendment remedies. It should be unnecessary as long as we have a functioning First Amendment. But where will the people go next for redress when the press has been totally co-opted into the tyranny?
When the violence starts it will be due in no small part to a press that forgot to defend liberty and decided to cheerlead for oppression.
A sniper ordered to take out a target seldom has the information needed to determine if it is right and proper to take out that target. That’s not his job.
His job is to hit the target. He is essentially a weapon, with the responsibility for its proper use rightly going to the guy who decides to authorize its use. A human drone, if you will.
Which is as it should be. In an emergency hostage situation, do we really want a sniper refusing to take a shot while he reviews evidence to decide whether it is justified or not? That’s not his job. Any more than it’s the job of a Marine squad to decide whether they ought to follow through on their orders to attack a building or not.
Admittedly, the longterm standoff at RR meant that the shooters had every opportunity to figure out what was going on and refuse to participate, which complicates the issue more than usual. Which is what they should have done. My understanding is that some of the guys at the standoff decided amongst themselves to revert to “normal” ROEs.
But to my mind the PRIMARY responsibility belongs to whoever decided to target the Weavers, not the shooters. Concentrating on the shooters I think lets him/her off the hook.
YMMV
The FBI ROE that were operative at Ruby Ridge were blatantly unconstitutional. Criminal, actually, and every man there should have known it.
Had a state or local agency implemented ROE like that the FBI would have prosecuted them criminally and would have been right to do so.
The unintended consequences of this kind of policy are horrible. Why do VA employees treat Veterans so bad? Because there are armed guards at the VA facilities. This breeds the attitude in the VA employees that they have bodyguards and can do whatever they want to Veterans.
Freeper Travis McGee wrote a book that parallels this outrage.
Seems like the Federal bureaucracy is stranger than fiction.
I think that what the SS Nazi said at the trail after WWII. When it all turns to shit very few of these American SS will even get the chance to say I was only following orders. All men stand trial if not before the law than before the Father of us all.
As an retired federal agent I completely agree. If you are a regulatory agency like the USDA, EPA, FCC the Department of Education or whatever and you need a high risk warrant served, call the local PD or SO and have them serve it. That's the way it was done historically. There are highly trained people in all the departments mentioned above but they are not highly trained in law enforcement.
What this is really about is not about the glamour aspect of carrying a gun as the writer suggest. Its about getting 6-C retirement coverage and better overtime compensation as a federal LEO.
Only federal employees who's primary and full time responsibility is enforcing the law should be armed.
>>In an emergency hostage situation, do we really want a sniper refusing to take a shot while he reviews evidence to decide whether it is justified or not?
This was NOT an emergency hostage situation. There were no hostages at all. Horiuchi is a murderer.
But, I’m not letting anyone off the hook. Give me a name for the person who said, “Take that shot.” There were documents stating that Vicki Weaver was the glue that held the family together and that she should be isolated from Randy. Horiuchi and some nameless field commander decided that murdering her was the best way to isolate her.
Cops should be held to higher standard than private citizens, just as an airline pilot is held to a higher standard of care than a fighter pilot.
I have never seen any evidence that Vicky was targeted. May be the case, but I haven’t seen it.
Specifically, she was behind the door and so Horiuchi could not have intentionally targeted her.
BTW, intentionally targeting her would have been in violation of even their appalling ROE.
>>I have never seen any evidence that Vicky was targeted. May be the case, but I haven’t seen it.
>>Specifically, she was behind the door and so Horiuchi could not have intentionally targeted her.
>>BTW, intentionally targeting her would have been in violation of even their appalling ROE.
there was a document written by an FBI profiler.
It was a screen door.
The Department of EDUCATION!
This is absolutely frightening!
Using the "Follow-The-Money" rule, I feel that you have made clear the true motivating factor for up-arming all these alphabet-soup agencies.
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
We're armed so you don't have to be... 
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Hussein Obama, 7/2/2008They don’t call it a Civil Defense force, that would imply we need (or perhaps that we deserve) defense. The official name is National Civilian Community Corps.
I think of it as the NatCCC, or more simply, as the NatCs...
Anyone seen the film Brazil?
Again more US citizens MURDERED by an alphabet of tyranny.
Nope. I've seen pictures. It was a solid door with 4 panes of glass in the upper portion with curtains over them. The shot went thru one of the panes and hit Vicki.
Even without curtains, seeing through glass into a darker building is at best problematic. Which is of course a good reason for not firing a shot into such a situation, particularly when there are children in there.
As stated, I have still seen nothing resembling evidence that Vicky was intentionally targeted.
Vicki was by my personal standards a nut. But she didn't deserve to be shot and killed, intentionally or accidentally.
"Accidentally" is of course not exactly the right word. The shot was fired on purpose. It just apparently hit something the shooter didn't intend to hit.
One of the people on the scene and in charge, I have read, is now Sheriff of San Diego.
“More than 22 years have elapsed since the FBI standoff at Randy Weaver’s cabin in Ruby Ridge. At the time, Gore served as the bureau chief in Seattle, the lead office in charge of the standoff. Weaver, a white separatist facing gun charges, was holed up in the cabin along with his wife Vicki, infant daughter, and a man named Kevin Harrison.”
(snip)
Gore denied that he gave the shooter the green light. He refused to testify at a congressional hearing.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/oct/29/ticker-remember-ruby-ridge-sheriff-gore/#
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.