Remember Ruby Ridge: Ten years later, there are still important lessons.

National Review Online ^ | August 21, 2002 | Timothy Lynch

[xsysmgr]

"Ruby Ridge" used to refer to a geographical location in the state of Idaho, but after an incident that took place there ten years ago today, the phrase has come to refer to a scandalous series of events that opened the eyes of many people to the inner workings of the federal government, including the vaunted Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now that ten years have passed, the feds will accelerate their ongoing effort to "move forward" and have the scandal declared "ancient history." But the Ruby Ridge episode should not be soon forgotten.

On August 21, 1992 a paramilitary unit of the U.S. Marshals Service ventured onto the 20-acre property known as Ruby Ridge. A man named Randy Weaver owned the land and he lived there with his wife, children, and a family friend, Kevin Harris. There was an outstanding warrant for Weaver's arrest for a firearms offense and the marshals were surveilling the premises. When the family dog noticed the marshals sneaking around in the woods, it began to bark wildly. Weaver's 14-year-old boy, Sammy, and Kevin Harris proceeded to grab their rifles because they thought the dog had come upon a wild animal.

A firefight erupted when a marshal shot and killed the dog. Enraged that the family pet had been cut down for no good reason, Sammy shot into the woods at the unidentified trespasser. Within a few minutes, two human beings were shot dead: Sammy Weaver and a marshal. Harris and the Weaver family retreated to their cabin and the marshals retreated from the mountain and called the FBI for assistance.

During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.

After an eleven-day standoff, Weaver agreed to surrender. The FBI told the world that it had apprehended a band of dangerous racists. The New York Times was duped into describing a family (two parents, three children) and one adult friend as "an armed separatist brigade." The Department of Justice proceeded to take over the case, charging Weaver and Harris with conspiracy to commit "murder." Federal prosecutors asked an Idaho jury to impose the death penalty. Instead, the jury acquitted Weaver and Harris of all of the serious criminal charges. Embarrassed by the outcome, FBI officials told the world that there would be a thorough review of the case, but the Bureau closed ranks and covered up the mess. FBI director Louis Freeh went so far as to promote one of the agents involved, Larry Potts, to the Bureau's number-two position.

When Weaver sued the federal government for the wrongful death of his wife and son, the government that had tried to kill him twice now sought an out-of-court settlement. In August 1995 the U.S. government paid the Weaver family $3.1 million. On the condition that his name not be used in an article, one Department of Justice official told the Washington Post that if Weaver's suit had gone to trial in Idaho, he probably would have been awarded $200 million.

With the intervening events at Waco, more and more people began to question the veracity of Department of Justice and FBI accounts and whether the federal government had the capacity to hold its own agents accountable for criminal misconduct. Like the Watergate scandal, however, the response to the initial illegality turned out to be even more shocking and disturbing.

When an FBI supervisor, Michael Kahoe, admitted to destroying evidence and obstructing justice, he was eventually prosecuted but only after being kept on the FBI payroll until his 50th birthday — so that he would be eligible for his retirement pension. And when Larry Potts was finally forced into retirement, FBI officials flew into Washington from around the country for his going-away bash. Those officials claimed to be on "official business" so they billed the taxpayers for the trip. After the fraud was leaked to the press by some anonymous and apparently sickened FBI agent, the merry band of partygoers were not discharged from service. Instead, a letter was placed in their personnel file, chiding them for "inattention to detail."

An Idaho prosecutor did bring manslaughter charges against the FBI sniper who shot Vicki Weaver. That move really outraged the feds because they insisted that they were capable of policing their own — so long as they did not have any outside "interference."

The Department of Justice was so disturbed by the indictment of its agent that they dispatched the solicitor general to a federal appellate court to argue that the charges should be dismissed. (The solicitor general ordinarily only makes oral argument to the Supreme Court). The solicitor general told the judicial panel that even if the evidence supported the charges, the case should be thrown out because "federal law enforcement agents are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen." The appeals court rejected that sweeping argument for a license to kill, but by the time that ruling came down last June, a new local prosecutor was in office in Boundary County, Idaho, and he announced that it was time to put this whole unpleasant episode behind us and to "move on." Thus, the criminal case against the sniper was dropped.

A new generation of young people who have never heard of Ruby Ridge are now emerging from the public-school system and are heading off to college and will thereafter begin their careers in business, education, journalism, government, and other fields. This generation will find it hard to fathom that the federal government could have killed a boy and an unarmed woman and then tried to deceive everyone about what had actually occurred and, in some instances, rationalize what did occur. That is why it is important to remember Ruby Ridge. Someone needs to remind the young people (and everyone else) that it really did happen — and that it will happen again if the government is not kept on a short leash. No one will learn about the incident when they tour the FBI facility in Washington. It goes unmentioned for some reason.

— Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice.

[PeterPatriot]

I have seen the evils of government. I can now see how the government has secret plans to kill its citizens. I also see the point about a person’s actions only being defined by what a jury decides after the fact. Police officers should not attempt to arrest or bring a criminal to justice, unless that person is first found guilty in a court of law. The thought of police officers attempting to arrest criminals for crimes that have not yet been established in a court of law seems un-American. It is also absurd to believe government agents are telling the truth. Just because government investigators have determined that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for terrorism, that certainly does not make it true, and since Bin Laden has never been found guilty of terrorism in a court of law, we definitely should not attempt to bring him to justice; that would violate his civil rights, which outweigh the rights of those his actions may hurt.

This line of thinking applies equally well to the gunman in the recent school hostage case http://www.dispatch.co.za/2006/09/30/Foreign/cgun.html . After police officers asked the gunman holding young girls hostage to surrender to the due process of law and he refused, that should have been the end of it (the police should have just went home). Criminals should have the option of ignoring arrest, and if they are unwilling to submit the US legal system, they should have that right. After the gunman decided against trusting in the legal system, he should have been left alone with those girls, after all, the rights of someone with a gun outweigh the safety of the children they might harm. In that case, the police attempted to blow a hole in the wall in order for a sniper to shoot the armed gunman, even though children were present; the police were obviously attempting to prevent the suspect from having a fair trial (at this point he wasn’t even convicted of a crime nor had he a known previous record of violence). Shooting a suspect that may poses a danger to children should be out of the question. Although the use of deadly force can be used if the suspect poses a threat to the officers or OTHERS, using such force just seems wrong and definitely illegal. Trusting law enforcement officers to weigh the dangers and decide on the best course of action to protect its citizens does not seem appropriate (especially since the government is evil).

I had no idea the government was so evil, until taking a closer look at it. Did you know that the planes on 9/11 were really flown by Jews, and that the government knew about it but was willing to kill its own people in order to oppress Palestinians? Also, Iraqis do not want freedom, and they actually really want to die through sectarian violence. Timothy McVeigh was also a government agent who killed American citizens in order for the government to pass laws regulating the militias. Regulating the militias is a total crime, the constitution would never allow for a WELL REGULATED MILITA. Did you know that America is Mystery Babylon the Great from the book of Revelations? American is run by both a Jewish ZOG conspiracy and by the Anti-Christ. America is doomed unless will can elect a communist war protester who has confessed to false war crimes into the Presidency. The weapons our soldiers are fighting with are inadequate, they need rubber bullets and pepper stray now. The people at WACO were not given enough time to submit to arrest, whenever a police officer arrests other people for crimes the suspects are given several months to obey the instruction. The people at WACO that did surrender or did leave the burning building were accidents, the government meant to kill all of its citizens but some were accidentally allowed to be arrested or exit the building. Did you know the war in Iraq was really about oil? It is true, that is why the gas prices are so much cheaper than ever before. The government does not want to listen to the calls made to terrorist overseas, really the government wants to hear want you are saying to your family members, they especially want to know what you buy at the grocery store and what you are going to eat for dinner. The government as hired six people to work in shifts and monitor the phone calls of every single America; for every America citizen there are six times that many people listening to their phone calls. These people are truly evil and are part of the governments plan to find out what you bought at the grocery store, and who you are going bowling with on the weekend.

Okay, maybe not everything above it 100% true, but perhaps we should think about it.

[gatex]

"I do not agree with how the FBI conducted themselves, but I wouldn't be in a big hurry to cite the 9th circuit(the most liberal, and overturned court in the U.S.)as my main foundation for my argument. "

Suggest you read the case and who wrote it before you comment.