Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[T. Bankson Roach]

Title: RE: FBI Requests File Removal

You make some good points. After giving it more thought, I think that the agents should be reported to their superiors and that John should explain to them that he takes their "threat" seriously and that he is doing just what he has done, making it public. They may just be trying some terror tactics of their own. I'm from the school that thinks at some level these people should be held responsible for their actions. So far, it might not be absolutely clear just what they meant by these remarks. On the other hand, I think the FBI sniper that killed the wife [was it the baby, too!?] at Ruby Ridge should be held responsible BECAUSE, as almost anybody knows about a professional, i.e. military trained, sniper - they don't make "mistakes" and what he shot was what he meant to shoot. Whether he was ordered to, is another story, as is probably the case of these agent's remarks or motivations.   In general, it is NOT wise to possibly endanger the lives of these agents by making their names public UNLESS you can be certain they meant you harm and in that case, your best, and almost sole weapon is just what we have here, the incident being made public. Keeping your mouth shut after such a threat could end up in your "accidentally" being killed in an auto accident, like Karen Silkwood. I guess I have watched too many "Law and Orders" where confessions and "appropriate" reactions are triggered by threats, real or imagined. At the moment the publicity now surrounding this incident and its "documentation" are John's greatest allies. Strike another blow for John Q. Public and the Internet.   Tom Roach     ----- Original Message ----- From: Ernest Hua To: 'T. Bankson Roach' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 08:29 AM Subject: RE: FBI Requests File Removal Hmmm ... I will have to totally (but respectfully) disagree. The underlings are not necessarily just delivering a friendly reminder in this case. Threats are generally considered not just in poor taste, but real criminal offenses, when it comes from someone in the position to cause someone else a lot of trouble.  (e.g. your boss threatens you, the county prosecutor threatens you, the FBI threatens you, etc ...) In this case, John is dealing with stuff that pisses off the FBI.  But the FBI is not allowed to make random threats just to get its way.  It is clear that what may be harmed in this case is more a diplomatic and/or political in nature rather than some serious security issue.  Therefore, the FBI is clearly in the wrong, unless otherwise proven. John's move to ignore that threat is certainly within his rights, by default. And your baseline point about underlings ...  It is really the underlings that pull the trigger.  Larry Potts did not pull any trigger in Ruby Ridge, for instance.  The extent to which a person on the front line should be held responsible should take into account the seriousness of the situation, and in the case of Ruby Ridge, there is at least some reason to ponder the question.  In this case, however, John is not threatening the agents with shotguns.  Yet the agents did more than just gently advise John. There is a real difference when the attitude is bad. Ern -----Original Message----- From: T. Bankson Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 8:13 AM To: John Young; Steven Furlong Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FBI Requests File Removal [SNIP] First, we know about Carnivore, or think we do. What earthly good is it to put the agent's names in the public domain? Unless you planned to do something cruel, evil or harmful to people "doing their job" it would serve no useful purpose. Contrary to the nonsense propounded at Nuremberg in the flush of victory at the end of WW2, I do not think it wise to hold underlings responsible for policy decisions made by people way up the food chain. [SNIP]