Untitled Document

January 30, 1995, Monday, Final Edition

SECTION: Part A; COMMENTARY; EDITORIALS; LETTERS; Pg. A20

LENGTH: 1358 words

HEADLINE: Freeh explains why FBI handled Weaver case as it did

BODY:
James Bovard's critical Jan. 18 Op-Ed article, "Cover-up from Idaho to
Waco?" concerning my decision to discipline 12 FBI employees contains
misstatements and draws erroneous conclusions. Ironically, these are the very
transgressions for which Mr. Bovard criticizes me.

Mr. Bovard finds me guilty of "blatantly misrepresenting" the actions of an
FBI sniper who fired at an armed suspect at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. The sniper shot
after he observed the suspect move his weapon as if the suspect intended to
shoot at a helicopter carrying other law enforcement personnel. Mr. Bovard
contends that no helicopter was flying in the vicinity at the time of the shot
The Washington Times, January 30, 1995

and that the dismissal of a criminal assault charge against the suspect based on
this incident proves that the suspect was not threatening other law enforcement
officials.

Mr. Bovard is misguided on both points. The FBI sniper testified at trial
that he personally observed the helicopter lift off approximately 5 to 10
seconds before the armed suspect and two companions ran out of the Weaver cabin.
In addition, the two FBI agents and the two officials from the U.S. Marshals
Service who were aboard the helicopter and others have provided statements
contrary to Mr. Bovard's assertion. Moreover, a contemporaneously prepared log
indicates that the helicopter began its sixth surveillance flight of the day
four minutes before the sniper fired his weapon.

Mr. Bovard does accurately recount that a criminal charge of assault based
on the threat to the helicopter and its occupants was dismissed by the trial
judge. Mr. Bovard fails to note, however, that the burden of proof to sustain
a criminal charge - proof beyond a reasonable doubt - is significantly higher
than the standard necessary for a law enforcement officer to act in self-defense
or the defense of others. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee vs.
Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11, (1985) established that "[w]here the officer has
probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical
harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not unconstitutionally
The Washington Times, January 30, 1995

unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force." Mr. Bovard's analysis
applies the wrong legal standards and reaches a conclusion that is, as a
consequence, inaccurate.

Mr. Bovard also faults my conclusion that the second shot fired by the FBI
sniper as the suspects ran back toward their cabin was consistent with law and
FBI policy. He characterizes the suspect's retreat benignly as "a wounded man
trying to struggle into his home and the arms of his family." Though only the
suspects know why they took the action that they did, it is clear that whatever
the suspects' intention was in their withdrawal to the cabin, it was not
submission to the lawful authority of the U.S. law enforcement officers who
possessed a warrant for Mr. Weaver's arrest. The suspects neither surrendered
nor dropped their weapons. Had the sniper or others exposed themselves then, or
later, to make the arrest, they would have done so at considerable peril to
their own safety.

Moreover, the sniper's decision was informed by the danger and violence that
pervaded the crisis. Mr. Weaver was believed to have participated in the
killing of a deputy U.S. marshal the day before this incident. In addition,
Mr. Weaver had a history of animosity toward law enforcement and had often
proclaimed his intent to forcibly resist any attempt to arrest him. He was
believe to have fortified his cabin with numerous weapons and large amounts of
The Washington Times, January 30, 1995

ammunition. It was also known that during a 1991 arrest of Randall Weaver, his
wife, Vicki Weaver was found to possess a weapon in her purse and Randall Weaver
resisted law enforcement officers and attempted to take an officer's gun from
him. Law enforcement officers are not required to put their own lives
unreasonably at risk to arrest armed, dangerous and violence-prone individuals.

The sniper's second shot, taken only seconds after the suspect had
threatened to fire upon the helicopter, was designed to prevent him from
reaching the tactical cover of the cabin, where additional weapons and
ammunition were available. Moreover, the cabin afforded the best protection to
an armed subject intent on resisting lawful arrest, because the known presence
of children inside was an absolute bar against the FBI's directing any fire at
the cabin.

Mr. Bovard insults the courageous men and women agents of the FBI when he suggests that they would "wantonly shoot private citizens based on mere suspicion." FBI policy permits the use of deadly force when necessary in
self-defense or defense of others. It was on that basis that only one sniper
fired two shots. If Mr. Bovard's premise were even partially correct, the
other snipers on the scene who clearly observed the three armed subjects outside
the cabin would have certainly fired at them. That the only shots fired were
taken after Mr. Weaver brandished his weapon in the direction of the
The Washington Times, January 30, 1995

helicopter demonstrates the absurdity of Mr. Bovard's assertion.

Tragically, the second shot fired to protect law enforcement officers
accidentally struck and killed Vicki Weaver, who was standing completely unseen
on the front porch behind the outwardly opened door of the cabin. The second
shot was not fired into the cabin; it was aimed and fired along a path parallel
to the front of the cabin. Contrary to Mr. Bovard's implication, I have never
argued that Vicki Weaver's death was justified. Mr. Bovard's reference to a
flawed 1992 FBI report containing that conclusion deliberately ignores my
explicit rejection of that finding and the imposition of severe discipline
against those FBI employees who reached and approved that conclusion. Mrs.
Weaver's death was accidental. I do not contend that is was anything more.

Finally, Mr. Bovard's tendentious article criticizes me for imposing
insufficient discipline. Mr. Bovard's criticism is predicated on the
misconception that Mrs. Weaver's death is related to the discipline imposed.
Her death, however, was accidental and not causally related to any misconduct.
When one recognizes that Mrs. Weaver's death was not connected to any
misconduct by any FBI employee, the discipline meted out can be more easily seen
to be proportionate to the misconduct.
The Washington Times, January 30, 1995

If the shot that tragically killed Mrs. Weaver had been taken solely on the
basis of the problematic rules of engagement, Mr. Bovard's criticism would be
justified. My own review, corroborated by independent inquiries by the Office
of Professional Responsibility and the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights
Division (separate Justice Department entities) has found that this shot did not
warrant the filing of any criminal charges. While I understand and respect the
right of people to disagree with my decision, I am fully confident that I have
correctly applied the law to the facts that have been established after a
thorough and exhaustive investigation.

Mr. Bovard's often inaccurate facts and misleading or patently false
conclusions paint an unfair portrait of the FBI's actions. I invite Mr. Bovard
and others to examine the FBI's and my actions and urge them to speak out when
they find wrongdoing. Those who undertake this important function, however,
must accept the responsibility of accurately stating the facts.

Similarly, a companion article by Paul Craig Roberts, subtitled, "Role for
Congress?" which calls for congressional inquiry into alleged "illegal and
unconstitutional acts" by federal law enforcement, unfortunately contains
misstatements and obviously erroneous conclusions. I welcome congressional
oversight of the FBI regarding this incident, since I am confident that such an
inquiry would be predicated upon a sound factual basis rather than
The Washington Times, January 30, 1995

inflammatory and unfounded allegations.

LOUIS J. FREEH

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S.Department of Justice

Washington

The Washington Times

February 7, 1995, Tuesday, Final Edition

SECTION: Part A; COMMENTARY; EDITORIALS; LETTERS; Pg. A18

LENGTH: 638 words

HEADLINE: FBI's actions in Weaver case deserve investigation

BODY:
FBI Director Louis Freeh, in his Jan. 30 letter to The Washington Times
("Freeh explains why FBI handled Weaver case as it did"), seeks to refute the
charges that I made in a Jan. 18 Op-Ed article.

Unfortunately, Mr. Freeh's explanation simply further reveals that the FBI
appears to be suffering from a "moving target" syndrome regarding its rationale
for the killing of Vicki Weaver.

Mr. Freeh states regarding the shot that killed Mrs. Weaver: "The sniper's
second shot, taken only seconds after the suspect [Randy Weaver] had
The Washington Times, February 7, 1995

threatened to fire upon the helicopter, was designed to prevent him from
reaching the tactical cover of the cabin, where additional weapons and
ammunition were available."

Yet, on Jan. 26, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from Mr. Freeh
responding to an article I wrote on the Weaver case for that paper on Jan. 10.
Mr. Freeh declared in that letter: "Vicki Weaver was standing unseen on the
cabin porch behind the outwardly opened door. Mr. Bovard fails to note that
the bullet that wounded its intended target and that also accidentally struck
and killed Vicki Weaver . . ."

However, the "intended target" that Mr. Freeh was referring to in that
letter was Kevin Harris, a family friend of the Weavers who was staying with
them in the cabin. (Mr. Freeh's wording is also deceptive because it implies
that the "intended target" was hit first; in reality, the FBI sniper's bullet
passed through Vicki Weaver's head before striking Mr. Harris). Apparently,
after more than two years after the FBI attacked the Weavers, the FBI Director
still cannot decide who his sniper was actually supposedly trying to kill when
he killed Mrs. Weaver.

Mr. Freeh seeks to justify the FBI sniper's attack on the Weavers: "Though
only the suspects know why they took the action that they did, it is clear
The Washington Times, February 7, 1995

that whatever the suspects' intention was in their withdrawal at the cabin, it
was not submission to the lawful authority of the U.S. law enforcement officer
who possessed a warrant for Mr. Weaver's arrest. The suspects neither
surrendered nor dropped their weapons." Shooting a man in the back without
warning is an unusual way to serve an arrest warrant.

Mr. Freeh neglects to mention that the FBI never even sought to contact Mr.
Weaver to demand his surrender before the sniper opened fire. Why would Randy
Weaver have thought that the government was interested in his surrender after
they had shot him in the back after no provocation on his part? Does Mr. Freeh
believe that possessing a warrant for someone's arrest gives an FBI sniper a
right to shoot the person on sight, without even a demand for that person to bow
down to "the lawful authority of the U.S. law enforcement officer"? Simply
because an FBI agent has a badge does now make his exercise of power lawful.

Mr. Freeh concedes that a "flawed" 1992 FBI report did conclude that the
shooting of Vicki Weaver was justified. That report was completed only a few
weeks after Vicki Weaver's killing. The FBI has done nothing to indicate that
its current pronouncements deserve any more credibility than the dishonest
comments that FBI spokesmen made during the siege. Reuters reported on Aug.
25, 1992, three days after the sniper killed Vicki Weaver, and after FBI
officials were aware that she had been shot: "FBI Agent Gene Glenn said that
The Washington Times, February 7, 1995

the law enforcement officers were proceeding with extreme care, mindful that
Weaver's wife Vicki and three remaining children . . . were also in the cabin.
'We are taking a very cautious approach,' he said in a statement to reporters."

The American people are still waiting for the truth about the FBI's actions
on Ruby Ridge.

JAMES BOVARD

Rockville

LOAD-DATE: February 7, 1995