Taking the Shot

Hit me with your best shot
Why don't you hit me with your best shot?
Hit me with your best shot
Fire away
--Hit Me With Your Best Shot,
Pat Benatar

For as long as our people are held hostage
by controllable socio-economic forces,
we cannot afford to be indifferent to the ravages of poverty
in all its dimensions and ramifications
--Ibrahim Babangida

Bang bang, you shot me down
Bang bang, I hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
--Bang Bang, Cher
___________________

This is not a t.v. episode of Flashpoint; this is real life, or to the point, real death.

"SWAT team members in Pennsylvania yesterday killed a career criminal suspected of killing a Fall River toddler and Yarmouth man execution style and critically wounding the boy’s mother and two others — while in Fall River, neighbors mourned the death of the youngest victim, who would have turned 3 this month, and prayed for his mother’s recovery (Cops Kill Suspect in Baby Slay Case.)

Reuters gives a somewhat more dispassionate head, "Gunman who planned to kill man shoots child, another adult" but ledes with the claim that the SWAT team's target was, "an evil unrepentant monster."

Now, we are not defending the alleged actions of such a man, but we must consider the spin to which we are subjected daily. There are people who howl, "He is not a man -- he is a monster!" But sadly, no, he is all too human. The press did the same with killing of Osama bin Laden; the fact of his being unarmed and amidst family was too . . . like us.

As for the specifics of this SWAT event, Ranger wishes to comment as a former training specialist teaching in both the Hostage Negotiations and Special Reaction Teams courses at the U.S. Army MP School. These were the official qualifying courses for Army Hostage Negotiators (HN) and Special Reaction Teams (SRTs). While Ranger is not an expert on HN or SRTs, he did attend all the classes to know what used to be Federal Law Enforcement policy in hostage or barricade situations.

The recent incident with Mark Geisenheyner was a simple barricade situation. According to the details released in news reports, it need not have ended in Mr. Geisenheyner's death. Police policy for such situations would follow these procedures:

• Isolate the scene with inner and outer security with an on-site command post

• The HN and SRT's would be isolated and not in communication. Because the HN often gains a rapport with the subject, he should not know the tactical movements of the SRT for the reason that he might unconsciously convey some information to the subject

• The formula was that the barricaded individual without hostages once physically contained is not a threat unless he attempts a breakout. At that point, elimination is alright; barring that, there is no viable reason to assault the barricade

• All life is valuable, even the suspect's

• The suspect has not been adjudicated and the SRT is neither a judge, jury or executioner. For example, the suspect may be bat shit crazy, and would not merit a death sentence. Any threat to life must be dealt with accordingly, but is it moral to kill a crazy person, even if barricaded? (If so, Ranger better get some good body armor.)

In the Geisenheyner scenario there is no evidence of a HN on-site, and one wonders why the SRT assaulted the suspect when he was cornered in the basement of a house. He was no threat to anyone. Assaulting him may have been dramatic and decisive and oh-so-manly, but it was a violation of established police doctrine, or of what was once accepted policy.

What was gained by this assault? If police do not believe in the sanctity of life, how do they differ from men like Mark Geisenheyner? The willingness of police to expedite assaults is discomfiting to this Ranger.

SSDD

The political class is incapable of solving
the problems they created
--Bill Moyers Journal

You've got to win a little, lose a little,
yes, and always have the blues a little.
That's the story of, that's the glory of love
--The Glory of Love, The Dells

Women! They let 'em vote, smoke and drive
-- even put 'em in pants! And what happens?
A Democrat for president!
--Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965)
______________

We are destroying ourselves without any help from al-Qaeda. The threat to America is elected rather than imported from foreign battlefields. This is a truth the American electorate finds too painful to even contemplate.

The American voters mandated change in both 2006 and 2008, yet things remain in stasis. America is at a critical juncture in the history of the Republic. The will of the people has no expression that is translated into policy. Democracy has no relevance if words have no meaning.

This is why the war in Afghanistan is being ramped up. It is a distraction to keep our eye off the ball and provide an external threat against which to hurl our discontent. It is being fought for non-taxpaying people with money that the U.S. doesn't have.

Why did Obama choose to amp up before his study group was even selected? The decision preceded the recommendations, which seems a continuation of business as usual -- emotion-laden versus rational choices. For those who voted against war and for change: what was the value of that vote? 30,000 more young Americans are about to descend upon the Afghan countryside.

While the cost of our wars is a major component of our current economic woes, our tanked economy cannot be blamed on George Bush alone. Elective wars did not commence with Mr. Bush; the U.S. has been playing Dungeons and Dragons since our early history. Wars and foreign intrigue are irresistible urges for impotent politicians.

Ranger's down-and-dirty historical tour: The first Korean venture in the 1870's, the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Panama,Grenada and the Boxer Rebellion are old imperial programs dating back to the early 1900's. Panama was stolen from Columbia with U.S. contrivance.

The U.S. has always been an aggressive big brother. The early 19th century saw expansionist wars against Canada and Mexico. We have purchased, stolen and conquered with war a great peace-loving nation.

The current U.S. course was chartered by Truman's use of troops in a "police action" in Korea. U.S. policy inspired the 1950 United Nations reaction to the North Korean invasion of the South. The U.S. populace accepted a major war, undeclared by Congress. Containment was the word of the day. Today, Terrorism is the new Containment.

Presidential powers were expanding, and no one blinked an eye. In the late 1940's the U.S. fought a major insurgency in Greece while we were losing big-time in China. On March 12, 1947, President Truman established the Truman Doctrine to help Greece and Turkey resist Communism. Win a little, lose a lot. Drive on!

Eisenhower stuck U.S. fingers into Lebanon and the Suez crisis, fragmenting the U.S.-British-French alliance and becoming a part of the last vestiges of colonialism in the region. Prior to this, the U.S. played fast and loose in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, with consequences reverberating today.

Kennedy had the Cuban problem and continued Eisenhower's policies which bloomed into full-scale war in Vietnam. Again, no declaration of war, and this was sold as an action to insure democracy in the Republic of Vietnam, a theme dusted off from WW I -- the War to End All Wars, as democracy was the theme. Never mind the reality.

Johnson and Nixon offered more of the same. SSDD. Presidents Ford and Carter were too befuddled to cause any major foreign wars. Ford had the Mayaguez incident and Carter had the Iranian issue, which has yet to be resolved, and which stretches back to 1921. Same with Cuba, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reagan introduced Lebanon, Grenada, enhanced with illegal ventures in Panama, Nicaragua El Salvador, Guatemala and Iranscam.

George H.W. Bush was playing fast, loose and dirty as Central Intelligence Agency Director and Vice President. When Bush became president he cleaned up his back trail by invading Panama and jailing his drug-dealing little buddy, General Noriega.

This was a key event as the world and the U.S. accepted the kidnapping and jailing of a head of state wearing a general's uniform without the application of Geneva Conventions. The U.S. was transitioning into a regime change specialist.

Bill Clinton inherited the Somalia policy of Bush I, and we know how well that went. The Balkan adventure has the U.S. military still tied down in the region with no visible benefit to the American people or policies. It -- like so many other current military actions -- is ignored by the people and Congress as just another little sumpthin' we do.

Clinton was useless militarily except for establishing the policy of using missile strikes to help Americans feel good about being jacked around by goat herders and, more importantly, our government. Missiles are better than Prozac.

Americans should fear our presidents. We are no longer represented by them. We are patronized and unconstitutionally led, and we do not show any judicial, legislative or personal outrage at this fact. Both the Right and the Left should fear an executive branch that is out of balance with our constitutional framework.

A crankshaft out of balance in an engine will sabotage the forward movement of a vehicle. The vehicle cannot even access reverse if its engine is blown, and the U.S. executive engine has spun its bearings.

So what change awaits the expectant U.S. taxpayers and the world?