TexasCHLforum.com

Alaska Dispatch
By Sean Doogan September 3, 2013
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/2 ... -epa-raids

The EPA has refused to publicly explain why it used armed officers as part of what it called a “multi-jurisdictional” investigation of possible Clean Water Act violations in the area.

I know that we have seen several threads about the overuse of SWAT and there has been a lot of discussion as to whether the Federal government needs so many SWAT units in the various departments. This looks like yet another example.

I realize, as the article says, that the Federal government owns or controls a lot of the land in Alaska. But 8 SWAT officers for a town of 17??? I also realize that Alaskan citizens are usually armed but the regular police seem to be able to do their jobs without this kind of approach.

Clean water? Really?

Edited to correct link. Thanks TAM

I love that the excuse was "rampant drug and human trafficking" in the area. Really, in a community of 17 full-time residents, 140 miles from the nearest "large" city, in Alaska? Forgive me for being skeptical.

chasfm11 wrote:http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/2 ... -epa-raids

Fixed it for you....

Here's what I think happened: Everybody knows Alaskans love them some guns, but Alaska State Troopers are very used to dealing with armed citizens, and they are not particularly intimidated by it because the troopers view guns as the means by which Alaskans, particularly in remote areas, can defend themselves and feed themselves. (The fact is that not much of anything intimidates those boys.) By contrast, the Feebs are all scared to death of armed citizens because they view guns as the means by which one can force one's will on the other.......because that is what they do with them. Since they know that Alaskans are armed, they believe that the only way Alaskans can be dealt with is to show up in superior numbers with a LOT more guns.

It would never occur to these sugar-frosted coprolites that they could simply walk up, knock on the door, and get a reasonable response.

Swat team to check for dirty water.

Pretty much says it all.

How bout the poor old man later on in the article that failed to stop mid stream for a safety inspection and when he got to shore to discuss it with them, they arrested him and took him a 100 miles to jail.

The story really doesn't give much detail but the only indications that it was a swat team seem to be that they had body armor and wore jackets that said "police" on them and shockingly enough they all had side arms. So basically the SWAT team thing is nonsense and the real problem is using cops for what many thing should be an administrative issue. It's hard to argue that you should send unarmed inspectors in to check locations that may be hazardous. If they were "escorted" by anyone we would here the same basic claims and if the feds LEO's are qualified why not have them do the job themselves instead of escorting.

philip964 wrote:Swat team to check for dirty water.

Pretty much says it all.

How bout the poor old man later on in the article that failed to stop mid stream for a safety inspection and when he got to shore to discuss it with them, they arrested him and took him a 100 miles to jail.

To me, this is exactly what makes this and situations like unconscionable. A boating safety check ( I've been through dozens of them by the Feds on Lake Grapevine) is to determine if proper safety equipment like flares and lifevests are on board. There is no reason to have to conduct such a check in the middle of a river that has a lot of current. It is simply an opportunity to teach another citizen who doesn't like the tactics a lesson. They could so they did. Compliance is the most important thing.

chasfm11 wrote:

philip964 wrote:Swat team to check for dirty water.

Pretty much says it all.

How bout the poor old man later on in the article that failed to stop mid stream for a safety inspection and when he got to shore to discuss it with them, they arrested him and took him a 100 miles to jail.

To me, this is exactly what makes this and situations like unconscionable. A boating safety check ( I've been through dozens of them by the Feds on Lake Grapevine) is to determine if proper safety equipment like flares and lifevests are on board. There is no reason to have to conduct such a check in the middle of a river that has a lot of current. It is simply an opportunity to teach another citizen who doesn't like the tactics a lesson. They could so they did. Compliance is the most important thing.

Somehow we need to have consequences for people who abuse their authority as they did here with the man in the boat. Not consequences to the city, but to the individual. Something along the lines of "you act like a jack booted thug for no good reason in the name of the people of the state of X and we see to it that it is your last opportunity to do so." Perhaps that would cut down on the "I did it cause I could bit."

mamabearCali wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

philip964 wrote:Swat team to check for dirty water.

Pretty much says it all.

How bout the poor old man later on in the article that failed to stop mid stream for a safety inspection and when he got to shore to discuss it with them, they arrested him and took him a 100 miles to jail.

To me, this is exactly what makes this and situations like unconscionable. A boating safety check ( I've been through dozens of them by the Feds on Lake Grapevine) is to determine if proper safety equipment like flares and lifevests are on board. There is no reason to have to conduct such a check in the middle of a river that has a lot of current. It is simply an opportunity to teach another citizen who doesn't like the tactics a lesson. They could so they did. Compliance is the most important thing.

Somehow we need to have consequences for people who abuse their authority as they did here with the man in the boat. Not consequences to the city, but to the individual. Something along the lines of "you act like a jack booted thug for no good reason in the name of the people of the state of X and we see to it that it is your last opportunity to do so." Perhaps that would cut down on the "I did it cause I could bit."

According to the article, those that set upon the old man were National Park Service Rangers. I cannot imagine them ever being held personally responsible for any action that they take. There was an interesting story about a park in Arizona a couple of weeks back where similar heavy handed techniques were used and I think that the State got the practices stopped but those responsible were simply "doing their job." I admit that I don't remember the specifics on that one.

I miss hearing G. Gordon Liddy on subjects such as this

The article doesn't say it was the US EPA. It says it was the ALASKA (State) Environmental Crimes Task Force. No where does it state the feds were involved although it later goes on to talk about federally-owned lands in Alaska. Unless I missed it elsewhere in the article?

equin wrote:The article doesn't say it was the US EPA. It says it was the ALASKA (State) Environmental Crimes Task Force. No where does it state the feds were involved although it later goes on to talk about federally-owned lands in Alaska. Unless I missed it elsewhere in the article?

It's ALASKA as in the area of operations.
The Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force, is composed of the U.S. EPA, the FBI, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Dept. of Defense, U.S. BLM, the Alaska Dept. of Public Safety and the Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation. As stated in the article. I threw in the BLM,"The very fact that they can breathe must be by the arts of some homunculi or hob, smarter than they, who doth sit upon their shoulders and whisper "Breathe in, breathe out" else surely they wouldst cease in this vital activity for lack of thought." *, because every land use controversy west of the Rockies has their fingerprints on it.

*Thanks to John Ringo, "There Will Be Dragons".

Ok, my bad. When I first clicked on the link, only a quarter of the article loaded up for some reason. The whole article loads up for me now.

chasfm11 wrote:According to the article, those that set upon the old man were National Park Service Rangers. I cannot imagine them ever being held personally responsible for any action that they take. There was an interesting story about a park in Arizona a couple of weeks back where similar heavy handed techniques were used and I think that the State got the practices stopped but those responsible were simply "doing their job." I admit that I don't remember the specifics on that one.

Hey now, as long as they followed "policy," it has to be OK. And I don't think I've ever heard of an incident where they didn't "follow policy."

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:According to the article, those that set upon the old man were National Park Service Rangers. I cannot imagine them ever being held personally responsible for any action that they take. There was an interesting story about a park in Arizona a couple of weeks back where similar heavy handed techniques were used and I think that the State got the practices stopped but those responsible were simply "doing their job." I admit that I don't remember the specifics on that one.

Hey now, as long as they followed "policy," it has to be OK. And I don't think I've ever heard of an incident where they didn't "follow policy."

I know of one case where a government official was fired for following policy. It was a civilian COE lake manager at Grapevine who got into a feud with a concessionaire. The lake manager made sure that one particular COE policy was followed to the exact letter and, in doing so, carried out a daily harassment campaign against that concessionaire. Unfortunately for the lake manager, the concessionaire had "friends" in high places.

We were all surprised when he was fired rather than just being demoted or transferred or both. What he did was exactly what the policy said but no other COE group on any of the other surrounding lakes was following that policy with the same vigor so it deemed discrimination. I seriously doubt that the same action would be taken today. It would more likely result in an award to the lake manager.

chasfm11: OK, you've piqued my interest...you've gotta share some more details! Will be fun to share the story on the docks this weekend!