TLC "NAVY SEALS"

[shurefire]

Hi I am not in the community and I was watching those three episodes last night and wanted to know if that Commander Dillon was really the leader of all three of those missions? It was odd to me to see that this guy and his platoon were involved in all three missions. I know this is a recreation and all, and I'm sure most of the viewers were just watching for fun, not wondering why the SEALs were walking abreast 1 foot or closer from each other when approaching the hangar of Noriega's plane at Paitilla. My question is if Dillon was really the element lead on all three of those missions? It made me wonder because I know there has to be more SEALs than this guy and his platoon. Thanks.
Shure

[PIMguy]

Wow, shurefire, you got through all three? I think these shows are pretty awful. As much as I enjoy TLC in general and any spec ops videos or shows that I can find, these are pretty bad. The acting is worse than a day-time soap opera, the "drama-level" is way too high, and every SEAL looks like he stepped out of GQ magazine. I mean, you guys are bad-ass but you're not all that good looking. ;~> I'd rather see a flat-out documentary about these operations. With all the drama and mood music I'm not sure if any of it's real (although I know much of it is). The men who participated in these operations deserve better.

[Silent Fart]

I thought they were kind of corny too. I don't think seals use sks rifles as many of them did in the show. As surefire noted, they were walking one foot from each other across the runway. I don't think they are that stupid! The acting was also really bad.

[Nissan]

Keep in mind guys that they were a dramanization and not totally true...but they were all based on teh actual missions and used alot of facts...you can't really show how the SEALs did the deed...your correct about the weapons they were very far off from what was probably really used..but just remember these are to go and entertain..people that don't know much about weapons or how that guy over there should have better cover or how the one guy must be standing behind a bullet proof bush...Hell if we were to point out all teh innacuracies in all the movies we ever saw we would be here forever...so just take this stuff with a grain of salt and enjoy them.

[shurefire]

Hi Nissan I totally agree with you bro, but c'mon this was "The LEARNING Channel", I'd understand it if MTV or even one of the big three networks did a dramatization of it, but being TLC, I just expected more. I feel that people should need to LEARN what happened in the past, and view these events with some beleivability and pride at the bravery of those men, even my girlfreind was wondering why everything was dramaticized so cheesily.
Shure

[Nissan]

shurefire..I totally agree with you about teh realism stuff and the cheesy dramatics..but you gotta remember this was made for the regular joe six pack who doesn't know anything about the SEALs to see what they have done...so ya really can't compare the stories ya see there to something you would hear from a real deal...I remember watching a video where one teh the HMs that was at Patilla told what was going on from his POV...it was riviting..how he ran over with his Chief to help and the Chief wound up being wounded (and possibly died I can't remember) and the way he told it just brought goosebumps to you...its just like GI Jane take it for what it is..criticize it for what it isn't then hope they make a better show/movie the next time....just my .02$

[Grant]

I realize that much of what is seen on TV and in movies should not be completely trusted, but there are a couple questions I have. First, In TLC's SEALs series the episode about Grenada, it said that other than that Commander Dillon guy, the next highest ranking person was an enlisted man. Can this be accurate? Where was the XO? Second, In the series and on the movie "The Rock", both platoon leaders were Commanders. Is this accurate? I had heard that usually SEAL platoons are led by a Lieutenant. (Similar to Army Special Forces ODA teams, which are led by Captains.)
Any help on these questions are appreciated.

[This message has been edited by Grant (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Nissan]

In a platoon you have a Platoon Chief or Leading Petty Officer (LPO) and sometimes can be the next highest person in teh platoon...normally the platoon is a Lt and a Ens or Lt(jg) but sometimes the man power doesn't work out and a enlisted guy is put in as the 2ic...The Rock had technical advisors that were eitehr SEALs or ex SEALs so more likely then not 90% of the Rock is realistic...all teh guys in tehre that didn't speak were actually SEALs...like Chalker was in there Humphries was in there(Admiral) Bill Bruhmuller(sp?) was in there (guy with teh shotgun) so if it was inaccurate they had plenty of guys to correct em...

[Inforcer46]

This is to Grant.

SEALs wouldn't be used in that situation anyways. I dont remember if the President did sign anything in the movie. But, military forces cannot be used inside the United States without the signature of the president.

[Swat1]

This is to Inforcer46.

I hate to even comment on this because it is a fictional movie, but let's just imagine for a moment that this situation did present itself.

More than likely some type of military counterterrorism unit would be used, probably DevGru because of the water insertion and with Marine Corps Spec Ops being the bad guys. This (if it were based in reality) was a pure vanilla domestic terrorism issue, especially with the threat of nuclear weapons being used. There are no Police Departments on this planet that could deal with that situation, and I am a Police Department SWAT assistant team leader.

As for your statement about the military not being used in the United States without Presidential Authority (Back to the real world). Where are you getting your information? I think what you are referring to is the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military forces from being involved in CERTAIN Law Enforcement Activities like arrests, search and seizure, basically the taking away of civil rights. In no way does the Posse Comitatus Act prohibit the military from assisting Law Enforcement with support activities. I am currently assigned to a Narcotics Task Force (civilian LE) and we use military counterdrug support everyday. We have two military personnel assigned to the Task Force to provide the support. We use military aviation assets (OH-58, UH-60), Forward Looking Infared (FLIR) both handheld and aviation platform, night vision (AN/PVS-7's), etc. The military personnel are allowed to go out in the field with us and do often assist us with surveillance etc., however, cannot be involved in the arrest, search and seizure, or anything else where a civilians civil rights are suspended.

Many military units are involved with Joint Task Force 6 along the Southwest Border conducting narcotics surveillance and interdiction operations every day of the year.

As a former Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, I have assisted civilian law enforcement (FBI, DEA, USSS, FPS, Honolulu PD) etc., and have had these same agencies assist us (US Army Intel) on several occasions. I can guarantee you that the President did not sign anything specific to these missions. The argument could be made that through certain Executive Orders and other Presidential Mandates that these operations were already approved by Presidential Authority and therefore the President's signature did authorize the activity. Well, that is true, but the same rings true for situations like the example you cite (The Rock).

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Navy SEAL, I have never been a Navy Seal, I have never attended BUD/S, I have never claimed to be a Navy SEAL, I will never claim to be something I am not, I have no respect for anyone who does, and finally, This post is not a dig on Inforcer46, just some clarification from my personal experiences as a former member of the United States Armed Forces (10 years) and a current member of the civilian law enforcement community and law enforcement tactical community.

[Jeffdos]

Very tactiful Swat 1, I like your style. Especially the disclaimer part.
Jeff out

[PIMguy]

Hey, SWAT1

I'm gonna start a new trend on this board, cuz I think you're lying. I think you are a Navy SEAL! I'm gonna check the database and prove it! (just kidding, guys)

Thanks for the info on the use of military personnel in domestic LE situations. I think it's always going to be PR that will drive how and when the military is used within the borders of the US. There are alot of paranoid people out there and if the military steps in too often it will only fuel that fire. Look at the Waco fiasco that happened when people heard Delta was involved. Laws or not, in this country it's always going to be the voice of the people that will control these things (well, until the military finally does take over! ;~> )

DISCLAIMER: I am not a SEAL, Marine, Special Forces, in fact, I'm not special in any way. Well, my Mom thinks I'm special, but....

[Travis Arnold]

Hey PIMguy, would it really be that bad for us if the military took over? http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gif

[PIMguy]

Travis,

I didn't say it would be good or bad if the military took over. In fact, I have no interest whatsoever in expressing an opinion about that on this board (yikes!).


[This message has been edited by PIMguy (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Daredevil]

There is an Executive Order authorizing Delta and DevGroup to operate on US soil should the need for their specialized skills arise. That's why they were at the Olympics in Atlanta.

I've also heard they don't want to do domestic antiterror ops and would rather leave it to the FBI. In the book "No Heroes" by FBI Special Agent Coulson (who founded the HRT) he said that when he went down to learn things from Delta they told him that "Handcuffs are not a part of our load out, we don't arrest people." Further, they face the fear that if they do a take down and any terrorists live there will be a trial and that the operators could be called as witnesses in the trial, that would pretty much ruin the Delta or DevGroup guys career in those units.

Hey SWAT1, where are you in a SWAT team? I don't doubt you but I was just wondering if you were familiar with the LAPD or Dade County (Miami) SWAT Teams? They have full time SWAT teams and I know that Dade County's does some maritime operations training (you're right though in that I'm assuming it's not to the level required by the SEALs in The Rock). I think there are only a handful of full time SWAT teams in the country. Are you on one of those?

[Swat1]

Daredevil,

I am actually on two SWAT teams. I represent my department, The Warm Springs Police Department, OR, on the regional SWAT team called the Central Oregon Emergency Response Team (CERT). CERT is made up of eight law enforcement agencies and three Emergency Medical Service (EMS) agencies. Originally started as a single agency's SWAT team two years ago it was regionalized to cover the entire Central Oregon area.

At the same time I am on my own departments SWAT team, The Warm Springs Emergency Response Team (WSERT), which is much smaller, 10 guys in comparison with 24 on CERT. The reason we have our own SWAT team as well as myself being on CERT is that most of the CERT team is out of Bend, OR. Bend is about an hour and a half away from my department. My department is the farthest in distance from Bend in the coverage area. So we decided to start our own team a year ago for rapid response to our own area while CERT is mobilizing and responding. With me being on both teams I am the liaison, however, we train together at least once a month. We attend Basic SWAT in Los Angeles put on by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office SWAT team. We have a very demanding physical fitness test and firearm qualifications.

Neither team is a full time team, our area is not big enough. You are correct that only very large cities like LA and NYC have full time teams.

[Mike]

to Daredevil, you're right about the EO authorizing certain military units from the Posse Comitatus Act.
Here is an article I copied from a newspaper electronic database in the library.

"Fort Worth Star-Telegram
October 24, 1999
Pg. 1

Military Ties With Police Get Scrutiny

By Jennifer Autrey, Star-Telegram Staff Writer

When Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin on Aug. 1, 1966, and began shooting, it took police 90 minutes to figure out how to stop him. Before Whitman was killed, the disturbed architecture student had shot 45 people, leaving 15 dead, including an unborn baby.

The massacre crystallized a problem faced by police departments nationwide -- one they would encounter with increasing frequency.

In response to such extraordinary situations, the departments developed Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT, units. Many turned to the military for specialized
training and weapons.

Critics on the left and right of the political spectrum say they worry that such training might make police officers act more like soldiers at war than keepers of the
peace. Law enforcement officials counter that tactical officers are psychologically screened and trained to exercise restraint and not overstep legal boundaries.

Since SWAT teams were formed, special-forces units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy SEALS have been involved in training police in the use of military techniques and equipment. When those methods go awry, as at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco in 1993, violations of civilians' rights or even
death can result.

The amount of instruction that the armed forces can provide was cut back after the Branch Davidian siege "because the military took a bad hit in that," said M.L. "Sandy" Wall, president of Texas Tactical Police Officers Association and a Houston SWAT team leader.

Military spokesmen said the training offered to police is limited to what the armed services deem acceptable.

Police, however, say that incidents such as the Branch Davidian siege are aberrations and that nonviolent resolutions are the norm. Many times every year, they say,
hostage situations and other potentially violent scenarios are peacefully defused.

The firepower available to common criminals creates a need for police teams with special abilities and potent weapons, police argue. And although tactical officers may acquire deadly methods, police say, SWAT teams are composed of emotionally fit people who understand that their role is to uphold the law, not to kill.

"They teach us tactics. They don't teach us how to do our business," said Lt. Roy Mitchell, the Arlington Police Department's tactical commander.

Some critics, however, fear that civilians risk having their homes and civil rights violated by commando-style law enforcement. And they say that even the best of officers might use more force than necessary in the desire to apply the skills and weapons they have acquired.

"The military brings with it, in an advisory capacity, a military mind-set not appropriate for civilian law enforcement," said Peter Kraska, professor of police studies at Eastern Kentucky University. "The military's mission is to destroy the enemy and think in terms of an enemy. That should not be the civilian police mind-set."

Military training

Many SWAT teams across the nation receive initial training from the military or from police officers trained by the military, Wall said.

Training can include sharpshooting or practice in such scenarios as disabling a car, rappelling down an elevator shaft or assaulting a hijacked airliner.

The teams learn negotiation techniques from other sources or work closely with officers specially trained for negotiations.

To prepare for SWAT action, Wall said, he took special classes at the Houston police academy and received training at Army bases in Fort Bragg, N.C., and Fort Campbell, Ky. The training was provided by infantry soldiers as well as such elite counterterrorist groups as Delta Force. Wall also received training from other SWAT teams.

His experience apparently is typical.

Of 459 SWAT teams polled, 43 percent received their training from active-duty military experts in special operations, according to a 1997 study of SWAT teams
performed by Kraska and Victor Kappeler, also a professor at Eastern Kentucky University.

"Law enforcement tactics are designed to arrest a person and to prevent citizens from getting hurt. Military tactics are designed to kill people," said Greg Nojeim,
legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "To blur the line between them is to invite abuses."

David Kopel, a researcher for the Independence Institute, a conservative Colorado think tank, said it's fine for police officers to hone skills for hostage situations. But he said it is inappropriate for police to take such offensive action as breaking into rooms and hurling flash-bang grenades against civilians.

Critics cite three high-profile incidents in which the use of military tactics by law enforcement officers turned tragic: the Branch Davidian siege near Waco, the 1992
standoff at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and the 1985 police bombing of a row house occupied by a radical group called MOVE in Philadelphia.

Branch Davidian siege At Mount Carmel, the compound of the Branch Davidian religious sect, a military presence arrived with the FBI as it tried to negotiate an end to the siege. The standoff began Feb. 28, 1993, when agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tried to serve a warrant to search the compound for illegal weapons. Four ATF agents and six sect members died in a shootout.

A 51-day standoff ensued, and on April 19, 1993, fire roared through the Davidians' compound after the FBI injected tear gas into it. The bodies of about 80 sect
members, including that of their leader, David Koresh, were found in the burned remains.

During the siege, military aircraft flew back and forth from Waco to Fort Hood, near Killeen. The Defense Department has confirmed that Army soldiers were there,
at least in an advisory role. `The Washington Post' recently reported that the military loaned the FBI surveillance robots and a device to jam incoming TV signals
from satellites.

Ruby Ridge At Ruby Ridge in August 1992, six camouflaged U.S. marshals tried to arrest Randy Weaver, a military veteran who had sold two sawed- off shotguns to an ATF informant. An initial gunfight left Weaver's 14-year-old son and a marshal dead. The FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team arrived to end the standoff.

Several days later, an FBI sniper fired on Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, who appeared to have pointed a gun at a government helicopter. The sniper, Lon Horiuchi,
accidentally killed Weaver's wife, Vicki. Several high-ranking FBI officials were later disciplined for issuing orders that agents "could and should" shoot any armed
adult on sight.

MOVE disaster In the 1985 incident in Philadelphia, police using paramilitary tactics tried to evict the MOVE group from a middle- class neighborhood. When tear gas failed, Philadelphia police dropped a C-4 military explosive from a helicopter. Eleven MOVE members, including five children, died, and 250 residents of the neighborhood were left homeless by the resulting fire.

Because of Ruby Ridge and Waco, critics have focused on the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team as a prime example of the dangers of the militarization of law enforcement.

Formation of the team was prompted by the massacre at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Eight Palestinian commandos burst into the Olympic Village, killed two Israeli athletes and took nine others hostage. When Munich police snipers tried to shoot the Palestinians, the terrorists killed the hostages. A German policeman and
five Palestinian terrorists were also killed.

Members of the FBI rescue team train with military special forces, wear similar black jumpsuits and use similar equipment. Many members of the FBI team served in such elite military units as the Army Rangers, Delta Force or Navy SEALS and have seen combat.

"You have, quite frankly, some of the most deadly individuals in the entire world in the hostage rescue team of the FBI, but their commitment is to not use those
talents, or that technique or that training," said Danny Coulson, the team's first commander.

Coulson said prospective members of the team must first serve as rank-and-file FBI agents, to learn the difference between the rules of war and the agency's policy
on deadly force.

"The rules of warfare basically are to kill people and break things," Coulson said. "In the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, your job is to uphold the Constitution. It's a completely different approach."

Others are not as sanguine.

"It's horrifying to think that the answer to Munich would be Waco," said Nojeim of the ACLU.

Tim Lynch, a program director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, voiced concern that police won't wait for the rare occasion of a hostage
situation to use their skills but will use them in more routine situations.

Kraska's research determined that about 85 percent of SWAT teams are eventually used for no-knock drug raids on private residences.

"Is that a smart use of resources?" the professor asked. "Does it promote officer safety to go after a small amount of marijuana by going in at 4 in the morning using flash-bang grenades?"

Ronald Terry Constant, a retired professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, said he does not believe that most officers risk adopting a military mentality during
training with soldiers.

"Most police officers I've met are imbued with the mentality of protecting and serving," said Constant, who has been a police chaplain and program director for a
national law enforcement psychiatric program.

Policies not questioned

Although those who ponder such matters as civil rights and constitutional division of power seem to share a fear about the blending of the police and military, Kraska
estimates that only about 20 percent of the population has a problem with law officers using tactical methods.

"We've seen a fundamental shift in the imagery of civilian policing," Kraska said. "It's commonplace to see cops wearing battle dress uniforms even in small towns. The militarization of agents on the `X-Files' or in movies is just taken for granted. We think, `They all carry M-16s.' I don't think there's a lot of questioning involved."

Local law enforcement agencies also have easy access to an array of military hardware and weapons.

Helicopters with night-vision equipment and fully automatic weapons are among surplus military equipment that even the smallest civilian law enforcement agencies have available to them at no charge, thanks to a federal program called Regional Logistical Support Operations.

Between 1995 and 1997, the Defense Department gave police departments 1.2 million pieces of military hardware, including 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers, `The New York Times' has reported.

Meanwhile, a major portion of training for police is provided free by the military through a multi-agency anti- drug program in Texas called Joint Task Force 6. The
program is coordinated by a civilian agency called Operation Alliance.

Defense Department spokesman Bill Darley said Joint Task Force 6, based at Fort Bliss near El Paso, is the largest such program in the nation. Local law enforcement agencies also may contract for training with active-duty or National Guard units, Darley said.

Armando Carrasco,a public affairs officer for Joint Task Force 6, said training provided by the military is limited to operations that the Defense Department
considers acceptable for civilian law enforcement.

Mitchell, Arlington's tactical unit commander, said officers on tactical teams undergo a battery of psychological tests and are usually the most physically and mentally
fit members of the force.

They are officers who understand the role of a civilian police force, Mitchell said.

"If they don't follow our procedures, we take them out of the unit," Mitchell said. "And the No. 1 goal of the unit is to save lives."

[This message has been edited by Mike (edited 05-16-2000).]

[Mike]

here is another one. The newspaper name and author were removed, I think, for copyright reason, from the database.

"Sept. 9, 1999

Military Training Of Civilian Police Steadily Expands

Congress has paved way with legislation

The military has dramatically increased training and weaponry for civilian law enforcers over the past 20 years, raising fears among some criminal justice experts that neighborhood police have become too militarized.

The Defense Department has provided everything from tanks for the 1993 siege at Waco, Texas, to explosives experts to blow out a prison door, to special forces
training for the FBI and small-town cops.

One military organization alone, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), a nationwide anti-narcotics force based in southwest Texas, provides 500 training missions to local
law enforcement each year.

Federal law bars the military from direct law enforcement roles, such as searches, seizures and arrests. But JTF-6's own guidelines in 1993 -- the year it trained
agents for the Waco raid -- stated that ``legal and policy barriers to the application of military capabilities are gradually being eliminated.''

In 1996-97, the Pentagon issued more than a million pieces of equipment to police departments. Requests keep pouring in as even small-town police forces take on
more of a paramilitary look, from hard-toe boots to armored vehicles for SWAT teams.

Now, some experts are sounding the alarm. The experts say an increasingly militarized civilian police force threatens civil liberties and can spur excessive force.

At the same time, Congress is taking a new look at the federal siege at Waco and will again examine the military's extensive role.

``Police and soldiers do different things,'' said Diane Cecilia Weber, a graduate student in criminal justice. ``A soldier doesn't think. A soldier kills on command.''

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, recently published a study by Ms. Weber titled ``Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American
Police Departments.''

Ms. Weber writes: ``The problem is that the actions and values of the police officer are distinctly different from those of the warrior. The job of a police officer is to
keep the peace but not by just any means. .... They are expected to use minimum force and to deliver suspects to a court of law. The soldier, on the other hand, is an
instrument of war.''

A study by two Eastern Kentucky University instructors, ``Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units,'' states that of 459 rapid-response SWAT teams in the United States, 43 percent received training from active-duty military experts in special operations.

But program advocates say closer military-police contacts are needed to combat better-armed and organized criminal elements, hostage situations and domestic terrorism threats.

Assistant Chief Rudy Rodriguez of the U.S. Border Patrol's Marfa, Texas, district, said the military's involvement in the drug war is crucial.

Joint Task Force Six, he said, cleared and patched a road along the Rio Grande that now allows four-wheel-drive patrols much faster access to infiltration points for drugs and illegal aliens. The military also helped citizens quell a fire three years ago that threatened to destroy the small town of Candelaria.

JTF-6 also has provided reconnaissance flights and trained his men in combat emergency care, analyzing intelligence and conducting patrols.

``Their helpfulness, it's outstanding,'' Chief Rodriguez said. ``We've always had a good rapport with the military. Keep in mind, they are not here as law enforcement
officers. They are here as trainers or here on engineering projects.''

A law more than a century old -- the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 -- was intended to protect Americans from an overreaching military. The law prohibits the armed
forces from directly enforcing civilian laws. Personnel may not arrest people, conduct search and seizures, or play an operational role in police actions _ unless the president signs an executive waiver.

But since 1981, Congress and the White House methodically have widened the military's role, especially in the war on drugs, also in equipping and training neighborhood patrolmen.

In 1981, Congress enacted the Military Cooperation With Law Enforcement Officials Act. Amending Posse Comitatus, the legislation injected the Pentagon directly
into the drug war, authorizing the transfer of equipment and expertise.

Six years later, Congress set up a streamlined procedure for police departments to obtain military hardware. In 1989, President Bush approved setting up military
drug units now consolidated under JTF-6. The Clinton administration weighed in by approving the transfer of high-tech gear to the police.

``I'm blaming Congress ultimately because this whole thing started with initiatives from Congress,'' said Ms. Weber. ``It was a bipartisan thing. There's been a
succession you can track.''

In fact, Joint Task Force Six's own operational guidebook in 1993 stated that the barriers between civilian police and the military are disappearing.

``No list of military support capabilities is ever all-inclusive,'' JTF-6 states. ``Innovative approaches to providing new and more effective support to law enforcement
agencies are constantly sought and legal and policy barriers to the application of military capabilities are gradually being eliminated.''

The command removed the language from a new guidebook in 1995.

The 1993 siege at the heavily defended Branch Davidian compound near Waco, represented the single largest use of military weaponry in a civilian law enforcement operation. The General Accounting Office later estimated the hardware's cost at nearly $1 million during the 51-day standoff.

The Defense Department was involved from the start. A Joint Task Force Six mobile unit trained agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms before they launched a paramilitary raid on the Davidian house on Feb. 28, 1993.

When the raid failed and the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team took over, the military lent them heavy tanks and showed agents how to drive them. The tanks were eventually used to ram the wooden structure and insert tear gas. A fire ensued (various probes say the Davidians ignited the flames), killing all 86 men, women and
children inside.

``We got a tremendous amount of equipment from the military,'' said Bob Ricks, a former FBI agent who was at Waco. ``We constantly were dealing and had to upgrade. We used Bradleys early on. When [Davidian leader David] Koresh said he could blow away the Bradleys, that's when we got Abrams [tanks].''

The laundry list of combat gear loaned to the ATF and FBI would equip a good-sized Army unit: helmets, masks, night-vision goggles, electronic jammers, ammunition for grenade launchers, tents, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M1 Abrams tanks, reconnaissance overflights and a 24-hour health clinic.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved dispatching three members of the supersecret Delta Force to Waco -- two to show the FBI how to operate a classified piece of
surveillance equipment, one to observe as a ``lessons learned'' exercise.

Delta Force commandos have been assigned to other hostage- style crises. Special forces personnel played an operational role to quell the Atlanta prison riots in what one former FBI agent said was the first time a presidential waiver was issued. Delta Force explosives experts blew open a blocked doorway during the siege, he said.

In fact, it was the secret unit, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., that helped the FBI set up its Hostage Rescue Team in the early 1980s.

The military's deep involvement in Waco has been ruled legal by a joint House committee that investigated the botched raid and by the GAO.

But the joint committee's 1996 report warned that ``civilian law enforcement increasing use of militaristic tactics is unacceptable.''

``When ATF had to decide between arresting Koresh away from the Branch Davidian residence or a direct confrontation, it chose direct confrontation,'' the report
said. ``Military training, especially specialized training in combat tactics, should be highly restricted.''

Ms. Weber argues the problem is that, as police forces become more militarized, they resort to SWAT team operations when lesser force may have worked.

Ms. Weber said there is scant research material on military aid to police agencies. A Pentagon spokesman declined to provide an official for an interview, saying there is no single Defense Department authority on the subject.

Based at Fort Bliss, Joint Task Force Six is the Pentagon's single largest organization dedicated to civilian law enforcement. It has a permanent staff of 170. But it
can summon thousands of active-duty and reserve personnel annually to carry out a variety of missions.

Civilian law enforcers are trained in marksmanship, interview and interrogation, narcotics interdiction, field tactical police operations, and other skills.

``Law enforcement continues to require our support,'' said JTF-6 spokesman Armando Carrasco. ``We interpret that as an indicator of the value of the support we
provide them. There's an added positive to this. This is tremendous training opportunity for the units participating in support of these missions. They are able to
practice their go-to-war skills.''

This year, JTF-6 is expected to execute 500 training missions, up from 281 in 1991. The command has tapped 3,000 military persons for the war on drugs and trained 2,700 law enforcement officers in 1999.

About half of all requests are turned down because they do not meet the anti-drug benchmark or JTF-6 cannot meet the mission.

Requests are screened at Fort Bliss by Operation Alliance, a coalition of law enforcement agencies, then sent to JTF-6's commanding officer, Army Brig. Gen.
Dorian T. Anderson, for approval.

JTF-6 has curtailed two missions.

In January 1996, after Congress investigated the military's role at Waco, the U.S. Special Operations Command ended the practice of training police for a specific
anti- drug operation.

The task force suspended its mission of providing foot soldiers to patrol the Southwest border after a JTF-6 Marine shot and killed an 18-year-old high school
student who had fired two shots toward a group of Marines.

The foot patrols have not resumed, despite intense pressure from Congress. The House in 1997 overwhelmingly passed a measure to authorize 10,000 soldiers to patrol the 2,000-mile-long U.S.- Mexican border. The legislation died in the Senate.

``I think it's good and bad,'' Mr. Ricks, the ex-FBI agent, said of the military-civilian alliance. ``I think the liaison of working side by side and understanding each
other's capabilities and being provided equipment when you have huge domestic threats, is good. I think the use of military in domestic drug enforcement went too far. They were actually engaged in a patrol function, and I don't think that is the role of the military at all. It's extremely dangerous.''

[Razor]

Holy Crap! Those last two articles leaned so far to the extremist left, my computer almost fell off my desk!

[RECON5]

This debate has taken place on several sites of this forum, and I see it finally made it here.

[pn]

I thought both articles were very good.

(I don't justify my opinions because that doesn't look to be the trend here.)

-pn

[Bruce]

I would lie to toss my $0.02 in on this one.
I do not see why there should be no "military" training in law enforcement.
Wheather they are "enemies" or "civilians" they are still aggresive,dangerous and just plain bad dudes. If a guy want to hold people hostage them bust in there take him out, if criminals fear the police they wont want to start something they know they are going loose. As a foreigner I look at the US and see what SEEMS to be a system that is going soft on the bad dudes. You do bad shit and bad shit will happen to you - It is Natures balance. A hostile situation is not a court case full of speculation, you know that whoever is inside has done wrong, taken away the right of someone else, so why worry about his rights (he did not worry about anyone elses). Why do these people always complain about the rights being important and seem to BASH the good guys who are ultimatley defending them????
This is one strange situation!!!!!
If the Law Enforcement showed a bit more musscle it would make anyone think twice about taking them on!!!!!

This is just my opinion, which I am sure some of you will not agree with but hey....