Monday, December 27, 2010

Bean bags for Janet Napolitano

The security team protecting Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano should, from this day forward, be armed with non-lethal weapons including bean bag rounds. If it is good enough for the elite agents of BORTAC who operate in one of the most dangerous areas on the Mexican border, in the United States and in the world for that matter, it is most certainly good enough for the Secretary of DHS. It has been confirmed by yet another source that agent Brian Terry and one other agent were armed with shotguns with non-lethal bean bag rounds. One agent fired bean bag rounds and when the outlaws opened up with real bullets, the agent then drew his hand gun to return fire, indicating that he did not have the standard issue M-4 rifle in addition to the non-lethal weaponry. The FBI and other agencies are still investigating. And while I will never cast aspersions on the line agents and officers of any law enforcement agency, the bosses are another matter. Some questions that I would like to see an investigation address are:
1. Why were the agents armed with non-lethal weaponry in the first place?
2. Why are non-lethal weapons even authorized in a war zone?
3. What are the rules of engagement when our Border Patrol agents are patrolling?
4. Why are some areas in Southern Arizona “off limits” to the Border Patrol?
5. What did the supervisors who authorized Agent Terry’s BORTAC mission know about the area?
6. Are the helicopter pilots who support the ground troops experienced and properly trained to provide the best support?
7. What was the goal of this particular mission?
8. What equipment were they using; weapons, comms and protective gear?
9. Were they wearing body armor? If so, what kind? Were they wearing the kind of vest that police officers wear that will stop a handgun round but not a rifle bullet?
10. Why didn't they apprehend the 5th suspect when he was spotted numerous times and agents on the ground were begging, repeatedly, to be allowed to go in and get him?...more

No comments: