Last week when I read the story about a Chechen acquaintance of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev being shot dead while being interrogated by FBI agents, something about the story really rubbed me the wrong way. More details on the incident are now known:
A Chechen man who was fatally shot by an FBI agent last week during an interview about one of the Boston bombing suspects was unarmed, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.
An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed during an interview with several law enforcement officers.
The FBI’s policy on the use of deadly force is that a special agent may only use deadly force when the agent “has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person”.
Now I want to know a lot more about the incident:
- How many agents were in the room when the killing occurred?
- What were the heights, weights, ages, and genders of the agents?
As I’ve mentioned before from time to time, I taught martial arts for many years. You’ll have to take my word on this: two or more armed adult men in good condition with adequate training should never be in fear for their lives when confronting an unarmed assailant, even one who’s in very good condition and with lots of training.
I’m not much of one for conspiracy theories. Honest. Check around the site for confirmation of that. But this story stinks.
Nothing will happen. The agent will most likely get a paid vacation, then a commendation, and eventually a promotion.
The guy shot dead will still be dead.
Our law enforcement system is pretty fucked up.
But you should know this considering you live in Chicago….
I thought exactly the same thing – it’s suspicious. Of course, we don’t know what exactly he was suspected of ‘knowing’ other than the brothers. The only plausible explanation is that the man tried to get an agent’s gun and was shot in the attempt – but, of course, there is no possible evidence that could corroborate a man grasping for a gun (if he didn’t get to touch it and leave fingerprints).
The WAPO reports an unnamed official stating the FBI agent was alone in the room at the time of the confrontation, so proper Contact and Cover procedures weren’t followed if that’s true (and it likely is, as it becomes less likely the agent would have discharged his firearm if the other officer was physically close to or entangled with the suspect).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-man-who-knew-boston-bomber-was-unarmed-when-shot/2013/05/29/21f05b74-c8a8-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
From the onset, the story sounded contrived to me, as well.
“I’m not much of one for conspiracy theories…..”
The word conspiracy has a cloak and dagger kind of connotation. However, to deny that secret policy manipulations and underhanded ways ‘to get rid of problems’ don’t ever happen in government administrations, especially a large centrally controlled one, is a little naive, IMO.
For instance, in the case of the IRA controversy, in which everyone says the WH is not tied into any of the alleged political targeting, there’s the matter of that pesky WH log denoting Shulman’s frequent visits: IRS Commissioner Schulman had more public WH visits than any cabinet member. Prominent in the article is a chart showing Schulman almost camping there! Why? Especially in lieu of the IRS Commissioner, before him, only meeting with Bush a mere handful of times, during his time in office.
Local law enforcement in the Orlando area has been in the “shoot first-think of questions later” mode the last few years. Perhaps it wore off on the FBI agents. (Nothing bad ever happens to cops that shot people for no reason down here, not even when they shoot up the bedrooms of infants while trying to kill unarmed suspects.)
And coming from the other direction, the Administration has a kill first policy for terrorists and suspected terrorists. Maybe they’ve expanded that policy to in-country efforts, too. Hell, it’s not like anything they do ever gets properly scrutinized, or like they will ever have to admit any wrong-doing.
But on the other other hand, perhaps Todashev was doing something really dangerous, like reaching for a pressure cooker.
“there’s the matter of that pesky WH log denoting Shulman’s frequent visits”
Already debunked. Next conspiracy theory? (The FCC chair had about the same number of visits. The log shows only 7 visits for Biden. Nearly all of the visits were to two people involved with health care reform.)
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/30/explain-this-mr-carlson/
Steve,
Those visits are hardly debunked, as you say.
That link only offers alternative options as to why Schulman might have signed onto the WH log so many times. I speculated myself, that some of those visits might have pertained to HC coordination, as the IRS, unfortunately, is slated to have such a big part in managing the ACA. But no one knows, for sure! BTW, having the IRS’s nose in our healthcare management is not a comforting thought to me!
However, the IRS is under extreme scrutiny at the moment, generated by it’s own voluntary admissions of impropriety, as to the disproportionate numbers of conservative groups it put under it’s microscope, followed by the damning IG report. Therefore, I think it should be more than willing to demonstrate unfettered openness by documenting what each of those visits entailed, simply to dispel some of the distrust that is now swirling around this powerful bureaucracy. Just like people take a dim view in commingling funds in separate fiduciary relationships, so is there a need to be assured of a non-partisan relationship between the IRS and whatever party occupies the WH. This is especially true given the fact that Schulman’s predecessor, Mark Everson, during the same length of time under Bush, hardly ever saw the need to cross paths with anyone in the WH.
Even if all the visits were about healthcare (and egg rolling), that still puts the lie to the argument that the Administration had nothing to do whatsoever with the IRS and that it is an independent agency (it isn’t), which has been the President’s personal argument. Or perhaps the President just has no fucking idea how the government actually works and what his responsibilities are.
Yep Ice, Obama’s government is just one big, happy, huggable, collective bureaucratic family. Checks and balances? Separation of powers? Nah, why bother? Just follow the party line, and protect the president from accountability, at all costs. Furthermore, no one is allowed to question, let alone criticize any irregularities. Let’s just all assume that everything done in this administration is copasetic and above board. In this way we can eventually change America’s name to Disneyland!
In this way we can eventually change America’s name to Disneyland!
You have any idea how much Disney will charge for the naming rights? The Fed’s computers can’t create that much money.
But steve is great, isn’t he? The IRS has admitted to wrongly targeting conservative groups, and he plugs on that it didn’t happen, and that even if it did it doesn’t matter, and that even if it did matter, BUSH!
We have a high ranking IRS official TAKING THE FIFTH instead of relenting to oversight from duly elected officials. In other words, this woman, an attorney herself no doubt listening to other attorneys, is claiming that if she tells the truth it will put her in legal jeopardy – and the choir on the left still maintains that nothing happened. We have the head of the IRS going to the WH on a weekly basis, allegedly to indulge in his passion for Easter egg hunts and to talk about implementing OBamaCare. Of course, why he is there talking about it more often than the Secretary of HHS is a good question in and of itself. But that means nothing – purely coincidental dontchaknow?
I won’t bother mentioning the union head’s visit to the WH right before the increased scrutiny started, because no doubt that is coincidental too.
“. Or perhaps the President just has no fucking idea how the government actually works and what his responsibilities are.”
One thing he could do would be to have the head of the IRS come talk with his staff about to implement the ACA.
“Just follow the party line, and protect the president from accountability, at all costs.”
Nah, why bother. Just make stuff up or make unsubstantiated accusations. The records clearly have problems since they don’t record everything. If the guy visits just about as often as the head of other similar agencies, perhaps he is just doing his job. Is there some reason he should not be involved with getting the ACA going since it does involve income and tax issues? Make your case with some evidence.
Steve
Nah, why bother. Just make stuff up or make unsubstantiated accusations. The records clearly have problems since they don’t record everything. If the guy visits just about as often as the head of other similar agencies, perhaps he is just doing his job. Is there some reason he should not be involved with getting the ACA going since it does involve income and tax issues? Make your case with some evidence.
The IRS is supposed to be an independent, non-partisan arm of the government. Just juxaposition his visits with the almost nil visits of his immediate predecessor! Nonetheless, if these abnormally frequent visits to the WH can be easily proven to be benign, why wouldn’t this agency then move heaven and earth to quickly resolve these questions, explain those visits with ‘evidence’ as to what they were about? If this were expeditiously and openly done, I think many doubts would be satisfied, and people would then begin to look at this targeting issue as one being of incompetence rather than political bias.
However, this administration is not transparent in it’s practices, and seems to prefer to cover it’s tracks rather than expose them. When questionable events happen, they parse records, giving heavily redacted ones, stalling and holding back on others. They’ve done this in F & F, Benghazi, and now the IRS and AP & Fox press subpoenas. Witnesses surviving Benghazi can’t be found, Generals quietly retire. Whistle blowers are discredited and demoted. The government is basically giving a minimal, passive-aggressive kind of cooperation in all ongoing investigations. Even the reluctant testimony given is vague, conflicting, illogical and suffers from collective agency amnesia, from the DOJ downward. More and more people are not buying their side of it…except you. Instead, you demand the kind of evidence which, at this point in time, is being deliberately obfuscated and/or withheld.
For instance the other day there was a pungent odor in our pantry. I turned it inside out looking for what seemed like a rotted citrus fruit somewhere. Finally, I found the source of the foul smell, a moldy small lemon that was obscured in the corner of a cold bag we use for camping. At this stage in these multiple scandals, we are in the smelling stage. And, IMO, this merits the skepticism and continued investigations, rather than blindly accepting standard fare government excuses, and moving on like nothing untoward has happened. It’s equivalent to ignoring patient symptoms because nothing has shown up on an x-ray…yet.
@jan
The “low information” and “complacent” voters do not have time for a lot of partisan bickering, but they do have common sense. Anybody with common sense can tell that there is something wrong. It may not directly involve the President, but as you noted, something does not smell right.
These common sense voters have busy lives, and they do not have time for esoteric discussions about what the definition of “is” is or what the criteria of a tax category is. Every few days, more information comes out that reinforces their original assessment.
The IRS Deniers will eventually be like the Birthers or 9/11 Truthers, and nobody will take them seriously. The trick is to allow them to fully explain their theory without responding to each bit of nuttiness. Someone once said, “You can’t fool all the people all the time.”
Nonetheless, if these abnormally frequent visits to the WH can be easily proven to be benign, why wouldn’t this agency then move heaven and earth to quickly resolve these questions, explain those visits with ‘evidence’ as to what they were about?
The IRS is declining to answer questions from the Senate, so they’re apparently going to take the position that they are not subject to questioning from the Congress.
And steve, the IRS already admitted that they unfairly targeted conservative groups. The woman in charge of that section of the IRS has already claimed that if she answers any questions about doing her job, she’s going to jail. The IRS is now stating that they won’t answer any questions from the Senate. The President has already said that they have nothing to do with the IRS, which is contradicted by the records of all the Commissioner’s visits to the WH. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to read the writing on the wall in this case.
But please, feel free to keep peddling the story that nothing happened.
“You can’t fool all the people all the time.â€
This administration has certainly done a good job of that, so far, Tasty. They have been a one-way political machine engaged in a tunnel vision kind of agenda, hyper-focused on dividing the populace along the lines of race, gender, wealth, age, political favoritism and cronynism, and IMO outright corruption. I only hope more people are awakened to the abuses going on behind the doors of the non-transparent politicians and bureaucrats who are currently in charge.
Here’s yet another example of the IRS committing political sabotage.
@jan
Most people are turned off by partisan bickering, but the all-out partisan wars cause them to tune out. Partisans arguments are one-dimensional, and any variation is deemed heresy. Partisans believe politics is a “zero sum game”. “Either you are with me, or you are against me.”
Most people are more complex than that. Most moderates are “squishy” on many partisan issues. They may seem to agree with one side or the other, but they do not necessarily fully agree with either side. Depending upon circumstances, they agree with one side more than the other, and as circumstances change, their position changes.
Partisans rarely will change. Any change requires them to calculate the cost of that change. A partisan will continue to hold a position without regard to reality, and as the position diverges from reality, they will argue more vigorously. Occasionally, a partisan does not get word that the position has changes, and like the forgotten WW2 soldier, they continue the fight.
Partisans rarely question their ideology. One hallmark of intellect is the ability to falsify one’s belief. A partisan will rarely assume the opposite belief and will vigorously try to prove it. This requires understanding the opponents reasoning, but if the opponents reasoning is deemed unreasonable, the exercise abruptly ends.
All partisans will agree with all the above, but it will only apply to their opponents.
Most people are more complex than that. Most moderates are “squishy†on many partisan issues. They may seem to agree with one side or the other, but they do not necessarily fully agree with either side. Depending upon circumstances, they agree with one side more than the other, and as circumstances change, their position changes.
Perhaps that’s why the Independent column of voters is growing so fast, outpacing both the Republicans and Dems.
I don’t know about you, but I’m finding it more dispiriting to keep knocking heads with those who so easily rationalize away the flaws of their own party’s mistakes, but will rant and rave when similar ones are committed by an opposing party — and then be blind to the hypocrisy of their judgement calls!
Quite frankly, while I think both the Rs and Ds are inept and full of themselves, I continue to see the dems as fast-forwarding a bigger more intrusive policy agenda, one having more susceptibility to corruption than the republican side. So, that’s why I lean R, as a compensatory mechanism to indirectly put the breaks on the speed of achieving what the progressive left views as their Nirvana. However, with the country being so divided into polarized groups, especially under Obama’s leadership, it’s hard to imagine an electorate who looks at the common good, in reasoning out their vote, versus what is only good for themselves.