Language

Reporter's Notebook: Bill Conroy

The shot heard across both sides of the border

The sun still burns hot in the May desert sky at about 6 p.m. along the Texas/Mexico border.

Under that sun, a high school student, all of 18 years old, is tending to some goats near his home in Redford, Texas. He is carrying an old single-shot .22 caliber rifle to ward off coyotes and rattlesnakes.

Some 200 yards in the distance, unknown to the 18-year-old, a group of four Marines are deploying to a clandestine hiding spot in the desert to keep an eye out for drug traffickers who might seek to traverse the border via car or on foot with backpacks.

The Marines are dressed in full camouflage, Ghille suits in fact, and are armed with potent M16A2 rifles and sophisticated radio equipment.

Suddenly, the kid with the antique .22 rifle sees something. Maybe it’s a coyote; maybe it’s just his imagination.

But he fires off a shot. A second later, he fires again.
The bullets whiz by the four Marines. They squat. One of the soldiers contacts his command by radio.

The high-school kid heads for a nearby abandoned church that is not too far from his family’s home. He is still carrying his rifle and is still not aware that he has just fired his gun at a group of Marines carrying out a covert drug-war assignment.

In front of the weatherworn border church is an old stone well, now dry and packed with dirt.

The Marines maintain radio contact with their command operations.

6:06 p.m. Command: “If you move your position, try not to be seen. You should know what to do.”

6:07 p.m. Marine: “We’re taking fire.”

6:09 p.m. Marine: “We have an individual spotted at the old Fort going to the rear of the building.”

6:10 p.m. Marine: “We are pulled back to a tactical position. We are trying to our … cover from our right flank. He is gonna be. Right now he is stationary, but he kinda knows the down vicinity, where two of my men are. He doesn’t have a visual on me.”

Command: “What side of the river is he on?”

Marine: “U.S. side, next to the old Fort. He is right at the old Fort.”

6:11 p.m. Marine: “As soon as he readies that rifle back down range, we are taking him.”

Command: “Roger. Fire back.”

6:13 p.m. Marine: “I have visual on suspect in front of church. There is a brown building facing us. Standing in front he’s got the rifle out.”

6:14 p.m. Marine: “I have a visual on him. He is kinda moving behind some buildings; not really sure exactly where he is at right now. He is hiding; he’s ducking down. Rifle, he knows we are out here; he’s looking for us.”

6:27 p.m. Marine: “We have a man down.”

Command: “Did I hear you? You said you have a man down?”

Marine: “The man pointed weapon down range and we took him out.”

This scene is not fiction.

The facts are drawn from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents that detail the May 20, 1997, shooting of Esequiel Hernandez Jr. by a U.S. military unit called Joint Task Force Six, or JTF 6 -- now known as JTF North.

The FOIA records were provided to Narco News by professor Keith Yearman of the College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn, IL.

Yearman is an expert in FOIA research and has taken a particular interest in border issues and the Hernandez case. (Links to the FOIA documents obtained by Yearman detailing the Hernandez shooting can be found at the end of this story.)

The four Marines who tracked and shot Hernandez were participating in a JTF 6 mission to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in capturing drug traffickers. The soldiers had been ordered to conduct surveillance along the border in order to spot drug smugglers, and to report that information to Border Patrol -- which was to then come to the scene to apprehend the smugglers.

The JTF 6 mission was all about fighting the so-called drug war, but that mission didn’t matter in Hernandez’ case. He was a goat herder, not a drug smuggler.

Hernandez was killed because that is what soldiers are trained to do in a war. They hunt down the enemy and destroy them. And in this case, because Hernandez had allegedly fired the first shot, even though he could have had no clue it was Marines he was shooting at, he triggered one of the primary rules of engagement for soldiers deployed in any mission.

From the FOIA documents:

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
1. FORCE MAY BE USED TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND OTHERS PRESENT.

So once Hernandez pulled the trigger on his gun, he might as well have been in a war zone as far as the Marines were concerned.

Hernandez fired his first shot at 6:07 p.m. He was killed by a single shot from a Marine’s M16 at 6:27 p.m.

That means the four-man unit tracked him for 20 minutes before they “took him out.”

In fact, based on the FOIA records, the approval to kill Hernandez was provided by military command at 6:11 p.m.

Border Patrol did not arrive on the scene until 6:45 p.m., some 18 minutes after Hernandez had already been fatally shot.

An ambulance was dispatched at 6:49 p.m. to the old church where Hernandez lay bleeding; his body sprawled inside an old well, with his feet pointing toward the sky.

The medics actually arrived on-site at 7:11 p.m., about 44 minutes after Hernandez’ chest was pierced by a Marine’s bullet. If there had been any hope that Hernandez might survive the shooting, that hope bled away in the desert before medical help arrived.

From all indications, based on the FOIA records, the four Marines who were responsible for killing the 18-year-old goat herder, who was a U.S. citizen, were in full battle mode at the time of the shooting. War is what they are trained to do well. And in the case of this assignment, sharpening the edge on that wartime training was part of the mission.

From the FOIA records:

Mission: HQ Battery, 5th Battalion, 11th Marines deploys to Marfa, Texas (from) 13 May to 30 May to conduct LP/OP training, increase unit combat readiness, improve individual and collective skills, and assist the United States Border Patrol by detection and monitoring of cross-border activities such as drug smuggling and movement of illegal aliens.

On May 20, 1997, the Marines were on mission and primed with “combat readiness,” even to the point where they also were ready to pull the trigger on the Border Patrol agents who arrived at the scene in response to the Hernandez shooting.

The FOIA records include this testimony from one of the Marines concerning the aftermath of the Hernandez shooting:

…  I moved into the open brush and went towards the people with the weapons. When they were about half way up the hill, I stood up out of the bushes and aimed in on them and yelled “United States Marines” several times. The first two people put their hands in air and yelled, “United States Border Patrol,” and I recognized their green uniforms. I watched everyone go by and waited until they all cleared.

Unfortunately, the same warning was never extended to Hernandez, according to the FOIA records. In a statement provided by one of the Marines involved in the shooting, he makes it clear that prior to the shot that killed Hernandez,  “There was no verbal warning told to the suspect.”

If the Marines had identified themselves to Hernandez, or even fired a warning shot, the kid might well be alive today. If the Marines had only attempted to find defensive cover to secure the perimeter of the scene and waited another 18 minutes for the Border Patrol to arrive, Hernandez might be alive today.

But those are tactics that law enforcement would engage. Marines are taught to hunt down the enemy and eliminate him. That’s what you get when you put soldiers on the border. They are trained to kill.

That fact is something to keep in mind as President Bush’s directive of dispatching National Guard troops to the border is carried out over the next several months.

One federal agent with extensive experience along the border puts it this way:

The training for law enforcement and the military is vastly different. Law enforcement is trained to apprehend, interrogate and prosecute. The military is trained to track and destroy the enemy.

If you want to destroy the border, then send in the Marines.

For those in the leadership ranks of this country who are ignorant of the realities of combat training vs. law enforcement training, you are now informed, at the price of a dead U.S. citizen, a kid really.

For those in our government who already know the stakes and don’t care that innocent people’s lives hang in the balance, the blood on your hands will soon cause you to lose the grip on your power.

And for those of you who are already opposed to militarizing the border, do your best to keep the memory of Esequiel Hernandez Jr. alive.

His life, and death, is where all our worlds meet.  

FOIA Records for the Hernandez shooting

File 1

File 2

Comments

how come the goat herder can shoot...

seems to me, being entirely objective about it, that just as the goat herder was unaware of what he was shooting at, the marines likewise did not know what they were shooting at, either. I mean, to them he was a terrorists trying to kill them. I don't know exactly what was going through their heads, but if you are being shot at, you might think the worst. And if you can't shoot back when you're being shot at, when can you...

dennes longoria

Objectively, we all share some blame

Dennes, your question seems logical. It might be good to test your premise in reality.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say there's a coyote in your backyard and it's threatening something valuable to you -- say your lifelong friend, the dog, or maybe even your small child.

Now, let's suppose you just happen to live in the middle of nowhere (nothing around you for miles in any direction) -- and have an old single-shot rifle that you bought some time ago because the coyotes have come your way before, and you've found  throwing a shot their way is an effective means of getting them to turn and run out of your neck of nowhere.

So, once you see that coyote, or think you do, it's only natural for you to grab that rifle and pluck off a few shots in the direction of the coyote. You’ve done it dozens of times before. Heck, it's your dog (or kid) you're protecting.

So, you take aim and fire.

But unknown to you, there is a group of heavily camouflaged Marines in the distance. Without communicating with you in anyway, they begin to track you, for 20 minutes, and then they kill you.

If you think everything is fine with that picture, then I suggest you look out your window, because someone just sent the Marine's in across the street to deal with the illegal immigrant problem in your neighborhood. (Oh, by the way, you won't be able to see them, because they're wearing camouflage.) And, please, don’t slam the door when you pick up your newspaper.

By way of background, the land Hernandez fired his gun from was private property, and the Marines, due to a mix up at the brass level, did not have an agreement with the owner of that property to be on that land, the FOIA records show. However, the Marines did fire from a separate piece of private property where an agreement had been negotiated with the owner. That was part of the confusion of the whole thing, and that's why Hernandez', nor his family, knew that the Marines were out there. (In addition, as you probably know, clandestine military operations are held close the vest so the “terrorists” don’t find out about them.)

But the big point here that you seem to be objectively missing in all of this is not the question of the individual Marines’ fault, but it is really about examining the wisdom of those who made the decision to put the Marines on the border that day in the first place.

I hope this clears up your question. In any event, I wonder just how objective you would be in this case if it were your kid that was killed? The military seemingly shared some sympathy with the family in this case, as they paid out a $1.9 million settlement – without admitting any wrongdoing.

So if you’re looking for the blame in all of this, I guess that means the taxpayers must have been at fault. I’ll own up to it on that level. Will you?

look at the facts

I don't care who it is. If someone is out playing john wayne swinging a rifle around and firing it at marines, i hope they shoot back. that person is a threat to the entire community. them being related to me or not would not alter that. are you so dense to think that might being related by blood to someone would mean i want them to comit crimes and fire guns at the US military? you must be insane if you think that... I don't support ANYONE firing at US marines. are we understood?

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff. -- Mark Twain

OOH-RAA! won't cut it

Marines will always fire back when fired upon. That's what they're trained to do, because they are trained to deal with combat situations.

Law enforcement, by contrast, is trained to react to such situations by first securing the perimeter, and then calling in reinforcements to overwhelm a suspect with sheer numbers in order to APPREHEND the individual.

You seem to prefer the military approach, or at least can't seem to think clear to the distinction in this particular exchange.

In the Hernandez case, you automatically fault the 18-year-old for having a gun, despite the fact that as a U.S. citizen he has a Second Amendment right to carry a gun. You also fail to account for the fact that he could not have intentionally fired on the Marines if he had no idea the Marines were there. And finally, you seem to have no realistic understanding of life on the border, particularly in South Texas, a place where many people (not just John Wayne) carry guns to deal with the harsh reality of desert life and the predators, including coyotes, that it supports.

The fact that there was a 20 minute gap between when Hernandez fired his gun and the Marines returned fire also tells you there was plenty of time for other options to be pursued besides the track-and-destroy option.

A warning, an effort to find safer ground to secure the area, and a little more time to allow for the arrival of sufficient backup could have very likely led to a bloodless outcome on all fronts. A risk to be sure, but that's the kind of risk good law enforcement takes every day in the streets of this country.

That is not the kind of risk soldiers are trained to endure, because they are being prepared for combat realities. That is precisely why putting the military on the border, amid peaceful communities like Redmond, Texas, is a bad idea.

In the final analysis, Hernandez was not a terrorist or a drug trafficker, he was just a kid herding his family's goats near his home. He did not deserve to die, no matter how you seek to rationalize his death.

But if you're of the mind that the whole border is a battlefield, and that its OK if communities along that border exist under a perpetual state of Marshal Law, with Marines patrolling the streets and ranches, then this exchange will continue to be pointless, and from here forward, I'll remain silent with Mark Twain's advice (above) in mind.

good analysis, but...

I am in agreement that perhaps the policy itself may need to be reviewed, but until it is and until they change it, that's just the way it is right now. Just like I didn't agree with going into Iraq but it would be wrong to leave early. Once you're in a situation, you deal with it. If this is how the policy is set up now, you deal with it until voters organize and change the law the legal route. I agree, soldiers are trained to kill, not to apprehend. That's why it's called 'war'... the 'drug war'. In war people get killed. I would call this an unfortunate incident. The goat herder didn't know what he was shooting at and the soldiers didn't either. Why can he shoot, but they can't?! No one has answered that question...

what did the wolves do wrong

frankly, i think killing wolves is cowardly. There should be other ways of protecting your sheep. The wolves are only acting out their instincts. They're not meaning to kill just for fun or sport. Putting sheep in front of wolves is like putting candy in front of a kid, they're going to want to take it... why can't the goat herder apprehend the wolf and let it loose in the wild away from his heard with a stern warning or something... it's so unfair just to shoot the poor wolves without a trial or nothing...

Since all the marines are still alive...

...it would seem the shot fired was a warning shot.  A courtesy that Bill Conroy has clearly suggested should have been returned.

Drug 'war' is rhetoric.  It has not been declared by Congress.  There has been no announcement, even now -- let alone in the 1990s -- that the border region is a 'militarized zone'.

The war on drugs, by your logic, in fact means the military or police could go in any place drugs are used -- meaning any place in the United States -- and start shooting when they want to.  Which is what the alleged war on drugs tends toward, which is why such a broad group of U.S. society opposes it.

not when they want to

why do you say i'm for shooting whenever you want to. i didn't say that. i said i am for shooting AFTER you get shot at first. why can the goat herder shoot, but the marines can't. that's a fundamental equality situation. i'm not even looking at it from any other angle than a basic human right to be able to defend yourself if you are being shot at. i am not for the war on drugs but i am for humans being able to shoot back after they are shot at first. i don't care if it's the other way around. if the marines had shot first and the goat herder would have responded and killed every marine, i would have defended his right to do the same.

furthermore

let's give the wolves guns and let THEM shoot back, too. and let's see who wins, the wolf or the goat herder...

It's not the same thing

I don’t see the two sides as equal in this situation. The military is supposed to be defending the people. Soldiers and police are allowed to do things no one else is allowed to do – carry assault weapons around and not face the same consequences if they draw or use them. The penalty for hurting or killing a police officer is often much higher than it would be for a regular civilian, When society gives people guns and the right to use them and sends them marching into civilian areas, they have a different level of responsibility. They don’t just have the moral right, at least not in my book, to go into attack mode and stalk and kill people just because they thought they were defending themselves.

These soldiers went in to a rural civilian area, and whether you like it or not, people in such areas, from Alaska to Montana to Texas, carry guns to scare off or kill bears, wolves or other animals that threaten their animals or property. Those threats are part of life for them; heavily armed marines prowling about their farmland is not. In fact, as I understand it, policing drug trafficking is not supposed to be the military’s job in the first place, partly to avoid cases like this one.

But this is a consequence of living in a highly militarized land. I’m willing to bet that a good number of the civilian and non-combatant deaths in places like Colombia, or the Palestinian territories, are the result of soldiers mistakenly thinking their lives were in danger and shooting. Maybe in some cases their lives really were in danger? Does that make it all right? Did those soldiers have the “right” to this as individuals, or must they be held accountable as agents of the state firing on their own people?

Either way, I think we can all agree that the militarization of Texas is a bad thing for all the people of Texas. Experience in countries like Colombia and Mexico shows that such strategies rarely make more than a dent in drug traffic, but are quite successful in creating climates of fear, violence and corruption.

i still think they can fire back...

Yeah, well, I'm one of the biggest opponents of the drug war. But i'm stepping out of that arena for a second to look at it from the point of view of marines taking shots. Regardless of where they are. Regardless of what policy got them there. That's another matter. Right now they have someone shooting at them with a rifle. I think they should be allowed to fire back. It's them or the person firing at that point. All bets are off. Just don't mistakenly fire upon U.S. marines, that's the best advice I can give you...

The rules of engagement

If there is no room for restraint, judgment, among Marines, or any soldier, even in a hostile situation, then you draw no line between "war" and atrocity.

And if you do see such a line, then where does that line start?

If you concede there is a line, then you must entertain exceptions to your blanket statement that anytime a Marine is fired upon, "it's them or the person firing."

For example, if firing back results in the loss of innocent life, is that war or attrocity? How many people are soldiers (or nations for that matter) allowed to kill once fired upon before it becomes an atrocity?

On the theory that Marines can never be in the wrong when in a hostile situation, you might want to refresh your memory with the facts from this story in Editor & Publisher:

... The 11th Infantry-Brigade went into My Lai at 7 a.m. on March 16. Military intelligence led the company to believe there would be no resistance, but once there the group got reports that their gunships were receiving fire. 1st Lt. William L. Calley Jr., one of the platoon leaders, relayed an order to "clear the area."

Accounts at the time differed widely about what happened, but by the end of the day, My Lai was indeed cleared of its inhabitants.

... According to a Nov. 20, 2005 Marine communiqué, the Marines received fire from insurgents in Haditha, and returned fire themselves. Once the battle ended, 15 civilians were dead. However, this story was soon challenged by allegations that the Marines killed civilians in reprisal for the death of Terrazas. After a preliminary investigation in February 2006 caused Marine officials to doubt the original communiqué, the military announced that the civilians had been shot dead and were not killed by the IED blast as previously stated.

In both the case of Haditha and My Lai, the soldiers involved were clearly in-country under incredible stress in hostile situations where bullets were flying at them every day.

Under your theory of "all bets are off," you should be able to justify the massacres. Are you willing to go that far?

Or are you willing to admit that your rules of engagement have some blind spots?

"To save your world you asked this man to die; would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" — W. H. Auden

User login