Clinton Era Fun

geege geege at barrera.org
Tue Apr 22 00:50:03 PDT 2003


similarities to the war on iraq:
negotiators vs tactical commanders
false perception of immediate threat (induced by tactical jugheads)
shifting justifications after the fact

major difference:
indefensible

<But while child abuse had disappeared as a rationale, a child welfare issue
remained: "They [the FBI] told me that the conditions were deteriorating
inside. I was concerned about the safety of the people inside. The
behavioral experts were telling me that children--for a siege that could
last a year--it would have a lasting effect on them."

Here, the FBI was clearly correct; conditions were deteriorating in the
besieged home. Against the advice of government negotiators and behavioral
experts, the FBI tactical commanders had in the middle of the siege decided
to "demonstrate the authority of law enforcement." The FBI did so by cutting
off electricity to the compound, shining lights on the compound all night to
deprive the residents (including the children) of sleep, running Bradley
Fighting Vehicles at the compound, and bombarding the compound with
hellacious noises such as dentists' drills and rabbits being slaughtered.

The FBI's demonstration of authority had an immediate effect of
consolidating the Branch Davidians, and confirming to them Koresh's prophecy
that the government would ultimately kill them all. After the FBI began the
noise bombardment, the exodus of Branch Davidian adults and children from
their home came to an abrupt end.>

gg

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/wachroni.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com]On Behalf Of
Russell Turpin
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 6:57 PM
To: fork at xent.com
Subject: RE: Clinton Era Fun


"James Rogers" <jamesr at best.com>:
>Courts have traditionally held that when police initiate violent action,
>the person on the receiving end has the right to respond in kind even if
>the police are nominally serving a legal function.  This is one of the
>stronger arguments against "no-knock" raids ..

There have been times when such raids were carried
out against people who were entirely innocent,
either because the police had wrong information,
or because the police were simply at the wrong
house. Police and innocents have died when the
innocent victim defended himself against home
intruders that turned out to be the police. In my
view, this kind of police action is justified
ONLY in the most extreme circumstances, where
either (a) the suspect is holding innocent victims
and threatening them harm, or (b) the suspect has
holed himself up and refused to emerge. They are
NOT justified, in my opinion, merely to secure
evidence, though this is the usual justification
for conducting drug raids in this fashion.

In the case of Waco, David Koresh regularly
left his compound to go into town, for errands,
shopping, etc. There was no urgency to the
arrest warrant, and ATF could have arrested him
on any of his trips into town. It's hard to
understand why they acted as they did, except
that this kind of raid has become a normal part
of law enforcement.




_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail





More information about the FoRK mailing list