Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention
Drudge Report | Nov 28, 2003 | PETE YOST

Posted on 11/28/2003 4:06:52 PM PST by drypowder

Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention

Email this Story

Nov 28, 5:03 PM (ET)

By PETE YOST

(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, then NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, is... Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army division commanded by Wesley Clark supplied some of the military equipment for the government's 51-day standoff with a religious sect in Waco, Texas, and Clark's deputy, now the Army Chief of Staff, took part in a crucial Justice Department meeting five days before the siege ended in disaster, according to military records.

Clark's involvement in support of the Waco operation a decade ago was indirect and fleeting, according to his former commanding officer. But the assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies by military officers around Clark and soldiers under his command has prompted a flurry of questions to his presidential campaign.

Internet chat rooms and several news stories speculate that Clark played a role in the tactical planning for the operation that ended with the deaths of about 80 followers of the Branch Davidian religious sect and its leader, David Koresh.

Clark's campaign flatly denies any planning role by Clark in Waco. And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.

Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."

Regarding Taylor's comments, Clark campaign spokeswoman Mary Jacoby said "this is exactly what we've said all along; Gen. Clark had no involvement."

But critics such as documentary filmmaker Michael McNulty say there are many unanswered questions about the deaths at Waco, including the nature of the military equipment that came out of Clark's division and whether it was used.

Taylor said the FBI sent requests for assistance to the Department of Defense, which forwarded them to the Department of the Army and "ultimately some of these requests came down to me," said Taylor.

Much of the military equipment for Waco came from the Texas National Guard, including 10 Bradley fighting vehicles. It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.

However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.

Regardless of who supplied the military items, Danforth's investigation concluded that no one from the government fired a gunshot - despite being fired upon - at the Branch Davidian complex on the final day of the siege.

Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire.

Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.

The Justice Department and the FBI requested Schoomaker and William Boykin "by name to meet with the attorney general," states one internal Army document created before the meeting. "These soldiers have extensive special operations experience and have worked with the FBI on previous occasions. Schoomaker "told my watch NCO ... that the FBI plans to pick him up at Fort Hood and fly him first to Waco to assess the situation, and then on to Washington D.C.," states the internal Army document. Schoomaker, currently the Army Chief of Staff, has a background in Army Special Forces. Boykin, who has similar experience, is the Army general whose controversial church speeches cast the war on terrorism in religious terms, prompting recent calls from some in Congress for him to step down.

At the meeting with Reno, Schoomaker and Boykin refused an invitation to assess the plan to inject tear gas into the buildings, a move designed to force the Davidians to flee the compound, an internal Army document states.

"We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in civilian law enforcement operations.

McNulty, whose documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" won an Emmy in 1998, provided The AP with several internal Army documents referring to the meeting and obtained from the military under the Freedom of Information Act.


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; conspiracy; turass; waco; wesleyclark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
To: _Jim
The voices on the tape were not identified. Why not? The Davidians were bugged long enough for the FBI to determine the voices of the main players. These voices are not the voices of Davidians, but of agents planted inside the building.
101 posted on 11/29/2003 7:08:31 AM PST by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

I see you pulled my post to Jim. Couldn't he handle the truth?

If you had an issue with one profane term, which unfortunately is an accurate description of him, why not bleep it out?

If you leave _Jim free to post his bravo sierra, you're going to have to deal with some of us getting frustrated with his intentional misdirections and misrepresentations from time to time.
103 posted on 11/29/2003 9:35:47 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman; drypowder
Please help us all-is the photo original from your source & what's the source?

The photo is from one of the links I found searching google.com using these search terms "Waco tanks" in fact the first photo that is displayed using just a search for "Waco" the first image displayed shows the Branch Davidian compound burning. The photo I posted is identical to all the other ones returned by my search. You can verify this by following the link.

104 posted on 11/29/2003 10:42:36 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Checked out the guys profile page. Nothing is his own. Everything he has posted are more or less links to the self imposed upper level crowd.

I really wish some of the boiling water IQs he groupies for, would come in and tell us where we are possibly mistaken. On other threads, all the folks saying the government is on the up and up on this one, all more or less plagerize from the soft side of our media and have nothing to add them selves.

105 posted on 11/29/2003 12:48:35 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
It is amazing to watch him...but also gives one pause. What does he really know, and how was he privy to it?

I see two possiblities:
1- He is sent here to intentionally spin; or, 2- he utterly and hopelessly stupid.

My money is on the former.
106 posted on 11/29/2003 1:06:13 PM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman
Can you or someone tell me why,besides the obvious government overreaction to the Dravidians,do conservatives take up for Koresh?
His "compound"was run on Marxist socialist principles-something out of a Sixties hippie commune while using Christianity to justify the socialist leanings of Koresh and his followers.
Also,does anyone have a problem with Koresh and his involvement with several underage girls?I certainly do.
I am NOT defending Clark,the Clintons or anyone else implicated in this American tragedy.I just want to know why it has become such a conservative cause celebre!
Thanks,Riverman
107 posted on 11/29/2003 2:33:04 PM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: donh; drypowder; Paleo Conservative; _Jim
<< ..... I remain amazed at how stalwart, and instantaneously reactive a defender of this action you are. >>

That jumped out at me, too.

But then, so do every one of: << .... those who think endlessly splitting hairs over nearly irrelevant details will serve in place of a positive defense of .... the worst-planned, most costly and egregeous "'law enforcement' action" of the 20th century. >>

I watched as tanks or similar vehicles effectively knocked down the front, upwind, side of the Branch Davidians' house, church and school and gassed the buildings' occupants, before the military operators of those tracked, tank-like military vehicles set fire to the hose, church and school and finished off the slaughter of the innocents inside, that the ATF had begun almost two months previously.

But I also read and studied every word of evidence and every image generated and/or presented in every hearing and court procedure and trial subsequent to that day's mass murders and the images I saw from the downwind side of the house, church and school left me with not the slightest doubt that anyone who stated to the effect he remembered "seeing ARMY TANKS RUNNING THROUGH THE WALLS OF THE WACO COMPOUND" so stated in good conscience.

And occupies the high intellectual AND moral ground im any debate as to the veracity of his recollections of that day's shameful atrocities!

As the man said, "There were more tanks at Waco than there were at Mogadishu."

And PPP Clark and his "delta force" were there with them.
108 posted on 11/29/2003 5:08:48 PM PST by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: drypowder; Cicero; sit-rep; WilliamofCarmichael; _Jim; donh; JennysCool
I see lots of confusion about Posse Comitatus, the difference between the active Army and the National Guard, and also about the role Clark.

Posse Comitatus restricts the use of active duty military personnel to enforce the law; normally interpreted to mean involvement in searches and seizures and arrests. It does not restrict the loan of equipment or providing logistic support or training. Further, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard--the state's militia.

Most of the equipment and armored vehicles came from the Texas National Guard. No federal military personnel operated any of the equipment and most was run by civil law enforcement agents who had been trained by the military.

The active Army equipment and training came primarily from Fort Hood. In accordance with normal procedures, the requirements went up from the civil agencies on the scene at Waco to Washington and then down through standard channels to the closest military base owning the equipment--Fort Hood, Texas. III Corps HQ, the headquarters responsible for Hood and all units on it, received the tasking. Based on equipment availability and training and deployment schedules and such mundane considerations as who had to support the last tasking, the III Corps staff would then designate one of its subordinate elements to meet the tasking. This procedure is followed every day for literally dozens of taskings. Clark commanded the 1st Cavalry Division--one of several subordinate commands to III Corps. If III Corps designated the 1st Cav to handle one or more parts of these taskings, Clark's staff, not him, would normally receive and take care of the action. And there is no reason to believe anything other than that took place.

Clark's Assistant Division Commander(ADC) was Brigadier General Pete Schoomaker (newly appointed Chief of Staff of the Army by Rumsfield). Schoomaker was special ops who was back out in the field army getting "re-blued" as we say. He had recently commanded Delta Force. Because of his experience, somebody in Washington asked for him by name to comment on the Waco plan. Again, this had nothing to do with Clark--he was not in command at Hood & did not have the kind of experience that would cause anyone to seek out his input. It is Schoomakeer who is said to have made the comment "We can't grade your paper" to Reno. BTW, with Schoomaker at the meeting was another recent newsmaker--then Colonel Boykin. Obviously, Schoomaker would have said something to his boss after he returned from his Reno briefing in D.C., but that is as close as Clark got to Waco.

The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved. Other than that, you guys are all over it.

109 posted on 11/29/2003 5:11:25 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim; sit-rep
<< They wanted to burn them out,

That's sheer nonsense. >>

Nonsense?

They bloody DID burn them out! On network TV!

And shot many of the rest to death.

AND subsequently destroyed almost every scrap of evidence of their every criminal action and activity -- and of their every murder.

Almost every scrap.

Except enough to conclusively prove their guilt to any honest and intellectually and morally sound observer.
110 posted on 11/29/2003 5:20:06 PM PST by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved. Other than that, you guys are all over it.

Most of these arguments would have applied at Sand Creek, 130 years ago. That doesn't make the babies killed there any less dead, or the armies complicity any more excusable.

111 posted on 11/29/2003 6:27:06 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: donh
ME: The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved.

YOU: Most of these arguments would have applied at Sand Creek, 130 years ago. That doesn't make the babies killed there any less dead, or the armies complicity any more excusable.

A typical display of conspiro-logic. You link two completely unrelated events and then based on that false relationship, establish a conclusion that would be unwarranted even if those two events were linked and then hide your lack of an argument behind emotionalism about dead babies.

112 posted on 11/29/2003 7:20:58 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
You are full of pseudo-logical self-righteous gerble food.

The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, and providing advice, or oversight to the planners, a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify. Your long-winded argument is twaddle, as, for example, when you make such a grand point about the TANKS being guard tanks. When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army. In the face of hard physical evidence, in the form of requisition forms and ammo picked up off the ground, the army has conspired in the death of those children. The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations. Those children didn't die symbolically, they were murdered by out of control federal employees who are not facing the music, and that most definitely includes the commander of the suppliers of the material used, if he thinks he can run for president without this coming up.

Blood calls for blood, not mealy-mouthed political wallpaper spread over all the participants, nor 5 minute presidential spots. Clark should be facing a grand jury inquiry for conspiracy to murder, not presidential reporters.

113 posted on 11/29/2003 8:11:35 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Can you or someone tell me why,besides the obvious government overreaction to the Dravidians,do conservatives take up for Koresh?

I believe it's called the US Constitition, which, if memory serves me, is supposed, at least by conservatives, to apply to everyone. I'd like to suggest someone else to you that lived in a commune, of sorts, espoused the sharing of wealth with the poor, and fell into disrepute in his community for doing so--Jesus Christ.

114 posted on 11/29/2003 8:31:42 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: donh
When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army.

Exactly. When federalized, such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.

The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,

So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do. What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?

The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.

The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling. You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument. So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?

You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".

I'm sure any response will be just as factual and logical as your previous posts.

115 posted on 11/29/2003 9:02:31 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
.When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army.

Exactly. When federalized,

To a lawyer, maybe. Not to a grieving mother. If my child is killed by a bullet the army, in any manner, bought, paid for housed, and shipped, and advised on the deployment of, I really don't give a tinker's poop whether it was "federalized" at the exact moment it was fired.

such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.

This is legalistic BS, put in place to avoid addressing the embarassing fact that a Guard that is substantially paid for with federal funds, & can be deployed at any time by "federalizing" it, isn't the state's militia the constitution allowed for at all. If the army pays for a substantial part of it, and can control it at will, it is the army. And a standing army on domestic soil is not provided for in the Constitution.

.The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,

So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do.

Right. And the FBI only came in because the DEA requested help. So the FBI must be off the hook as well, right? In fact--isn't the DEA press secretary that scheduled the initial attack the only blameworthy party here?

What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?

No. What they should do, especially if they are smart guys like Clark, is understand that this is a weasily way of skirting around the intent of Posse Cometatas and exercise adult levels of care about servicing such requests.

.The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.

The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling.

Oh, give it a rest. The 7th was little big horn, a direct result of the action at Sand Creek, and more than a little connected, historically, with the militia at Sand Creek. This is an argument, not a history test. You cannot make an argument for the defense by grouching about my rhetorical bombasts.

You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument.

You don't have an argument, so you substitute caviling at any rhetorical irrelevancies you can desperately grasp at.

So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?

Wes Clark, a very smart guy, was in command of the unit that supplied help to WACO--a many month's long siege of US citizens on domestic soil using tanks high caliber ammo, and flashbang grenades, broadcast over the airwaves on national television. Even a hedgehog could have figured this one out, and no amount of legalistic weaseling can change that.

You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".

What a hot air merchant. For Wes Clark not to be aware of what was being done with his equipment with such a public display, day after day, going on over the public airwaves, is beyond credibility. It is, in fact, patent, apparent, absurd BS. Wes Clark was the commander, and the buck stops at Wes Clark's desk.

116 posted on 11/30/2003 12:51:15 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Forgot to mention that those of us in the business at the local level to a person disagree with _jim's spin.

We believe that the Feds committed crimes at Waco; that they subsequently covered them up; and that you can clearly see evidence of these crimes from the FLIR.

But what do we know? We just enforce criminal laws for a living.

117 posted on 11/30/2003 3:07:13 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: donh
don, Clark was not the commander--I don't understand how you guys keep coming up with this. He commanded the 1st Cav Division at Fort Hood, one of several units subordinate to the III Corps HQ. Pursant to a lawful request by civil law enforcement agencies, the Army as represented by Forces Command (known as FOSCOM) in Atlanta, Georgia tasked III Corps to provide support in the form of equipment and training. III Corps, in turn, tasked units at Hood to provide support--one of which was the 1st Cav Div. Once the decision was made at higher levels to provide the support, it becomes an order and there was no option at III Corps or the 1st Cav or Wes Clark or any of the other units to turn it down. Nobody at Hood was out trolling for business--ask anybody with significant Army experience--these kind of taskings are both relatively routine and a pain in the butt.

As for the National Guard, you simply have that wrong. There is no command relationship between the regular Army and the National Guard until they are federalized--and that was not done at Waco. The chain of command for the guard goes from the individual soldier through his unit commander and the state Adjutant General to the governor. And it stops right there until and unless that soldier or his unit is ordered to federal active duty.

118 posted on 11/30/2003 5:51:58 AM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Abundy; sit-rep
"I see two possiblities: 1- He is sent here to intentionally spin; or, 2- he utterly and hopelessly stupid."

"My money is on the former."

Mine too.

119 posted on 11/30/2003 6:00:39 AM PST by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Yours is the most interesting-perhaps most intriguing, thoughtful, and useful observation on THIS thread. Our very culture is in question & the political authority along with it.

I do not agree that what happened was a tradgedy-it was a series of criminal actions on the part of various government authorities and police agencies.

I am a poor source for real answers-I have only thoughts & observations, colored by emotion, about an event I watched live on my television, less than 70 miles from my home. My thoughts are convoluted & entwined with my disgust of government power run wild-with no reduction in sight.

Our inherent & oft cited sense of 'fairness', Christian tolerance, our cultural propensity to shield the weak & defenseless, COMBINED to cause us to recoil from the government's heavy hand ( with virtually no provocation ) to allow or compel us to ignore Koresh. He is the smaller matter.

I think very few have ever taken up the cause of Koresh-quite the contrary-most ignore the matter of his crimes, peculiar circumstances, the manner of the living arrangements & rules of operation of this very strange & dubious commune. The maddness of the government became the larger matter.


The more practical answer ( or solution which might have been proper ) is that two Texas Rangers ( or even ONE, if the McClennan County Sheriff declined to act alone or desired the assistance & reassurance of outside oversight for some unknown reason ) could have most certainly 'handled' Mr. Koresh, once he was charged with a crime-and his apparent transgressions had nothing to do with the US Federal Government. Please recall that CRIME is a State matter. Further, it is a COUNTY officer who holds & delivers a criminal to the County or State court for trial-the Sheriff is the highest police authority in the County. The County has jurisdiction over criminal matters involving local crimes against persons, excluding some extenuating circumstances. I hold that the Governor should have ordered the State police to intervene, en mass, peacefully if at all possible-supporting the County Sheriff's authority over the matter. We have perhaps two-hundred Texas Rangers & God only knows how many hundreds of Texas Department of Public Safety 'State Trooper's-all very well armed. I contend that the fed's might have just gotten their Nazi tails back to the DEACTIVATED Air Force base & flown away. But that Governor was Ma Richards. Instead, armor from the stock of the Texas National Guard were placed on scene & I wonder if the Governor had to approve this obscene action. From the article at Drudge, by Pete Yost, "We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in civilian law enforcement operations. ( end quote )



None of the above is ever seriously discussed & the actions of the fed's are just accepted by the ignorant-sold like soap & automobiles on the idiot box. The entire affair is presented as a mere contest between bad crazies & good federal officers, who only wanted to protect us! Since the expansions of federal powers in the 1930's began, they have marched forward through WWII, Korea, the Cold War, holding forth the simpleton's formula-we are only doing this to protect the larger community, make you all safe & you may trust us!

"There were more tanks at Waco than there were at Mogadishu", #14, Paleo Conservative


The actual use of US military armor against civilians, the overwhelming oppression of the federal police power ( in full bloom at Waco ), our State & local authorities standing back watching & doing NOTHING to stop the madness-all guaranteed our most certain reaction. Another issue entirely, may be what the public has never learned-if there were other agencies involved, other prior actions by the residents at Mt. Carmel, or some ulterior motives from either side-odd constructions of pure invention abound & some may have some basis. We will never know with certainity.

Too bad the reaction was only protests after the fact. One more chapter in the needless degradation of our culture and the decay of civil government. More very bad things will surely result as consequence to these events.
120 posted on 11/30/2003 6:43:06 AM PST by GatekeeperBookman ("The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy." Listen to Tancredo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Posse Comitatus restricts the use of active duty military personnel to enforce the law; normally interpreted to mean involvement in searches and seizures and arrests. It does not restrict the loan of equipment or providing logistic support or training. Further, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard--the state's militia.

First, let's address the term militia.

The term militia, does not IMHO, mean the national guard. The term militia is the organization of the town's folk. Armed and ready to do what the local law enforcement is not able, or willing to do. We must be clear on this. The national gaurd, was brought in years ago, as a defense/protection...that is, a bunch of guys with M-16's, camo's, and tanks on the State's nickle(tax payer funded, government overseen).

It is also of my opinion that if an organization is state/federal funded, armed with aviation and armor, we are splitting hairs when we call the army and national guard two different entities. They are both armed as they are, and both on a federal government payroll. If I am mistaken, and the national guard is not receiving their checks from the same bank the actual army's checks are drawn from, then the individual states are paying national guard personnel with grant money from the same bank...if you get my drift. They are the military and it is my view, posse commitatus was written forbidding the military from police action. The actual law uses the term Army, but we all know the intended use of the term.

121 posted on 11/30/2003 2:04:51 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
The term militia, does not IMHO, mean the national guard.

I understand what you are saying, but the guard's lineage goes right back to the minute-men and our congress and courts consider them the militia for Constitutional purposes. That is why Posse Comitatus does not apply to them and never has. The Guard works for the state governors and is under the day to day control of each state's Adjutant General--not an active Army type. Neither the active Army nor the President can tell the Guard what to do unless they are ordered on federal active duty.

I think the differences are more profound than splitting hairs. You may not want the National Guard to enforce the law and may believe Posse Comitatus should apply to them, but the original intent was clearly to apply to the federal military, not the state forces--it was Southern resentment over the use of federal troops to enforce laws during Reconstruction that drove the enactment of Posse Comitatus along with the military's dissatisfaction with being called out by the local sheriff every time he needed a posse or some back-up.

Bottom line: there were no Posse Comitatus violations at Waco.

122 posted on 11/30/2003 2:51:15 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
They bloody DID burn them out! On network TV!

You're wrong, the evidence doesn't show that, and it was the Davidians THEMSELVES that performed this act.

Admission by Gramme Craddack (sp?), a Daviadian who made it out, confirms this, but, of course, you, blinded by your rage and hopelessly bowled over by the continuing 'hype' on this subject MISS this little item.

Instead, you put complete and continuing faith in a dubious work produced by Mike McNutty and a small group of ex-CNNers and those who used to produce "A Current Affair" ...

CONTINUED OBLIVIOUSNESS to the 'facts' are only going to cause you nothing but lasting anger TOWARDS the wrong people and continue to twist your thinking in directions OTHERS would have you go; for it was Vernon Wayne Howell who:

a) held a number of people mental hostage (some, the potential troublemakers were 'allowed' to leave by Vernon Wayne Howell - Note: those children 'allowed to leave' were *not* his progeny, it was his kids who he kept in the compound)

b) finally called for the 'Armageddon Event' and had the fires lit CULMINATING in the deaths of 80 some people he had 'held' there for 51 days ...

123 posted on 11/30/2003 5:54:34 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
he remembered "seeing ARMY TANKS RUNNING THROUGH THE WALLS OF THE WACO COMPOUND"

Nice job of setting up a scenario NOT exactly as the first poster put it and to whom I was addressing a particular point, IOW, NICE Clinton-class slander.

It would help if some of you guys would at least accurately portray the message and it's context when framing an argument, otherwise, you are just setting up 'straw men' suitable for your own pillorying ... and NOT addressing the specifics as they exist.

But then, maybe you can't figure that out, and that's also why you guys have the mental block on Waco too.

124 posted on 11/30/2003 6:01:28 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
The voices on the tape were not identified.

Conjecture and assertion without proof.

ALSO - this statement stands in contradiction to other, physical evidence as well as statements of a) personnel present that day as well as b) statements about the fire's origins by Davidians Gramme Craddock (sp?) and Clive Doyle .

Admissions of Branch Davidians.

Davidians who survived the fire have acknowledged that other Davidians started the fire.

Graeme Craddock, a Davidian who survived the fire, told the Office of Special Counsel in 1999 that he observed other Davidians pouring fuel in the chapel area of the complex on April 19, 1993.

He further stated that he saw another Davidian, Mark Wendel, arrive from the second floor yelling: "Light the fire."

Davidian Clive Doyle told the Texas Rangers on April 20, 1993, that Davidians had spread Coleman fuel in designated locations throughout the complex, although he declined to state who specifically lit the fires.


Point refuted.

125 posted on 11/30/2003 6:06:29 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
and you are here defending the Clintonoids.

You are in error on that point.

DO you even know who was in office when the original investigative work by the BATF of the Davidians was undertaken?

Once again, it appears some of you are not beyond 'making stuff up' to further your arguments, points or your 'attacks' on someone with a contrary argument or point and substantial supporting common sense, physical evidence and witness statements (including Davidians) to back up those points.

126 posted on 11/30/2003 6:12:05 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
You've been 'had', too, if you by into that fabrication, that misinterprtation, that cut and paste piece by McNutty.

FLIR:Mike McNulty responds

by John Blanton

Turns out it's a small world after all.

The January issue of The North Texas Skeptic had been out a few days when I received a phone call from Mike McNulty. McNulty is the writer and award winning producer of three documentaries related to the Branch Davidian siege near Waco in 1993. He wanted to clear up a few points I had touched on in the January issue in an article titled FLIR.

In FLIR I had reviewed McNulty's documentary of the same name, and I had noted some discrepancies between points made in the video and what had reasonably been demonstrated. In mid-January we discussed his concerns in a brief phone conversation. I followed up the conversation with a short e-mail recapitulating the points discussed. Here is that e-mail edited a bit:

1. I mentioned you say in your video that federal police deliberately killed innocent BDs on 19 April 1993. You deny it says that. You say the video only states that to a great degree of certainty that is what happened.

2. I asked about the hot gun barrels that show up bright in your video but do not show up at all in the 19 April video. You said the gun barrels are too narrow (about 1/2 inch) to make an image from that distance. You emphasized the 19 April video was from over 4000 feet away. You did not touch on the fact that this was with a telescopic imaging system that effectively removed most of that 4000 feet. I pointed out that object size is not what determines whether a bright object will show up in the image. Rather it is the total amount of energy that reaches the image plane. I asked if you knew anything about stellar astronomy where (up to recently) even the biggest telescopes produce only point images of stars, yet the stars still produce an image on the plate/sensor array. You said stellar astronomy does not count because that is done with visible light, not IR. I told you your knowledge on this topic is incorrect.

3. You objected to my contention that the dust conditions on 19 April were nowhere near the conditions of your (COPS L.L.P.) tests, where they kicked up dust in front of a weapon before firing it. You also said dust on 19 April would have coated objects on the ground, suppressing any glint. Ergo, the flashes seen in the 19 April video were gun fire.

4. In response to my question as to why some agents on 19 April risked their lives to save BDs from the fire while others were using automatic weapons to finish off the survivors, you said their actions depended on whether they could be seen by the TV cameras. We did not discuss how these Keystone Cops on 19 April knew the exact location of very TV camera at every instant.

5. I brought up the issue of BDs being killed by BDs. Specifically I asked "Who killed Vernon Howell?" You said the children in the bunker were not shot, and you mentioned some autopsy data concerning other BDs in the compound. That is still unresolved. My information on this is based solely on newspaper reports of the findings of the investigators.

6. I mentioned my information that both 14-inch barrel weapons and 20-inch barrel weapons were tested at Fort Hood. Your video states the Fort Hood tests did not incorporate the 14-inch barrel weapons, which would have a more pronounced muzzle flash. You contend that Senator Danforth's commission required the short barrels be used, but they were not. You disregard the FBI's statement that the short barrels were also tested at Fort Hood.

McNulty noted that he was pressed for time due to work commitments (new project coming up), and he would not be able to respond directly. He did say in his response to my e-mail he was forwarding my note to his experts for consideration. He did provide the following comments in his response:
I am sorry that I can't give you more than this. I'm up to my eyes trying to get the final report on this subject off to Congress and other important items...

I can't comment in the detail needed on your "Phone recap", there are a number of misconceptions and errors... I just don't have time to walk you through them.

I think this might be helpful though, go to the S.P.I.E organizations web site and look up vol. 4370. There you will find Fred Zegal's papers on the tests, Barbara Grant's and David Hardy's independent material and on the Government's side, Dr. Klasen and Mr. Frankel's material on the "recreation." Once again, I would also recommend looking at the Danforth Preliminary report, the Danforth Final report an the Protocol agreement and the Vector Data Systems report and the Federal Judge's (Walter Smith) final ruling.

Regarding your item # 2 about hot gun barrels being or not being visible to the FLIR used by the FBI - the issue is Spatial Resolution of the sensor. There is not really any relativity to the magnification used in conjunction with the ocular portion of the instrument. The issue here is the detector footprint relative to the size of an object on the ground. Please see Barbara Grant's work for more on this subject.

Sorry I can't be of more help right now, but again, I think the final report to the Congress may be of further assistance to your understanding of this issue and the sited papers above will definitely round out your knowledge on the subject. 1

McNulty copied Barbara Grant, David T. Hardy, and Fred Zegel on this e-mail, and I subsequently received some comments from Hardy:
I'm sorta popping in on this conversation at the last minute, and this is not my field, but....

Barbara Grant calculates the "footprint" (I believe the term is IFOV, Instantaneous Field of View, but again, this is not my field) of each sensor element and pixel on the Waco FLIR at between 9" and 20" on the ground, depending upon the aircraft altitude and slant angle. Even at the former, a CAR-15 barrel would only be about 1/18 pixel wide and shy of two pixels long.

A half-inch wide hot object is going to be emitting photons ... but represents only a small part of each element/pixel. It may not be enough to raise the brightness of the entire pixel, and thus may not appear. Mike's later tests were filmed at much closer range, where the gun barrels completely fill multiple pixels, so that they are seeing an area entirely filled by the photon emitters.

MORE: see www.ntskeptics.org/2002/2002february/february2002.htm


127 posted on 11/30/2003 6:20:43 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
don, Clark was NOT the commander--I don't understand how you guys keep coming up with this. HE COMMANDED the 1st Cav Division at Fort Hood, one of several units subordinate to the III Corps HQ. Pursant to a lawful request by civil law enforcement agencies, the Army as represented by Forces Command (known as FOSCOM) in Atlanta, Georgia tasked III Corps to provide support in the form of equipment and training. III Corps, in turn, TASKED UNITS at Hood to provide support--one of which was the 1ST CAV DIV.

I could just rest my case on your own words here. However, I'd like to remind you that this was the defence of countless nazi war criminals--"I vas just following orders!". Most everyone who particpates in a genocide offers this defense--but it doesn't seem to play very well with the world court.

. Once the decision was made at higher levels to provide the support, it becomes an order and there was no option at III Corps or the 1st Cav or Wes Clark or any of the other units to turn it down. Nobody at Hood was out trolling for business--ask anybody with significant Army experience--these kind of taskings are both relatively routine and a pain in the butt.

Yea, right. Just like the FBI was just following orders--all helpless pawns of bureaucratic chains of command. Do you think maybe it was gremlins that caused the children of the branch davidians to break their own bones like terminal anthrax victims from CS flashover byproduct?

As for the National Guard, you simply have that wrong. There is no command relationship between the regular Army and the National Guard until they are federalized--and that was not done at Waco. The chain of command for the guard goes from the individual soldier through his unit commander and the state Adjutant General to the governor. And it stops right there until and unless that soldier or his unit is ordered to federal active duty.

I do not have it wrong--you are simply refusing to read what I've written with your brights on. You are addressing the wrong issue. I an not a weasily lawyer looking to get my gangster client off on a legal technicality, so it doesn't wash with me. If substantial parts of the national guard budget is supplied by the feds, and If the national guard CAN be under the army's command, at the army's volition, it is a part of the army, from the point of view of anyone trying to make a moral determination. And, secondly, it is a doubtful distinction to claim that the national guard is the state militia allowed for by the constitution under these circumestances, so even your legal-weasil defense would be doubtful in a seriously honest court of law that took the constitution at it's word.

128 posted on 11/30/2003 6:22:36 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
EVEN Ian Goddard, once a proponent of the TWA800 Missile Theory 'debunks' the misinterpretation of IR imagery/video that McNutty attributes to 'gunfire':
Debunking the Waco FLIR
(c) 2001 Ian Williams Goddard

The 51-day standoff in Waco, Texas between members of the Branch Davidian sect and federal agents ended tragically when the Mount Carmel Center burned to the ground, leaving over 70 of its inhabitants dead. Before and during the fire an aircraft circled overhead with a heat detecting FLIR (forward-looking infrared) video camera. The documentaries Waco: the Rules of Engagement [1] and Waco: A New Revelation [2] produced by Michael McNulty popularized the claim that the FLIR recorded gunshots being fired into Mt Carmel before and during the fire.

What is the evidence of gunfire on the Waco FLIR video? Bright flashes that appear on the ground and on the roof of Mt Carmel. However, when the Waco FLIR was run through the VIPER, a computer program that detects gunshots on FLIR, [3,4] no gunshots were found because the flashes are not like gunshots. [5] Additionally, expert analyses have shown that Waco flashes are thermal reflections on visible reflective debris. [6-8] These scientific analyses have not deterred proponents who continue to promote the claim that the flashes are gunfire.

...

MORE, inculding many photographs, videos and analysis of McNutty's 'work' at:

iangoddard.net/waco.htm

129 posted on 11/30/2003 6:33:24 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: donh
Given the simultaneous failure of 4 federal cameras to provide correlating evidence

MORE outlandish donh lies - like in your pro-drug arguments ... MUCH evidence (both photographic and forensic) exists to squash just about ANY contention you wish to beat your chest about and misrepresent factually ...

130 posted on 11/30/2003 6:36:08 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
You're wrong, the evidence doesn't show that, and it was the Davidians THEMSELVES that performed this act.

The evidence you have presented does not show that. What is shows, if none of it is rigged, is that the Davidians might have burned themselves up before the feds did it for them, or not.

Taken at face value, What the evidence you just presented glaringly shows, is the errant disregard for life displayed by federal forces in ventilating AND FILLING WITH AN INFLAMMABLE GAS, a building in which they knew a fire was likely about to start, and which was occupied by children.

The logic here is a patent crock of dung, and it is very hard not to believe some of it was concocted, to tell an exonerating story after the fact, and distract attention for the flagrant disregard for those children shown by federal forces that day. As evidenced by a packing crate full of child's corpses, said which children the Branch Davidians themselves had secreted underground, as far from harm's way as they could manage.

131 posted on 11/30/2003 6:39:30 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary; sit-rep; JennysCool
Ian Goddard pretty much 'nails it' in his closing summary on this topic:
CONCLUSION

The Waco FLIR gunshot claim purports that federal agents machine gunned men, women, and children as they tried to escape the Waco fire.

In other words, the United States government is guilty of the systematic mass murder of its own citizens -- a crime against humanity.

However, as the facts above demonstrate, the alleged evidentiary basis for this most serious charge -- that the official report lists fifteen bodies shot to death near the rear exit -- is completely false.

And the flashes recorded on FLIR that are said to be the gunshots killing those allegedly trying to escape do not actually resemble real gunshots. Instead, the long durations of the flashes resemble thermal reflections.

Furthermore, the flashes appear on detectable pieces of reflective debris. The entire Waco FLIR gunshot/mass murder claim is a confabulated mirage built upon falsity and bad analysis.


Prior to the acquisition of empirical data about gun-muzzle flashes and thermal reflections on FLIR, and prior to detailed analyses of the contents of the Waco FLIR, it was a reasonable concern that the flashes might be gunshots directed at Mt Carmel.

However, the empirical data and analyses cited in this report leave no room for doubt that the Waco FLIR flashes are thermal reflections on debris, not gunshots.

Yet the gunshot claim continues to proliferate due to a concerted effort to sell videos on the topic.

Unfortunately the technical nature of the subject leaves most at a loss to see the Waco FLIR gunshot claim for the hallucination that it is. Hopefully this report will serve as a beacon of reason in a sea of misinformation.

Repeating:
The entire Waco FLIR gunshot/mass murder claim is a confabulated mirage built upon falsity and bad analysis.

...

Hopefully this report will serve as a beacon of reason in a sea of misinformation.

Class dismissed.
132 posted on 11/30/2003 6:42:26 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
MORE outlandish donh lies - like in your pro-drug arguments ... MUCH evidence (both photographic and forensic) exists to squash just about ANY contention you wish to beat your chest about and misrepresent factually ...

I'll bet you know perfectly well that there were federal cameras there, not one which managed to work well enough to provide footage to congress at a critical juncture related to these arguments. And I'll bet you know prefectly well that the federal police authorities BULLDOZED THE CRIME SCENE, and managed to lose the front door, and I'll bet you know that the bodies of those kids all ACCIDENTLY got de-refrigerated before they could be re-examined, and I'll bet you know that federal officers had to recant the flashbang story.

You are standing up for a bunch of lying BS artists on the federal payroll who have been caught repeatedly destroying and altering evidence. There is no credibility left on your side of this argument, because your witnesses have tainted themselves in court, and flailing away at irrelevant, unrelated issues in gratuitous ad-homimem attacks won't change that.

133 posted on 11/30/2003 6:46:57 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: donh
don, First, there WAS NO military commander at Waco--where do you come up with this stuff? Second, Clark's unit was one of several at Fort Hood that provided support for the civil law enforcement agencies at Waco--why do you think he had some special role? The military support provided by the Army at Waco was in accordance with Posse Comitatus and applicable laws--it has been investigated exhaustively to include by people who are no friends of the military and there is no evidence of military wrongdoing--because there wasn't any!

As for following orders, soldiers are obligated to follow legal orders just as they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. The orders were correct and legal, irrespective of whether or not donh liked them or not. Write your congressman & change the law if you don't like it. Don't fault the U.S. Army for following it.

And again, on the National Guard, you profoundly misunderstand its role. The U.S. Army CANNOT call it up at its own volition, as you say. There are separate and distinct chains of command and it would not matter if the Chief of Staff of the Army showed up in person at the Waco Armory and ordered the National Guard commander to take his tanks, tear gas and a basic load of matches to link-up with Wes Clark at the Koresh compound to receive his Branch Davidian genocide instructions. The Chief of Staff of the Army has no authority to do so and the National Guard troop has no obligation to follow those orders or any others issued by an Active Army officer. The National Guard commander's boss--at least then--was Ann Richards.

134 posted on 11/30/2003 6:56:43 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Yet the gunshot claim continues to proliferate due to a concerted effort to sell videos on the topic.

Well, and also due to what anyone whose ever fired an automatic weapon can plainly see by looking at the film--reflections can't produce even timing like that. This so-called analysis is bought and paid for from a defense contractor, and it depends on a bullshit recreation put on by the accused's interested parties. This would not stand up in an honestly run courtroom, any more than a murderer's computer recreation of a murder would.

Like the flim-flam we just went through regarding tanks penetrating the building, this is expensive camoflage the feds have paid through the nose for to make everyone think they didn't see what they obviously saw.

135 posted on 11/30/2003 6:58:49 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: donh
I'm not going to bother to address anything at all you raise in the way of issues or contentions; you have in the past, argued the smallest of points up to, and including (IMO) the result of simple maths on the level of summing 2 + 2 in order to 'gain traction' in an argument, TO the exclusion of the totality of the evidence.

THIS is disingenuous, bordering on deceit AND a waste of my valuable technical time.

Tilt at this windmill if you wish, construct a website that addresses the issues in question here factually and sign your name to it - and maybe, just maybe I'll take a look at it.

'til then - you're just so much wind ...

136 posted on 11/30/2003 7:11:01 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
don, First, there WAS NO military commander at Waco

At a siege using military equipment, that lasted for month's being broadcast on the national airwaves. Wow, what responsible behavior that is.

--where do you come up with this stuff? Second, Clark's unit was one of several at Fort Hood that provided support for the civil law enforcement agencies at Waco--why do you think he had some special role? The military support provided by the Army at Waco was in accordance with Posse Comitatus and applicable laws--it has been investigated exhaustively to include by people who are no friends of the military and there is no evidence of military wrongdoing--because there wasn't any!

I see, the flashbangs marched over the WACO and fired themselves off. I've got it now.

As for following orders, soldiers are obligated to follow legal orders just as they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. The orders were correct and legal, irrespective of whether or not donh liked them or not.

Legal orders killed the jews in the ovens at Auschwitz.

Write your congressman & change the law if you don't like it. Don't fault the U.S. Army for following it.

Everyone has a conscience, and a duty to exercise it at all times--not just congresscritters. I think most ordinary people can tell that it's kinda wrong to ventilate a building full of children and fill it with flammable gas when a fire is about to be set off. Or is that just me?

And again, on the National Guard, you profoundly misunderstand its role. The U.S. Army CANNOT call it up at its own volition, as you say.

That is an irrelevant point. It the fact of federalization that levers my argument--whether the army can call reserves up directly, or has to get some other federal entity to do it, it is still a federal standing army on domestic soil.

There are separate and distinct chains of command and it would not matter if the Chief of Staff of the Army showed up in person at the Waco Armory and ordered the National Guard commander to take his tanks, tear gas and a basic load of matches to link-up with Wes Clark at the Koresh compound to receive his Branch Davidian genocide instructions. The Chief of Staff of the Army has no authority to do so and the National Guard troop has no obligation to follow those orders or any others issued by an Active Army officer. The National Guard commander's boss--at least then--was Ann Richards.

It was provisionally Ann Richards, at any time, at federal whim, it could have been federalized. If, for example, the Texas Rangers had asked them to intervene and throw the lawless brigands of the FBI out, before they murdered any more Texas citizens, for example.

137 posted on 11/30/2003 7:12:54 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
TO the exclusion of the totality of the evidence.

What a bag of wind. The "totality of the evidence" which no one disputes, is that the feds gased and burned and crushed a whole bunch of kids with military equipment, right in front of God, CBS, and everybody, and have been sending out flappers like you to make it seem otherwise for about a decade now.

138 posted on 11/30/2003 7:15:50 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
THIS is disingenuous, bordering on deceit AND a waste of my valuable technical time.

Valuable technical time indeed. Barfing up expensive, loony, technical-sounding federal ass-covering BS. Fact is, your client had his ass in the crack ever since he bulldozed the crime scene and lost the front door. Something he obviously knew better than to do to a crime scene, unless he had something rather major to hide--as all his subsequent evidence-concocting shenanigans show.

139 posted on 11/30/2003 7:22:34 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Abundy; MeeknMing; Mia T; Ragtime Cowgirl; Alamo-Girl; dixiechick2000; potlatch; ladyinred; ...


WACO PHOTO:





140 posted on 11/30/2003 7:27:34 PM PST by autoresponder (<html> <center> <img src="http://0access.web1000.com/BooDat.jpg> </center> </html> HILLARY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
And you, as usual, are engaging in straw man arguments. I don't care who was in office when the Davidians were first investigated. What I care about is that they were murdered in a military operation under Reno and Clark - Clintonoids to the core. And you are here defending them and their actions. What was it, 6 YEARS before the FBI finally admitted after continuous denials, that pyrotechnic tear gas was used on the last day? Tell me, why would they lie about using it, if the Davidians started the fire? And why would they raise their flag on the tank over the ashes, if the fire were a mass suicide and they were all "distraught" over "how wrong it went?" They were there to kill the Davidians and they almost got them all. The rest, they put in jail for 10, 20, 30 years.
141 posted on 11/30/2003 8:27:38 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
MORE outlandish donh lies - like in your pro-drug arguments

I don't have any pro-drug arguments. I have pro-legalization arguments, and they mostly come from government studies. Kindly cite a couple of such lies from a Pro-drug argument of mine, so we can examine them as a measure of how much credence we should give this latest glob of fact-free pro-government propaganda from you.

142 posted on 12/01/2003 1:09:05 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Prior to the acquisition of empirical data about gun-muzzle flashes and thermal reflections on FLIR, and prior to detailed analyses of the contents of the Waco FLIR, it was a reasonable concern that the flashes might be gunshots directed at Mt Carmel.

Right. Because a bunch of reflecting surfaces randomly scattered on the ground JUST HAPPENED to produce what looked like sustained automatic rifle fire from behind tank cover, that moved with the tank. Gee. What an incredible co-incidence. Since you are so eager for my opinion, I think EITHER the feds produced this tape after the fact, containing this HIGHLY unlikely co-incidence, or it is NOT a HIGHLY unlikely coincidence--it is gunfire.

Take your pick. If it was concocted, it was obviously so they could refute it with great fanfare to, once again, provide another distraction from their basic problem here: that they ventilated a building and filled it with flammable gas when they knew a fire was about to happen--FOR WHATEVER REASON.

And, by the way, "Oh, oops" is not the correct answer here. The FBI has had a fair amount of practice "accidently" lighting off CS gas to terminate protracted resistence. But as long as they were burning black babies in LA and Philly, nobody much noticed.

143 posted on 12/01/2003 1:37:19 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: donh
Don't fault the U.S. Army for following it. Everyone has a conscience, and a duty to exercise it at all times--not just congresscritters. I think most ordinary people can tell that it's kinda wrong to ventilate a building full of children and fill it with flammable gas when a fire is about to be set off. Or is that just me?

The Army did not have operational involvement, so whatever you say based on that premise is nothing other than your fevered imaginings.

144 posted on 12/01/2003 3:32:02 AM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: donh
It was provisionally Ann Richards, at any time, at federal whim, it [the National Guard] could have been federalized. If, for example, the Texas Rangers had asked them to intervene and throw the lawless brigands of the FBI out, before they murdered any more Texas citizens, for example.

Besides making no sense, your once again exhibit your seemingly impregnable ignorance about the differences between the National Guard and the Regular Army.

145 posted on 12/01/2003 3:35:06 AM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: donh
ME: The military support provided by the Army at Waco was in accordance with Posse Comitatus and applicable laws--it has been investigated exhaustively to include by people who are no friends of the military and there is no evidence of military wrongdoing--because there wasn't any!

YOU: I see, the flashbangs marched over the WACO and fired themselves off. I've got it now.

Don, your posts are filled with combinations of false premises, generalized comments, and unsupported assertions. Let me help you. To counter an argument which says that the Army followed the law, to include Posse Comitatus, and that there is no evidence of military wrongdoing, you should cite something the Army did wrong, the law that was violated, and your evidence for that violation. A reference to self-detonating, marching pyrotechnics is not a counter-argument.

146 posted on 12/01/2003 4:02:33 AM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder; yall


147 posted on 12/01/2003 6:47:40 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (George Soros "MINOB": http://richard.meek.home.comcast.net/SorosRatsA.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
As I said prior _Jim...

Bullshit

148 posted on 12/01/2003 8:51:12 AM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Don, your posts are filled with combinations of false premises,

Disagreeing with you is an inadequate criteria for a false premise.

generalized comments, and unsupported assertions. Let me help you. To counter an argument which says that the Army followed the law, to include Posse Comitatus, and that there is no evidence of military wrongdoing, you should cite something the Army did wrong, the law that was violated, and your evidence for that violation. A reference to self-detonating, marching pyrotechnics is not a counter-argument.

Since that is not my contention, there is no point in continuing to chastise me for not supporting it. My contention is that the army, like the rest of the gangsters mustering for this fiasco, displayed no discernably effective conscience comparable to that which any uneducated ghetto mother could muster concerning using military equipment to destroy a building full of children. What this means--to anyone not hyponotized by incessent jury-rigged propaganda and still possessed of a brain and a heart--is that the act was intentional--just as it appeared to be on CBS news.

What kind of a proud claim is it that the commander of that military unit tasked to assist in this sat with his thumb up his butt watching this occur on CBS? Shame on him, and shame on you for applauding this cowardly and irresponsible behavior, if, in fact, it is what really transpired, which I seriously doubt.

149 posted on 12/01/2003 9:39:55 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Besides making no sense, your once again exhibit your seemingly impregnable ignorance about the differences between the National Guard and the Regular Army.

The fact that you appear not to be able to read my argument with your brights turned on is not a demonstration that I make no sense. The constitution was written with the specific intent of having a navy, and said so. It was also written with the specific intent of having no standing federal army on US soil, which is why there is no provision for one. Calling parts of the army by some other name is legal weaseling. Answer my question: could the texas guard have been federalized if the texas rangers had asked them to kick the DEA and FBI out before they killed any more texas citizens, without even attempting to serve a warrant? If the answer is yes, then there is no effective difference between the army and guard for the purposes of deflecting military tyranny, as the constitution intended. So, to a constitutionalist, the guard is the army, your irrelevant hairsplitting legalistic contentions to the contrary notwithstanding.

150 posted on 12/01/2003 9:50:37 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson