There Must Never Be Another Waco

[FWiedner]

There Must Never Be Another Waco

On February 28, 1993, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) began their illegal assault on the home of the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas. An unarmed David Koresh was shot by BATF agents as he stepped onto his front porch. A shootout resulted with several deaths on both sides.

Shortly afterward, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took charge of the situation, and on April 19, 1993, agents from both departments (utilizing military hardware and both U.S. and foreign military advisers) laid siege to the dwellings which resulted in the deaths of 87 American citizens. Most of the victims were old men, women, and small children.

Read the article at:

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9666

*FW Note:  Two years later, a young man who was angry about the way the government handled the Waco affair parked a rented Ryder truck loaded with fertilizer and diesel fuel in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

If cops continue to play at being an army of occupation, they should expect the subjects to play their role in return. -- J. D. TUCCILLE

 :cry:

[dukkillr]

How was the ATF raid at Waco, "illegal"?  I'm not interested in a propaganda piece, but rather the actual legal answer.

[FWiedner]

dukkiller;

Here is Mr. Baldwin's (the author's) email.

chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Why don't you drop him a line and ask him to explain his thought?

Let us know what he has to say.  Better yet, ask him to drop in and explain for himself.

 

[jrcanoe]

"it is unconscionable (not to mention a violation of U.S. law as prescribed in the Posse Comitatus Act) that tanks and other military equipment would be used against mostly women and children within our own country"

I want a tank and a B1 bomber to protect me and mine from and over zealous government. It Is my 2nd Amendment right to be better armed than the military. Don't like that FACT change the constitution thru the amendment process.

[Nightrain52]

We can hash this over and over and the results are the same, dead citizens at the hands of federal government law enforcement, the same at Ruby Ridge. If you think the government is on your side I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale. :x

[dukkillr]

I'd never seen mention of the Posse Comitatus Act before so I did a little legal research:

18 USCS § 1385
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

There's a long line of case history and statutory exceptions that include anything you might think of.  I'm at a loss to explain how Waco was in violation.  Could anyone point me in the right direction?  Again, I'm not looking for angry propoganda, I'm looking for legal ruling.  


Nightrain52 Wrote:

We can hash this over and over and the results are the same, dead citizens at the hands of federal government law enforcement, the same at Ruby Ridge.  

So if I'm high on PCP and a DEA agent pulls me over, and I pull a gun and start shooting, and he returns fire and kills me, then we've met your above criteria.  

Or, what if someone tries to kill the president and is killed by Secret Service?

[lgm270]

Wow. You should have been defense counsel at Nuremberg for the Germans who oversaw the gassing, burning and machine gunning of civilians by armed forces under their control.

Are you for real?

[FWiedner]

I'd never seen mention of the Posse Comitatus Act before so I did a little legal research:

18 USCS § 1385
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

There's a long line of case history and statutory exceptions that include anything you might think of.  I'm at a loss to explain how Waco was in violation.  Could anyone point me in the right direction?  Again, I'm not looking for angry propoganda, I'm looking for legal ruling.  


Nightrain52 Wrote:

We can hash this over and over and the results are the same, dead citizens at the hands of federal government law enforcement, the same at Ruby Ridge.  

So if I'm high on PCP and a DEA agent pulls me over, and I pull a gun and start shooting, and he returns fire and kills me, then we've met your above criteria.  

Or, what if someone tries to kill the president and is killed by Secret Service?

I was unaware that either the DEA or the Secret Service fell under the authority of the Army or the Air Force.  So, no, the above criteria have not been met in your example, whereas National Guard/Army/military personnel, equipment and intelligence services were used to murder American citizens at Waco.  That does seem to meet the criteria, don't you think?

 :shock:

[dukkillr]

lgm270 said:

Wow. You should have been defense counsel at Nuremberg for the Germans who oversaw the gassing, burning and machine gunning of civilians by armed forces under their control.

Are you for real?

Nope, and I'm not defending anything.  What I am doing is asking what the actual laws are.  I believe in having factual knowledge of any situation, and my seeking that knowledge does not mean that I've decided to defend anyone.  I'm also unconvinced that I've said or done anything that could be construed as supporting genocide.  

When I said, " I'm not looking for angry propoganda, I'm looking for legal ruling."  I was refering to comments like yours.  [/quote]

[dukkillr]

FWiedner wrote:

I was unaware that either the DEA or the Secret Service fell under the authority of the Army or the Air Force. So, no, the above criteria have not been met in your example, whereas National Guard/Army/military personnel, equipment and intelligence services were used to murder American citizens at Waco. That does seem to meet the criteria, don't you think?

I was responding to the, "...dead citizens at the hands of the federal government law enforcement..." comment, not the act.  But here's some case law on the act that seems to permit military equipment to be used by law enforcement:

United States v. Gerena, 649 F. Supp. 1179:

§ 1385 has been interpreted in a number of cases. Its basic purpose is to generally prohibit the use of military personnel in the enforcement of civilian laws. By its terms, however, it is not an absolute prohibition. Courts have upheld the use of military equipment, facilities, and personnel in the administration of civilian matters where expressly provided by law and where permission for such assistance was properly granted. Situations where such permission was appropriately granted include the use of a Navy destroyer in coastal law enforcement activities pursuant to specific statutory and regulatory authorization. United States v. Del Prado-Montero, 740 F.2d 113, 116 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021, 105 S. Ct. 441, 83 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1984).

The defendant challenges as illegal the use of Navy equipment and personnel in transporting him and others from the Courthouse to Muniz Air Base. He also challenges the use of Muniz Air Base and Stewart Air Field as points of departure and arrival. In reviewing these alleged illegalities the Court inquires first whether the use of such equipment, facilities, and personnel was authorized by law and second, whether such authorization, if any, conflicts with any other statutory or constitutional proscription.

Several laws authorize the type of military assistance at issue here. First, 10 U.S.C. § 372 provides that, the Secretary of Defense may, in accordance with other applicable law, make available any equipment, base facility, or research facility of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to any Federal, State, or local civilian law enforcement official for law enforcement purposes.

 
This includes the assignment of military personnel, provided such assignment is done in accordance with adequate regulation and in compliance with applicable law. 10 U.S.C. § 375.

Second, applicable regulations permit local Department of Defense components to authorize the use of available military equipment for law enforcement purposes. 32 C.F.R. § 213.9(a) provides:
HN5Department of Defense Components may make available equipment, base facilities, or research facilities to Federal, State, or local civilian law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes in accordance with this enclosure.

[FWiedner]

...except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress...

The quoted portion of the applicable US Code seems fairly explanatory to me.

It's interesting how "flexible" the law becomes when the government needs to justify killing it's citizens.

 :?

.

[dukkillr]

I agree that the act seems to be relatively "flexible" but lets not forget that it was enacted after the civil war when domestic military operations had an entirely different context than today.  In the intervening 130 years there has been a wide range of common sense exceptions (such as an arrest by the navy of a fugitive in international waters).  It doesn't make much sense to me that legislation designed to distinguish police from military power would permit a fugitive captured by chance on the open ocean to go free.  The courts have sided with defendants who were surrounded by military units, and that seems to be the spirit of 18 USC 1385.  

This has been an interesting research topic, but I've yet to uncover any evidence that the ATF assault was "illegal".  I think it's become clear that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply.

[ShadowMover]

Flexible eh?
He who has a mind to beat a dog will easily find a stick. Sounds like law enforcement with a purpose in the Waco fiasco. The Feds swore out a drug warrant against the nut Karesh(sp?) so they could use the military against his compound, as there was some sort of 'exception' in drug cases. Funny thing was, he was in town regularly and could have been arrested any time he came in. The sherriff could have called him to come in, as he had done before.  The haste with wich they destroyed the compound and 'lost' all the incriminating evidence, such as the front door,  makes me think the Feds were overzealous in their serving of this warrant. If you have seen any of the videos of this travesty it makes you sick to think these people acted in our name. I'm not a Karesh fan so I can't talk about his motives or religious beliefs. I am a US citizen and I sure don't like what I saw.
Well they 'saved' all those women and kids and Janet Reno has accepted 'full responsibility' whatever that means.

[lostone1413]

Our goverment has a history of using the military and or law enforcement agency against the citizens. Not just Ruby Ridge or Waco. A couple other times come to mind. Maybe Hay market square or how about the first part of the 1900s think around 1906 when the Colorado governor sent the troops after the miners on strike wanting safer conditions at Rockfeller request who owned the mines. By the way like Waco the troops burned alive men women and children. Then how about the start of the depression when the WW1 vets camped at DC to get the money our goverment promised them. The goverment sent the military after them. Nice thanks for fighting in WW1 for us. Wasn't it?? The threat to our freedom isn't across the ocean. It is in the Congress the Senate and the White House.

[ShadowMover]

I heard about JD Rockefeller getting the governor to call out the troops on the strikers.  The mine owners had evicted them from the company houses, so they moved into tents in the next valley over which didn't suit management. The troops machine gunned the tent city from flatbed rail cars.  This was a public relations disaster for old Rockefeller so he hired a PR firm to promote him as he passed out dimes to poor kids; and it worked.
I'd forgotten about the Bonus Army, and the troops who burned and ran them out, while they were peacably camped.  Some big names were involved:Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur was in command, assisted by Dwight D. Eisenhower, George S. Patton Jr. and others.

[lostone1413]

Sure was some big names. Now anyone here really trust the goverment?