PDA

View Full Version : somebody brought up Janet Reno



Phillip Allen
07-07-2006, 10:06 PM
I'm sorry she got sick...it makes it easier to defend her as a sympathetic person.

This is a C & P of some length…if ya don’t wanna read it then don’t and don’t whine about C & P to me…

Waco -- Operation Showtime

The Sound-Byte
All indications are that the confrontation between the BATF and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas was a set-up, planned for public relations purposes. The BATF had the news media alerted, the cameras rolling, and a search warrant that was obtained on trumped up charges. They disregarded the invitation of the Branch Davidians to peacefully enter the building and have a look around. They ignored opportunities to arrest David Koresh when he was alone. They recklessly ignored the presence of innocent women and children, and staged a paramilitary-style assault on the community. For what? To make a political statement? Excuse me, but I don't think that is the proper role of law enforcement in a Constitutional Republic.
The Details
The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BATF) Special Agents called it "Operation Showtime" when they set up their cameras and summoned the TV crews and newspaper reporters for the arrest of David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidian religious community in Waco, Texas on February 28, 1993. The community consisted of approximately 100 men, women and children, all living in a large wooden structure that they called "Mount Carmel." It was a religious community -- Mount Carmel included a large chapel. The BATF had a more ominous name for the wooden structure: "The Compound."
The BATF had done months of advance work for this operation. They knew that David Koresh could often be found by himself outside Mount Carmel, where he could easily be arrested. They knew of the many women and children living inside Mount Carmel. They had been invited by David Koresh to come in and look around. But they chose instead to arrest Koresh using a technique known in law enforcement circles as a "dynamic entry" -- using some seventy-six heavily armed men and women firing submachine guns, by some accounts including from helicopters and throwing flash-bang grenades.
What happened next is a matter of dispute. The official story is that when the armed BATF agents swarmed towards Mount Caramel on Sunday morning, they were greeted by gunfire from the occupants of Mount Carmel. Four government agents were killed. The surviving Davidians tell a different story -- that the government agents fired first without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers serving an arrest warrant. [Note that there is case law which supports the right of private citizens to defend themselves against attack by unidentified law enforcement officers, and the surviving Branch Davidians were acquitted of murder charges in the deaths of the Federal agents killed during that assault.]
What followed was a protracted siege, in which government agents and Branch Davidians each accused the other of acting in bad faith. The lack of trust was exacerbated by the Fundamentalist religious beliefs of the Branch Davidians (an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventist tradition). The Branch Davidians viewed the situation as a possible prelude to Armageddon. The government forces viewed the Branch Davidians as a dangerous right-wing religious cult. The Branch Davidians accused the government of firing the first shots, and of firing at them from helicopters. The Branch Davidians repeatedly expressed their concern that the siege must be ended in a way that would preserve the physical evidence of government misconduct embedded in the doors, walls, and roof of their home.
The siege ended on April 19, 1993 when government tanks began ramming the walls of Mount Carmel and firing tear-gas into the building. Fire broke out and the entire structure was rapidly enveloped in flames. Most of the Branch Davidians, men, women, and children perished in the fire. The few surviving Branch Davidians claim that the fire was started by the tanks; the government forces claim that the Branch Davidians committed suicide by starting the blaze themselves. The remains of Mount Carmel were bulldozed away a couple months after the fire, leading some observers sympathetic to the Branch Davidians to suggest that the government wanted to destroy any evidence of wrong-doing by the government agents before or during the siege.
Congress held hearings on the matter in 1993 and 1995, which ended basically upholding the point of view of the BATF and FBI.
Government sources have recently (June to August 1999) admitted that military-style tear gas grenades that contain a pyrotechnic charge capable of starting fires were fired at the Branch Davidian complex, but now maintain that the incendiary devices were not fired in the direction of where flames broke out in the Branch Davidian complex, and were fired hours before the flames broke out.
The Austin American Statesman reported September 11, 1999 that the Texas Rangers Report on the Waco Branch Davidian disaster included classified military secrets, thus raising further questions regarding the military's role in the government operation. Normally, the military is prohibited by the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities. However, the Commander in Chief has authority to override the Posse Comitatus restrictions by Executive Order. Investigators sympathetic to the Branch Davidians have long claimed that the U.S. Army Delta Force played an active operational role, which the government has long denied.
Attorney General Janet Reno deflected criticism away from the President in 1993 by taking responsibility herself for the Waco tragedy. However, if military units did indeed have an operational role at Waco, then direct involvement by the President is implied [or else insubordination violating Posse Comitatus ]. This of course raises the question of "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"
The Washington Times reported September 14, 1999 that the same FBI sharpshooter, Lon Horiuchi, who killed Vicki Weaver [as she held an infant in her arms] during the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992 was also present at the Waco Branch Davidian siege. Although the government settled a wrongful death suit with her husband Randy Weaver in that case, Lon Horiuchi escaped prosecution on involuntary manslaughter charges when a Federal judge ruled that the Federal agent could not be tried under Idaho state law. The Washington Times further reported that three dozen spent sniper rounds were found by the Texas Rangers at sniper sites occupied by the FBI during the Waco Branch Davidian siege, and at least one witness has reported hearing gunfire originating from the FBI positions. The FBI denied firing any such rounds, but pointed out that the same sniper positions had been previously occupied by the BATF. There are also reports that thermal imaging [infrared] videos exist showing gunfire directed into the Branch Davidian community complex.
These recent revelations have cast sufficient doubt on the completeness and veracity of the information provided to Congress by the BATF and FBI in 1993 and 1995 that Attorney General Janet Reno has launched a new investigation, headed by former Senator John Danforth (R-MO). Senator John Danforth has in turn enlisted the assistance of the Postal Inspection Service in conducting the investigation. CNN reports (September 14, 1999) that the Postal Inspection Service is independent of the Justice Department (which houses the FBI and DEA) and the Treasury Department (which houses the BATF, Secret Services, Custom Service, and IRS). To its credit, the Postal Inspection Service was included in the investigation of the FBI actions at Ruby Ridge in 1992, which concluded that the FBI engaged in a coverup of activities which lead to the wrongful death of Randy Weaver's wife and son.
Among the issues which need to be explored by Senator Danforth's commission include the following:
• Why did the BATF use a high-risk dynamic entry which endangered the innocent children inside Mount Carmel, rather than arresting David Koresh when he was alone outside Mount Carmel? Why did they not accept David Koresh's invitation to come into Mount Carmel and look around peacefully? Evidence suggests that the dynamic entry was chosen to enhance the publicity value of the operation, rather than to maximize the safety of the occupants Mount Carmel and the BATF agents themselves.

Phillip Allen
07-07-2006, 10:07 PM
and the rest...


• Did the BATF act in good faith when it obtained search and arrest warrants? It appears that most if not all the allegations were false, irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the BATF, or insufficient to indicate criminal activity. In the previous Congressional investigation, independent investigators were not allowed to examine using sophisticated instruments such as X-rays the remnants of the Branch Davidians' firearms.
• The BATF claims that they only returned fire after the Branch Davidians fired the first shot, and the FBI claims that they never fired any shots. Spent sniper rounds, infrared video camera data, and some testimony may contradict these claims. Complete ballistic tests and analysis have never been made.
• Was there any operational involvement by military forces? Although such involvement is denied by the FBI and BATF, there is evidence that suggests otherwise. If so, why?
• Who started the fire? The FBI claims that surveillance microphones (bugs) had suggested that the Branch Davidians might be planning to start the fires, but the FBI also denied using incendiary devices. Evidence now demonstrates that military incendiary devices were actually used.
• If the FBI did have advance warning that the Branch Davidians might start a fire if a direct assault was made on Mount Carmel with tanks and tear gas, why did the FBI proceed with the assault anyway, knowing that there were many women and children trapped within the building? Why did they not at least pre-stage fire-fighting equipment before beginning the assault?
• Did helicopters ever fire down on Mount Carmel? If so, why did they endanger the children in this way?
• Did the Justice Department or Department of Treasury conspire to obstruct justice by lying, hiding, or destroying evidence?
• If there was any wrong-doing, who knew about it and when?
Only time will tell whether Senator Danforth will aggressively seek answers to these and other questions. On the one hand, if he finds substantial evidence of wrongdoing, then the so-called "right-wing conspiracy theorists" will be vindicated on the matter of Waco, thereby accruing greater credibility on other matters where the Clinton Administration has thus far gotten by with a shibboleth jig, a wink, and a nod. On the other hand, if he is seen as conducting a cursory investigation aimed at "restoring faith in government agencies" then he runs the risk of engendering even greater mistrust.
The best outcome would be a full, thorough, and open investigation that convinces even the most dedicated skeptics that everything is kosher. But I am not holding my breath.


I assume there will be some who simply attack the source so I left it off for the time being...the attacks will come anyway so as to cloud the issue (actually I've not heard of this source so I don't know for sure...we'll see

paladin
07-08-2006, 12:46 AM
Careful examination of the video tape taken in the parking lot with batf officers yelling incoming fire, and we're under attack..seems bogus. They are firing towards the building, but if they were under intensive fire there was no evidence of rounds striking the cars that they were hiding behind, no scenes of bullets hitting the pavement and no batf person injured....

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 02:17 AM
What's next, Ruby Ridge? :rolleyes:

ljb5
07-08-2006, 05:23 AM
Wow, it's difficult to imagine a more biased, inflammatory retelling of the events. But rather than marveling at the obvious bias of the article, let's look at the inarguable facts....

The seige began on February 28, 1993.

As the article says:


The BATF had done months of advance work for this operation.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but Bill Clinton took office in January, 1993. On February 11, 1993 he nominated Janet Reno. She was confirmed by the Senate on March 11, 1993 --

-- almost two weeks after the BATF raid at Waco -- and several months after the BATF put together the operation.

Want to take a guess who was in office in August of 1992 during Ruby Ridge?

So, Phillip..... what were you saying about Janet Reno?

huisjen
07-08-2006, 05:47 AM
Ouch. Gee, Phillip, that's gotta sting.

Dan

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 07:37 AM
I haven't mentioned political leaders...Waco was sorta on Clinton's watch and Ruby was definatly on the watch of Bush the elder...I don't care whose watch it was...this is not a game. I think all those complaining about what our military is doing now ought to read this carefully.

Reno was expected to throw herself on the grenade...she did...that's how things work in DC

LeeG
07-08-2006, 07:37 AM
I miss Monica

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 07:39 AM
Mr. Monica was on his watch during that investigation...that it came out the way it did ought to cause you to reflect on the good ole Monica days.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
07-08-2006, 07:51 AM
OK, I read through the C&P, all the way to the end and, having arrived at the destination where, despite the thinness of the plot and poverty of the character development, I find a number of serious and important questions are left to go begging.

In brief, and missing some important ones.

So What?
Who Cares?
Why did I bother?
What purposes were served by the writing, the cutting or the pasting?
Is this really the demise of American story telling?

I could go

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 08:23 AM
The BATF is a very dangerous organization as is the FBI (ask J F Kennedy). The attack on Waco was a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878). The act is meant to prevent the US military being used against its own citizens. The C & P can be read critically from two points of view:
You may critically read from the point that looks for a way to refute the point of the article
You may critically read from the point that if true, this is violence directed at the citizens of this country and the perpetrators need not worry about being held responsible in the future.

So, you choose: support the armed organizations used against the citizens, including the Army, Navy and Air Force or support the right of people to live without fear of their own military and similarly armed para-military police.

BTW, I personally interviewed Randy Weaver…it is heart chilling to hear and too distressing to sit and write at this point. The BATF deliberately set up Weaver to coerce him into spying on his neighbors…entrapment first to gain the arrest followed by altering the date of appearance on Weaver’s notification to go to court by a month. All this was aimed at forcing a citizen of this country to do something he already had told the agents he would not do. This set into motion a chain of events involving agents approaching the Weaver House in full camo including head net and mask to serve a bench warrant for failure to appear. The agents were armed with SILENCED machine pistols and began operations by shooting a boy’s dog in front of him. Can anyone here tell me this is the normal way to serve a warrant? The boy saw a masked man shoot his dog then fired a shot (he was looking for deer and had his deer rifle with him) in the direction of the disguised agent and began running toward his house calling his momma. At that point the agent sprayed bullets into the back of the fleeing 14 year old killing him instantly…in front of the boy’s father (Randy) who told me that he hadn’t even realized that a machinegun had gone off… “It sounded like an air leak”

I get angry again just to get this much out…and I am angry in advance at those who will try to justify the actions of the BATF.

OUTRAGOUS!

And the government moved to defend itself and its practices…and this is what some will state that they want.

GAH! (I knew I shouldn’t try to repeat that stuff)

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 09:31 AM
Thanks Ironmule...I get upset every time I have to think about the Ruby Ridge or Waco travesties...I want murder indictments!

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 10:26 AM
Way back in the US Nav I had a job requiring me to read a UPI wire for eight hours a day as a kind of censor looking for things which might upset some sailor with his finger on the nuclear trigger. Subsequent readings of what made it to the news report or news paper showed me a lot that can't be quantified easily...the media lies and that is that...I've known this for over 35 years now...and people don't want to believe it because it makes them nervous...

ljb5
07-08-2006, 11:39 AM
I haven't mentioned political leaders...

No, you didn't. You mentioned Janet Reno.... but now you're back-pedaling away after realizing that you can't hang this on her.

You haven't mentioned the part about the lawfully issued search warrants, the four dead federal agents, the sexual molestation of children, the stockpiles of illegal weapons or the audio tapes of the Branch Davidians as they poured fuel around their compound and set in on fire....

I'm not supporting the actions of the Feds at Waco --- but I'm not taking David Koresh's side either. He was a sick, homicidal, suicidal delusional man. I wish the feds had handled the situation better, but their error was in playing Koresh's game. He wanted an apocalyptic showdown -- and that's exactly what he got.

As for Randy Weaver, it's interesting that you claim to have interviewed him, yet make no mention of his White Power ideology. Probably doesn't fit in well with the picture you're trying to paint. I also notice that your story contradicts his. You say his son was out hunting deer.... he says they were alerted to intruders by barking dogs.

Yet still.... none of that has anything to do with Janet Reno.

The events at Waco were thoroughly investigated. Janet Reno did not obstruct the investigation. (Some FBI agents made incorrect or contradictory statements). As mentioned above, the raid at Waco had been planned since before Clinton was elected.

Although there were some contradictions and uncertainties, the Danforth committee, the House Committee on Government Reform, a jury trial and a bench trial all came to the conclusion that the government acted properly and that the Davidians started the fire themselves. Several Davidians were convicted of manslaughter.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If you want an interesting perspective on Janet Reno's crisis management skills, consider the differences between Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Montana Freemen.

George Bush Sr's administration screwed up the situation at Ruby Ridge and created a mess at Waco, resulting in violent confrontations, and the deaths of dozens of civilians and officers.

In 1996, the Montana Freemen started an 81-day standoff with federal agents after stockpiling weapons, committing fraud and making credible death threats against a federal judge. The standoff ended peacfully in the convictions of all accused.

That's the difference between good management and bad.

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 11:49 AM
incredably stupid comentary...or else very uninformed

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 11:53 AM
The BATF is a very dangerous organization as is the FBI (ask J F Kennedy). The attack on Waco was a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878). The act is meant to prevent the US military being used against its own citizens. Neither the BATF or the FBI are "US military" - they are civilian law enforcement.

BTW, the DHS is now claiming, in writing and with legal opinions to support it, that Posse Comitatus is essentially no longer operative. I posted a C&P and link the past time PC came up.

Legal opinions are like "noses" - every lawyer has one... ;)

ljb5
07-08-2006, 11:59 AM
It's truly amazing how many people associate Janet Reno with Waco and even Ruby Ridge, not realizing that these situations were created by her predecessors.

Do you think this misconception is accidental?

Or has it yet occurred to you that it is part of a deliberate smear campaign by the right wing?

It's amazing that some people don't think Reagan knew about or was responsible for the illegal acts of people he met on a regular basis.

Some people don't believe Nixon had any idea about what his closest advisors, working in the Whitehouse were doing....

Yet we're supposed to believe that Janet Reno and Bill Clinton bear direct responsibility for the actions of people they never met, working in remote field offices, controlled by administrators they didn't appoint, which occurred months before they took office? I'm not that stupid. Are you?

If you blame Janet Reno for Waco or Ruby Ridge then you are every bit as dumb as Rush Limbaugh thought. He made a deliberate effort to manipulate your thinking -- and you fell for it.

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 12:00 PM
And why bring it up a dozen years after the fact if not for political purposes?

ljb5
07-08-2006, 12:04 PM
incredably stupid comentary...or else very uninformed


At least you admit it. :D

Seriously, what does this have to do with Janet Reno?

huisjen
07-08-2006, 12:09 PM
incredably stupid comentary...or else very uninformed

Well then. It's good that you admit when you're wrong, Phillip. At least I can only assume you're refering to your own statements.

Dan

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 12:09 PM
...the media lies and that is that...I've known this for over 35 years now...and people don't want to believe it because it makes them nervous...Begs the question: how have you manged to keep yourself reliably/honestly informed for the past 35 years? ;)

ljb5
07-08-2006, 12:28 PM
Here's an interesting experiment....

Do a google search for "Janet Reno" and "Ruby Ridge."

I get 28,900 hits.

Now, do one for "William Barr" and "Ruby Ridge."

I get 492 hits.

Phillip, do you have any idea why Janet Reno might be 58 times more associated with Ruby Ridge than the guy who was actually in office at the time?

Do you think this happened by accident, or do you think someone deliberately created the association?

Who might have done this? What might have been their motive for creating this association?

Let us know when you figure it out.

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 01:12 PM
Sorry for the delay...re-arranging the PC

Why is it you rush...yes, rush to defend Reno and ignore the meat of the post. This is an embarrassing indulgence in political partisanship...to hell with the bitch...I don't care about her beyond the need for at least a manslaughter charge.

Go back and read the rationale for burning 25 children to death…sexual assault (un-substantiated in the end) has become reason to kill the victim. There were no illegal weapons, if so where are they? This is a wind milling defense of a political god and no more…forget that. Let’s get together and defend ourselves against a government organization bent on enforcing its will in spite of established law…or is the shoe on the other foot now?

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 01:29 PM
Not only did you not attribute your C&P, you have not made any sort of credible case that Reno had any responsibility for what happened at Waco.

This feels way too much like rewriting history to fit prejudicies, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 01:35 PM
Why is it you rush...yes, rush to defend Reno and ignore the meat of the post.

The first problem, Phillip, is that I can't figure out what the "meat of the post" is.

You started this thread with a headline about Janet Reno. If Janet Reno isn't the subject of the post, why did you mention her in the headline?


This is an embarrassing indulgence in political partisanship.

Yes, you are.


Go back and read the rationale for burning 25 children to death…

There is no rationale for burning 25 children to death. None.

I didn't do that. Clinton didn't do that. Janet Reno didn't do that. The FBI didn't do that. The ATF didn't do that.

The Branch Davidians did. Tragic, shameful, insane. Not my fault. Not Janet Reno's fault.


Let’s get together and defend ourselves against a government organization bent on enforcing its will in spite of established law…or is the shoe on the other foot now?

Sounds good.

Let's overturn the Patriot Act. Then let's force the executive branch to comply with the law. Let's do away with "signing statements" and stop torture and provide due process to all accused.

Then let's never vote for another Republican administration. After Ruby Ridge, Waco, 9/11, Iraq, abu Ghraib and Gitmo haven't you figured out yet that they don't care about abuse of power?

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 01:41 PM
Not only did you not attribute your C&P, you have not made any sort of credible case that Reno had any responsibility for what happened at Waco.

This feels way too much like rewriting history to fit prejudicies, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

how many times do I have to repeat...I don't care about Reno...you seem to think she's your mother...get over it! Blindly defending with such partisan vigor is very limiting...get over it! you will be glad you did

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 01:44 PM
"The first problem, Phillip, is that I can't figure out what the "meat of the post" is."

this either a lie or stupidity...it seems likely you intend to keep me defending myself...I will not bother, wiser heads will know better anyway... get smart...stop feeling threatened by me...I am not attacking you...and now I will not respond to you...you're free to have the last word and be "right"

ljb5
07-08-2006, 01:47 PM
how many times do I have to repeat...I don't care about Reno...

Then why, oh why, is the title of this thread, "somebody brought up Janet Reno"?

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 02:05 PM
BTW, who was it that brought up Janet Reno in the first place?

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 02:21 PM
I take it then that Reno's defenders here believe that the Branch Dividians should have been killed or that it doesn't count because it may look bad for a Democrat. Further, they seem to believe that a planned entrapment of Randy Weaver is forgivable as well as shooting and killing a 14 year old boy and his mother.

I consider the above to be indefensible and so we part ways...I leave you guys to haggle over precise wording and who was in office at the time and all the smoke you can muster to avoid the point which I find it hard to believe you don't see...perhaps I am too optimistic concerning peoples' honesty and cognitive ability.

For the life of me, I can’t see what you think is untrue…did Weaver’s son get shot in the back? Perhaps he didn’t. Did the man shoot Mrs. Weaver through the eye, covering her child in brain matter and blood? Perhaps she was firing at someone? Did he shoot her to keep her from pointing a gun at someone? Try to visualize someone coming up your sidewalk right now carrying a machine gun and wearing camo and a mask…or don’t bother as you see fit. Did a warrant naming one individual justify killing 93 others to get at him? while keeping the fire trucks four miles from the fire? Bulldozing the evidence? These things either happened or not…you believe what ever cocks your partisan pistol! I see that if you had power absolute, you would be corrupted absolutely. I have tried to reason with you but you resist it absolutely.

It is a shame and I am sorry for you. We all should hope and prey that your eyes are not opened by experience.

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 02:22 PM
BTW, who was it that brought up Janet Reno in the first place?

it was on another thread...I forgot what was said.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 02:26 PM
I take it then that Reno's defenders here believe that the Branch Dividians should have been killed or that it doesn't count because it may look bad for a Democrat.

Of course not..... but that's not Reno's fault.


Further, they seem to believe that a planned entrapment of Randy Weaver is forgivable as well as shooting and killing a 14 year old boy and his mother.

Gosh, no. That was a terrible thing that George Bush and William Barr did!


I consider the above to be indefensible and so we part ways...I leave you guys to haggle over precise wording and who was in office at the time.

There's no need to 'haggle' about who was in office at the time. It was August, 1992. George H.W. Bush was in office. No doubt about it.


…did Weaver’s son get shot in the back?

Yes, but not while any Democrat was in charge.


Did the man shoot Mrs. Weaver through the eye, covering her child in brain matter and blood?

Yup. While George Bush was in charge.

S/V Laura Ellen
07-08-2006, 02:36 PM
Could that have been Janet Reno?:eek:


No ... wait... it was a hair ball!:D

ljb5
07-08-2006, 02:39 PM
it was on another thread...I forgot what was said.

My gosh, you have a short memory! Are all Republicans so impaired? That could explain a lot.

Yesterday I mentioned that Rush Limbaugh took a very, very perverse pleasure when Reno was (through no fault of her own) diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.

Although Phillip seems to think it's wrong to take pleasure in Rush's self-generated problems, he had nothing to say on the subject of Rush's perversion.

That still doesn't explain why the subject of this thread is Reno and Waco. Nor does it explain why Phillip mentioned Ruby Ridge as if Reno (or any Democrat) had anything to do with that.

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 02:50 PM
To be fair, it was I who mentioned Ruby Ridge.

Why were these people the focus of federal investigations and arrest warrants in the first place?

Did the BD's have a right to continue to resist federal officers once they identified themselves? What justified their standoff?

If nothing else, your depiction of events is too one sided.

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 03:34 PM
Meer, it came out in public, because of an entrapment suit, that the BATF wanted to spy on a right wing gun toting pseudo militia located near Weaver. At no time was Weaver under suspicion of being part of that bunch; he was simply a neighbor on speaking terms with them. Because of his apparent rapport with them, Weaver was asked to infiltrate the militia…he refused. The BATF then began to look for a way to force Weaver to spy on them. It was decided to put Weaver in a compromising position and use that as leverage to coerce him into the spy job. In order to coerce Weaver he had to first be arrested on something, anything, then to miss his court date and trigger the bench warrant. That was done by brow-beating him into hack sawing a shotgun barrel off…this took many visits and begging on the part of the undercover agents (resulting later in its being thrown out of court as simple entrapment). Before that played out, a standard letter was sent to Weaver and to the court indicating the court date. Weaver’s copy of the letter was altered to cause him to miss the court date and the judge (being unaware of the altered date) then ordered a bench warrant. (complicated aint’ it?)

That the servers of the bench warrant showed up armed with machine guns and camo is a pretty strong indication that this was meant to be as show (don’t think they don’t do these things).

A barking dog discovered the agents as they snuck up on the Weaver house. The agent then shot the dog with a silenced firearm to prevent discovery (at this point it would seem to be way out of hand with the deliberate destruction of the animal). Apparently the agent who destroyed the barking dog did not know he was observed by the boy who then fired at the stranger in the mask who was shooting his dog…the rest is easy to follow. If an agent shot one of my kids in the back in front of me for no good reason that I could see, I would do my best to end his life if it was in my power.

We must remember this was intended to force a citizen to work for a government agency as a spy and against his will and legitimate desire to stay out of that dangerous situation.

I may point out that the subsequent murder of Randy Weaver’s unarmed wife was carried out by a trained sniper…that issue was never in doubt.

I am disgusted by one dishonest member of this forum who has tried vigorously to turn this into a partisan shouting match…his motives are his own.

Alan D. Hyde
07-08-2006, 04:20 PM
"The King is under no man, but under God and the law."

Sir Edward Coke

One of the keys to a good society, then and now.

Alan

huisjen
07-08-2006, 04:22 PM
Jeff, I want to thank you for being clear and straightforeward.

Dynamic entry: No, dynamic entry is a bad idea, and I don't think you'll find any of us defending it. As has been previously stated, this operation was planned and gotten rolling on the previous watch, under Bush Sr. Reno had a very brief time in office, and she didn't get time to overhaul the tactical planning of her entire department in that short time. I can't fault her for not having the time.

Stonewalling: I'm not completely familiar with every single detail of the case. But she gets put in office, then the **** hits the fan, and then she has to try to get her department back together. I can see why she might be slow to let it get ripped apart while she's trying to make changes. If I were on the other side of the aisle and wanted to make political hay, then I might be trying to back her into a corner too. Sunshine is good for sanitation.

But I can't blame her for standing up and not letting her people all be thrown to the lions. A good leader will praise in public and reprimand in private. I don't know exactly what happened in private, but the result of her leadership was that the Montana Freemen episode didn't end the way Waco or Ruby Ridge (both products of the previous administration) did. In a political environment, she acted politically. Clearly, she was able to make some positive changes.

Dan

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 04:53 PM
a reminder: there is no statute of limitations on murder

ljb5
07-08-2006, 04:58 PM
The point of the C&P, is that much of what happened at Waco wasn't kosher. Just as a single "ferinstance": the arrest warrant for Koresh could have been safely handled anytime he was out jogging. Does someone want to defend the "dynamic entry" of the whole compound full of women and children as necessary and correct?

Not me. Maybe the people responsible might want to defend it.

I just want to know why Phillip thinks this is Janet Reno's fault --- considering it happened two weeks before she took office.

If you have any complaints about Ruby Ridge or Waco, direct them to George H.W. Bush and his Attorney General William Barr.

...and then never vote for a Republican again!

It's silly to say that Janet Reno obstructed the investigation. While she was AG, there were many investigations, congressional, special counsel, judicial.

These investigation confirmed what we knew already: George H.W. Bush ran an incompetent, corrupt Justice Department with no regard for civil liberties. If Reno is guilty of anything, it's of not screwing Barr to the wall and holding him accountable.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 05:14 PM
Kid? Is there anything that ever happened in government that wasn't the fault of the republicans?

Oh sure... many things...

But after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, you'd have to be a darned fool to insist that they weren't responsible for anything.

Seriously, answer one question: How many investigations of Ruby Ridge did William Barr launch?

Hmmmm?

Let's just make sure we understand each other.... Ruby Ridge happens while William Barr is in charge, after 11.5 years of Republican control of the Justice Department.....

He does absolutely nothing to investigate.... but no one complains about him.

Seven months later, Janet Reno is sworn in and series of investigations starts..... and she gets criticized for stonewalling?

Three years later at Justus Township, she successfully and peacefully resolves a similar situation, but she gets no credit for that --- while being blamed for things that happend before she took office.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 05:25 PM
Just to remind you of how bad a mess Bush and Barr created....

On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, killing six people. Clinton had been in office just over one month, hardly enough time to reform 12 years of Republican control of the FBI and CIA. Janet Reno had not yet been confirmed as AG.

What was the Justice Department doing at the time? George Bush had just issued presidential pardons to half a dozen members of his own administration and a handful of drug smugglers including a Pakistani heroin trafficker.

You want to talk about stonewalling an investigation?

I suppose the Republicans weren't responsible for that either?

ljb5
07-08-2006, 05:44 PM
...having something go right years later, doesn't get you off the hook for your failures to properly investigate an incident causing 80 deaths.

I'll remember that.

How is that "proper investigation" going into the incident that cost 3000 lives on 9/11?

Or the 2,500 U.S. deaths in Iraq?

Or the 50,000 civilian deaths in Iraq?

George Bush gets to testify in secret, not under oath, in front of only select members of the committee, for a pre-determined length of time --- with Dick Cheney sitting next to him?

That's not a "proper investigation."

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 05:49 PM
Gawd... what a sickness!

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 07:24 PM
So, like I said: "Is there anything that's happened in the world, that isn't the fault of the republicans?"Not lately. Trying history won't solve current problems.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 07:40 PM
So, like I said: "Is there anything that's happened in the world, that isn't the fault of the republicans?"

Are you suggesting that after 12 years of Republican administration, they're responsible for nothing?!

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 07:43 PM
If you look at the past 12 years of Republican domination, they may have a point that they're not responsible for anything... accountability is another story.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 07:56 PM
did Janet Reno fail in her responsibilities to the american public by helping the coverup of a nasty mess?:confused:

She appointed a Special Investigator, John Danforth to look into it.

His report is available online.

There were also two Congressional investigations -- one in 1993 and one in 1995.

There were also a couple of court trials.

They investigated every aspect of the raid. They called in forensic investigators from all over the world. They went through the video tapes, audio tapes and physical evidence piece by piece.

What more should she have done?

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 08:02 PM
The AG isn't supposed to be a lapdog for the cops.How about Gonzales as lapdog for Bush - or is it ok when the president does it?

Based on you guy's staunch defense of all his illegal activities, that seems like a reasonable inference of your position.

ljb5
07-08-2006, 08:03 PM
a reminder: there is no statute of limitations on murder

Phillip, this is a very interesting thought.....

This means that it's never too late to launch the investigation.

Here is a partial list of people who could have, but didn't, investigate:


John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales


But you're only mad at Janet Reno, right? :rolleyes:

Meerkat
07-08-2006, 08:08 PM
The NRA/conservative base would never stand for it... ;)

ljb5
07-08-2006, 08:49 PM
Jeff, there's no question that the FBI and ATF screwed up.

For 12 years, the Republicans had control of the Justice Department.

Janet Reno had one month.

She wasn't even in office when the raid occurred. Are you saying she is guilty of covering up George Bush's screwup?

If you're sooooo worked up about it, why don't you call Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and demand an investigation?

Did you call John Ashcroft and demand an investigation?

Or do you only get mad at Democrats? :rolleyes:

ljb5
07-08-2006, 09:05 PM
Good, kid. The first step to fixing things is to admit there's a problem.

I agree completely.

After 12 years of Republican control, the ATF and FBI were definitely corrupt.


They screwed up at Ruby Ridge.
They screwed up at Waco...


And no Republican administration ever investigated either screw-up. Not William Barr. Not John Ashcroft. Not Alberto Gonzales....

But you're only mad at Janet Reno. Why?

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 09:33 PM
I hope you're up for this Ironmule because I'm not going to bandy words with it. "He" is dishonest both intellectually and literally. He will change subjects, leap to false conclusions ask you why after he has made found less accusations about you then change subjects again...the truth is not in him and he gets way beyond a simple double standard. No doubt he has been a razzle-dazzle debater… "She walks, she talks, she crawls on her belly like a reptile…step right up folks”

She is a sick man

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 09:34 PM
J. Edgar is laughing from the grave

ljb5
07-08-2006, 09:34 PM
Like I said,,,,who's mad?

It certainly appears that Phillip is mad. He's calling for a manslaughter indictment.

I can't prove that you're mad --- but I can prove that you are partisan.

On this thread, you have now mentioned Reno by name eight times... although she was not in office during Ruby Ridge or at the start of Waco.

You have not yet mentioned a single Republican (other than a passing reference to Nixon.)

Ruby Ridge happened while George Bush Sr. was in charge and William Barr was AG. You can discuss the subject without mentioning them --- but you can't discuss it without mentioning Reno.

I'm familiar with your concept of 'bipartisanship.' It goes like this.... When a Democrats is responsible, blame the Democrat. When a Republican is responsible you say, "Democrats and Republicans do it."

ljb5
07-08-2006, 10:10 PM
Cripes you're pathetic, Jeff.

Partisan all the way through. No doubt about it.

You have no problem make allegations about Reno --- but when it comes to actually considering the subject and clearly stating your position, you run for cover, refuse to defend your position and change the subject.

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 10:13 PM
Jeff,

some people have so much invested in their partisanship that they are blind to reality...I've got a 72 year old sister who is so afraid of allowing points to the "other" party that she comes across like our deluded friend here sometimes...

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 10:16 PM
Cripes you're pathetic, Jeff.

Partisan all the way through. No doubt about it.

You have no problem make allegations about Reno --- but when it comes to actually considering the subject and clearly stating your position, you run for cover, refuse to defend your position and change the subject.

laughing...

Phillip Allen
07-08-2006, 10:19 PM
good night Jeff...I'm going to bed and read a little Harry Potter for a little reality check...

ljb5
07-08-2006, 10:41 PM
:D Let's see, I say both parties are corrupt, and both parties have been afraid to clean up the FBI and ATF since their inception, and that's a partisan position.:rolleyes:

Both partisan and untrue.

As I pointed out, the most significant failings of the FBI and ATF in recent times (Ruby Ridge and Waco) have occurred while Republicans were in control (or in their immediate aftermath.)

While no Republican has ever made any attempt to investigate or hold anyone accountable, the Democratic Attorney General did launch several thorough investigations.

In stark contrast, the events at Justus Township, while the FBI and ATF were under Democratic control, had a successful, peaceful resolution.

It is partisanship to saddle the Democrats with criticism that belongs only on Republicans.


It is even more partisan of you that you repeatedly accuse Reno of faults ---- and have not yet mentioned a single Republican --- although it was the Republicans, not Reno who were in charge.

LeeG
07-08-2006, 10:47 PM
this is a long thread

ljb5
07-08-2006, 10:52 PM
Jeff, you repeatedly claim to be bipartisan --- but when a person actually looks at your positons, you always attack Democrats and always support Republicans.

Feel free to re-read this thread and see for yourself.


Janet Reno deflected the impact of the coverup from her boss


Janet Reno, in her capacity as Attorney General, stonewalled the investigation


did Janet Reno fail in her responsibilities to the american public by helping the coverup of a nasty mess?


Reno is just another aparatchik

Those are your actual quotes. Time and time again you criticize Reno.

I'll believe you are bipartisan (or nonpartisan, if you prefer) as soon as you show us exactly where and when you criticized any of the Republicans who were actually responsible for what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco.

I won't hold my breath --- because you never criticize Republicans. You have not yet mentioned William Barr, George Bush, John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales. The first two were actually responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco -- and the last two have done even less than Reno to investigate.

But you can't even say their names.

You can claim to be non-partisan, but your own words show you are relentlessly partisan.

I'm going to bed. G'night.

rbhawk
07-08-2006, 11:20 PM
It's odd that Reno gets the blame for Ruby Ridge and Waco, while Louis Freeh mostly gets a free ride.

Phillip and Ironmule have a point in that - at the very least - there was some really really bad decisions made by some government agents on the scenes of those two incidents (although there always seems to be some twisting of the events to incite outrage).

... And there WAS evidence of stonewalling and covering-up afterwards by the FBI, which was led by Freeh, in the aftermath of those events.

But Reno was briefed by the FBI on those events, mistakenly relied on Freeh, and when evidence surfaced that conflicted with the FBI accounts, she did demand further investigation... to the point of sending US Marshals in to seize evidence from the FBI.

Freeh apparently saved himself from blame by becoming a anti-Clinton partisan, leaving Reno the scapegoat. Even at the time, as the tension between the FBI and the AG became apparent during the late 90's, there were Republican politicians claiming Freeh was blameless...

The buck stops where it will... such is politics...

There's other fish to fry now... those who are worried about an arrogant, over-reaching, dangerous government may want to direct their attention to the successors of Reno et al...

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 10:57 AM
it seems to me that ell-jay poped a screw or two yesterday...we may not see him/her till he gets his/her hair patted back down

berserk

ljb5
07-09-2006, 11:19 AM
If I tried to blame everybody who deserves it in every post, they'd be book length and still inadequate.:rolleyes:

You also would run the risk of occasionally admitting that a Republican is actually responsible for something....

... and we all know you'd never do that.

As you say, "this is a Reno thread." No doubt. I'm just wondering why it's a Reno thread. If you want to talk about Ruby Ridge, Waco the ATF or the FBI, you have to skip over a lot of more relevant topics before you get to Reno.

It's funny that you now say this is a Reno thread. Phillip started off talking about Reno but then declared that he didn't care about her and this wasn't about her. Phillip is a little confused. He says he's still mad about Ruby Ridge --- but he doesn't seem able to direct that anger at anyone who was actually responsible. So he picks the closest Democrat as a surrogate punching bag.

Be angry, Phillip. Be angry about Ruby Ridge. Be angry at the people who did it.

ljb5
07-09-2006, 12:18 PM
Enough with the petty insults, Jeff... let's talk about the subject.

Earlier, Phillip said:


I get upset every time I have to think about the Ruby Ridge or Waco travesties...I want murder indictments!

You can't accuse me of getting over-heated. Here we are fourteen years later and he's still mad.

Phillip, tell us about your anger. What, specifically, are you mad about?

What bad decisions upset you?
Who made these bad decisions?
Who was in charge?
Who should be held responsible?

You want murder indictments? Against whom?

This is your thread, Phillip. You're angry. This is your opportunity to share your feelings.

Meerkat
07-09-2006, 12:23 PM
It has been suggested elsewhere that backlash from this mess and Hilary's health care debacle is what cost the dems their majority.Heh, heh, heh - after 40+ years in power... and, after 12 years in power, which of it's many sins do you think will bring down the Rips, among which are: the war, the drug benefit fiasco or high gas prices (maybe not a Rip created issue, but hey, it's your watch!)!

You gotta wonder just how desperate the Rips are to bring up stuff that happend 14 years ago. And, if it's all that pressing an issue, why hasn't the current administration, in the past 6 years, done something about it!?!?

Meerkat
07-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Maybe a good coat of varnish will help the Rip's "little spars!" No need to have viagra prescribed in their doctor's name either! Not much feeling, but hey: where there's no sense, there's no feeling anyway! :D

ljb5
07-09-2006, 12:44 PM
There was an article in Finewoodworking magazine a couple of months ago about using a combination of CPES and marine varnish for a durable finish. They suggested using it for outdoor furniture, but I applied it to a two-part counter top and bar in my basement.

It's beautiful curly maple. I milled it myself from a tree felled by my neighbors.

Phillip, feel free to stew in your anger. After 14 years you're still angry, but you haven't yet figure out who to be angry at or what to do about it.

Jeff, feel free to change the subject again. We already know you can't honestly, objectively discuss anything.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, forty people were massacred today by a roaming band of the Shiite militia that has infiltrated the police, army, security forces and government that we're supposed to be supporting. Five more Americans were arrested and charged with rape and murder. Nobody is responsible for that, right?

But this is a Reno thread, right? So that's probably Reno's fault too, right?

I'm going sailing.

ljb5
07-09-2006, 12:56 PM
Actually, Jeff... there's something I've always wondered about.

Earlier, you told us that you had personal, first-hand experience with white, racist, Southern police who did bad things like planting evidence on black protesters and such.

I've got a couple of minutes before I leave... why don't you tell us again about your experiences.

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 01:38 PM
Heck, I'm still mad at the cheap buy-out of the Japanese internment victims for less than prolly one one hundredth of what should have been...and the obscene profit (or indeed any) by those who took advantage of the forced sale of that property

that's a lot longer than any 14 years...

Meerkat
07-09-2006, 01:39 PM
They got their revenge: they bought most of Hawaii. ;)

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 01:40 PM
while I'm thinking about it...how about the four thousands of Indians murdered by Jackson...

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 02:33 PM
he was a fan of big business as well...

ljb5
07-09-2006, 04:42 PM
I don't think you really wanna hear it. It was the early to mid sixties, and they were proudly democrat cops with the billy clubs. It was the days of "Yaller Dog" democrats and straight ticket voting. Maybe three counties in Florida had republicans who made it past the primaries to actually contest ellections.

We'd have to discuss the many flaws of the democratic party in that era.:(


Well, of coursethey were Democrats.... you wouldn't have mentioned it if they weren't!

Tell us more. I'd love to hear all about your personal, first-hand experiences with police intimidation and abuse of power....

-----------------------------

By the way... you don't have to tell me who was a Democrat. I know perfectly well who was a Democrat.

Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.
Phill Gramm was a Democrat.
Jesse Helms was a Democrat.
Trent Lott was a Democrat.

We kicked those racist bastards out of our party. You made them your leaders.

ljb5
07-09-2006, 07:23 PM
I know history. Do you?

The racists left the Democratic party starting in 1948 with Strom Thurmond and continuing over the next several decades with Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and many more.

You can't saddle the modern Democrats with Andrew Jackson any more than you can call Trent Lott a Democrat.

Of course, you know this --- you're just desperate and dishonest.

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 10:08 PM
do I hear King's X being declared?