Originally posted by Hornet33
Seeing as how Waco was a police matter the use of CS gas was perfectly legal. Also the military vehicles used at Waco were from the Texas National Guard called up by order of the Govenor of Texas at the request from the ATF.
Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (signed in 1993), because its use could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic agents, such as nerve gas. However, domestic police use of CS is legal in many countries. The use of CS gas by police agencies is legal in the United States.
In 1971, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard wrote the Packard Memo or Employment of Military Resources in the Event of Civil Disturbances which modified the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Part 215, Section 6. This addition revoked a substantial part of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act providing for 'exceptions' to the Act "to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning and public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances, disasters, or calamities seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation" and "to protect Federal government functions when the need for protection exists". "Packard's directive (stated) that turning over law enforcement will 'normally' require a Presidential Executive Order, but that this requirement can be waived in 'cases of sudden and unexpected emergencies... which require that immediate military action be taken." (Lindorff, 1988) Packard's directive, in essence, reinstated the possibility of martial law in the United States, prohibited since 1878. "Martial law was defined in an integral Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) memo written in 1982... The memo, written by FEMA official John Brinkerhoff to agency director Louis Giuffrida, notes that martial law “suspends all prior existing laws, functions, systems, and programs of civil government, replacing them... with a military system.” (Lindorff, 1988).
There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:
National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
The whole situation down in Waco was messed up but the government didn't create the mess. Those folks inside that compound were breaking the law. The proper warrants were filed for the arrest of several of the people in that compound. The ATF waited for days before going in due to the fact they were trying to get the women and children out of the compound. Those ATF agents were faced with a tough job with nothing but a bad outcome possible and had the entire world watching them and second guessing them.
It's real easy to sit back in your recliner and point fingers at people who are just trying to do their jobs and then blame them for screwing up when something bad happens. If you think you can do it better than them get off your bellybutton and go do it, but don't complain when the next armchair general blames you when you screw it up.
Hmmm so you have ALL the facts?
You are fully informed as to WHAT happened and all the hows and whens?
YOU KNOW who fired first?
You appear to be a lawyer.................
Sorry, i've looked the entire situation over from several different points of view and I've come to hold the opinion.......
The ATTACK as staged by the ATF was UNNECESSARY,
The use of military vehicles AND personal was UNNECESSARY,
The STOOPID screaming rabbit audio tapes etc. only worsened the situation,
IMHO The statements made by Janet Reno regarding the Militias possibly getting evolved caused her to order the actions in the first place, and her apologies afterward using the I didn't know, I didn't realize, etc say a great deal as well.
Guess the best way I can express myself has pretty much already been said.
IMHO The justification for the governments actions, in this case, is NOT there!
And I guess I need to repeat somethings here soooooo................
The ATF CLAIMED arms violations were the reason for the actions taken, BUT none of the arms were EVER produced or showen to the public........
"The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
The child molestation charges.......... hmm several Texas Social Workers had been out to the compound in the time period prior to......... NO GROUNDS were found for such charges! And WHEN did the Feds get the authority to deal with such crimes anyway? That historically has been dealt with by EACH STATE.
HEY! IF you think the Feds were correct or had the authority to do as they did in the Waco case then the following probably makes NO SENSE to you.........
"Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself."
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime." - Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
- Thomas Jefferson"
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” —Thomas Jefferson
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" - Patrick Henry
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
and finally........
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
slaves." William Pitt English politician, prime minister.
"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we
are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love."
Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944)
Ameican lawyer, businessman, politician
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Anglo-American writer
