Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.politics.guns:54644 soc.culture.usa:13857 alt.rush-limbaugh:23765
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!connected.com!beauty!rwing!pat
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.usa,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!
Message-ID: <2099@rwing.UUCP>
Date: 23 Apr 93 19:07:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: rwing.2099
References: <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1r2dqq$5of@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu>
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 87

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.
>
>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.
>
>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

I think it was - he went into town fairly often, and was known to go
jogging.  This was even during the 9 month period when he was being
watched.  One wonders why the BATF went ahead, when they had been warned
according to an interview with a BATF agent, that the BD were expecting
them, and why they had the media in tow.  Almost looks like they wanted
to have a romp and a nice show for the media, and it all went to hell...

He was also never known to act violently.  He has always surrendered
peacefully before (but of course, the warrants were served peacefully).
He has been tried on the allegations before and found NOT GUILTY.

The justification for this mess was he was alleged to have purchased
$200,000.00 worth of guns and stuff (over an undetermined time period).
Last I heard this is not a crime, or indication of one.  I know of an
INDIVIDUAL with that much value in guns.  SHould he get a fly-thru-the-door
shoot-first-talk-later raid?  (grenades are shooting first, nobody I
know of can say 'oh, thats only a stun grenade, thats OK...').  Can you?
I sure cannot.  Also, one cannot be sure that 200K figure is not calculated
like the Feds calculate the value of a drug siezure...  Even so, it
is a 'so what' issue...  He wasn't bothering anyone (besides the
BATF who doesn't like folks other than themselves or other govt
people having any effective guns)... and having an unapproved
religeous group.  Are we required to not offend the BATF these
days?  I sure hope it hasn't come to THAT...

MY point is, it DOES NOT ADD UP.  We need an independent investigation,
and NOW.  Assuming other than FBI/BATF are preserving the evidence.

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

They had the premisis bugged.  I am inclined to think a further wait
would have saved lives.  One wonders why they didn't have emergency
gear on hand when they moved, and why they didn't turn on the water
when a fire was observed, instead of saying "aw, gee, there is no water".

Why so long before the fire gear even SHOWED UP - like after the building
had pretty much finished burning?  Fireman safety?  Isn't that a decision
the firefighters should be allowed to make?  No water?  Why didn't
the Feds TURN IT BACK ON?  They sure could cut it off quickly enough...

One does wonder about the possibility of 'settling scores'...

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?
>
>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

What does 'taking responsibility' mean?  You think she is going to be
facing jail time if the acts were found to be criminal?  You think
she is going to face ANY repercussions if the FBI/BATF are found to
have acted wrongly?  I don't.  It is a nice PR gimmick, though.

I am not assured there will even be a serious independent investigation
for possible wrongdoing or criminal acts on the part of the BATF or FBI.
I expect to hear "they are our best law enforcement.  They wouldn't do
anything like that - NO WAY.  OUT of the QUESTION.  End of issue".

I want to see an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full prosecuting and
subpoena powers.  With felony prosecution where felony acts are found.
Fat chance, I bet.  I bet the Justice Dept will have an internal
investigation which will turn up at most 'poor judgement'.

I hope I am wrong, that this is gone over with a fine tooth comb.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien
