Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Janet Reno on Nightline
Message-ID: <1993Apr22.120117.4292@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 93 12:01:16 CST
References: <FINN.93Apr20102525@dalek.ISI.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 48

In article <FINN.93Apr20102525@dalek.ISI.EDU>, finn@ISI.EDU (Greg Finn) writes:
> 
> 	I am bothered by the suggestion of child abuse that Janet Reno
> used several times last night, both on and off Nightline as a de facto
> justification for approving the raid.  If that is to be used as a
> justification of potentially lethal force attack on the compound, and
> doing structural damage can fairly be called that, then that evidence
> had better be quite strong.  That seemed to be on Ted Kopel's mind
> last night.
> 
> 	Reno stated that they had evidence of child abuse.  She would
> not say what it was.  Koresh's now ex-lawyer was inside the compound
> repeatedly and told her to her face last night that he saw plenty of
> happy children playing with their mothers and no signs of child abuse
> whatsoever.  No brooding silent children, no apparent bruising, and so
> on.  Her reply to this was that child abuse is not always as evident
> as that.  True, but what better evidence could the FBI have had?  At
> this point it seems difficult to see how the FBI could have had better
> evidence than that seen by Koresh's lawyer who was an eye witness.
> 
> 	Having lived in LA and seen the media and authority feeding
> frenzy that accompanied the McMartin Preschool debacle, I have seen
> just how hot a button a child abuse charge can be.  Child abuse has
> been used before by authorities as a justification to discard prudence.
> 
> 	I find Janet Reno's repeated assertions of evidence of child
> abuse rather curious.  Wasn't the warrant issued for a supposed
> weapons violation?  That certainly had nothing to do with child abuse.
> Are we to assume therefore that new evidence of child abuse arose
> after the issuance of that warrant and the initial assault?  If so, I
> fail to see now how that new evidence was gathered, and how it could
> be better that on-site eye witness evidence.
> --
> Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
> Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

On TV news this morning it was reported that the local Texas authorities
who have reviewed the cases of the 21 children who were released
earlier in the siege have found no evidence of physical or sexual
abuse of any of the children.  I don't recall if this was on Good
Morning America or our local Texas TV station.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.
