From: mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: Waco *is* Gov't fault (Was Re: Libertarian Party on CIA/FBI/ATF)
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 188
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C5wKyG.3Fy@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
> 
>In article <1993Apr21.104744.1@happy.uccs.edu>, etbeteille@happy.uccs.edu writes:
> 
>|>Here are *several* shreds of evidence that prove the Waco disaster
>|>is the government's fault:
>|>
>|>1)  They raided an American's property because of *rumors* about
>|>    Koresh's intentions with some converted, yet still 2nd-amendment
>|>    protected, firearms (a judge-approved warrant justifies nothing)
> 
>In a democracy under the rule of law a search warrant justifies a 
>search.
> 
>The US constitution does not justify murder of those attempting to 
>mount a search for illegally held weapons.

A search for illegally held weapons (IF there were any, no evidence yet
produced to this effect) does not justify firing into a house with
women and children, either. It also does not justify shooting first
without identifying oneself (the ATF and FBI have done this before, so
don't say they haven't, please) or producing a warrant.

Guess it depends on whose story one believes, huh?

> 
>|>2)  It took them *51 days* to think of a basic terrorist tactic, i.e.
>|>    tear gas (and this could only be justified in support of rescuing
>|>    any supposed `hostages' inside)
> 
>The Govt has a right to use lethal force in certain cases. Attempts to 
>capture dangerous criminals who are armed and threatening the lives of others

Which "others" are we talking about here?

>is one. In this case they used sub lethal force. 

"Sub lethal"? Excuse me, but those people are dead!!!

>|>3)  The gov't immediately imprisoned these so-called `hostages'
> 
>The children were held hostage. 

Evidence? So far the FBI has produced none. Don't hold your breath.

>The adults were wanted variously for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Only a few of those being held in chains and s(hackles are wanted . 
The rest are being held for the crime of being "material witnesses".

>|>4)  It took hundreds of gov't agents with tax-funded cellular phones
>|>    *ten minutes* to dial 9-1-1 for the fire department
> 
>They should not have called the fire dept at all. There was no role
>for them to play in a situation where those that might be rescued might
>well shoot at them.

It was not the Feds decision to make, but the firefighters.

>Calling the fire dept meant that WACO was deprived
>of a resource that might have been needed elsewhere should a situation 
>where it could have been used arisen.

This is true of ANY answer to a call for help from a fire department by
ANY citizen. Since fire departments do answer calls that "deprive 
resources that might be needed elsewhere" it is not a valid reason for
not calling them.

Further, since the Davidians had not been found guilty of any crime in
a court of law, they are subject to the same protection as any other
citizen. And las far as I know, even criminals in prison are not left to 
burn to death in a fire.

>|>5)  By cutting off the water supply in the surrounding area, the gov't
>|>    guaranteed that any fire at the compound would be fatal
> 
>Any fire started deliberately uising lamp oil is likely to be fatal.

I guess this is a matter of religious faith with you? The government
says it, so it must be so? Or haven't you been reading this thread well 
enough to notice that some of us here don't beleive their story?

>|>6)  No one had the foresight to station rescue vehicles nearby in the
>|>    first place
> 
>They are a scarce resource. A bunch of psychos cannot deprive the neighbourhood
>of a resource that might be required in a genuine case.

Patients in psychiatric hospitals are not left to die in fires, either.
Besides, as I explained, some of us here believe their distress might
have been genuine. Are you SO certain it wasn't?

>|>7)  The gov't conveniently forgot all that `freedom of religion' stuff
> 
>Freedom of religion does not include human sacrifice. Nor does it
>include other forms of murder.

There is no evidence that the Davidians committed human sacrifice 
either before of after the initial raid. And self-defense is not
murder.

>|>8)  The gov't arguably started (or at least fanned) the fire themselves 
> 
>The govt arguably is run by communists or the trilateral commission.

He did not say it was deliberate. Accidents do not require conspiracy
theories, only wanton disregard for human life. The initial raid alone
(agents firing blind into walls against all standards of law enforce-
ment procedure) proves they did not mind killing people.

>|>10) Finally, and this may be a stretch for some of you statists out there,
>|>    but Koresh's original reasons for holing up in such a compound may
>|>    have *something* to do with the continual interference from the gov't
>|>    -- new taxes, new regulations and increasing involvement in every
>|>    aspect of our personal and economic lives -- Life on a compound might
>|>    become the way of the future ... it might have to be
> 
>Let us hope that those who support Koresh are not allowed to enforce this upon
>the rest of us. 

No one here is "supporting Koresh". We are opposing the illegal use of
excessive violence by our government against our citizens. That is all.

>Their reasons for supporting the ownership of high power
>weaponry are clear enough they hope that this will be the catylist for
>the destruction of the fabric of society and allow them to enforce their
>nightmare vision of the future.

A society that believes it is OK to terrorize people for their religious
views will destroy itself in due time. It is the feds who disrupted the
"fabric of society" in Waco, not Koresh. It is the feds who forced a
nightmare onto the people of Mount Carmel.

>It would be a good thing for people to study history. 

On what basis do you assume we haven't? Don't you really mean
"It would be a good thing if people drew the same conclusions from
history that I do?" :-)

>In particular a group of militant...

"Militant" implies acts of aggression against one's neighbors. The
Davidians left their neighbors alone.

.religious heretics who left to set up such a community
>some time ago. A few years latter they had captured Medina and destroyed
>the idols in the Kabba. Within ten years the whole of Arabia was under
>Islam.

So what? The Mormons were considered a "cult" for years, and were chased
out of one place after another on much the same thinking as you are
advocating. When they finally got to "set up a community" they left
people alone. So far Americans haven't been put to the sword by Mormon
hordes crying to avenge Joseph Smith. :-)

>Just because a group of people start by saying that all they want is to be 
>left alone does not mean that that is how they will stay. 

It doesn't mean they won't either. Anyway, the whole purpose of a 
system of laws is to punish people for what they DO, not what they
MIGHT do. 

>The Pat Robertsons,
>Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggarts of this world are quite telling other
>people how to run their lives.

"Telling" is not the same as "forcing". When the police knock at my
door, I cannot make them go away by changing the channeI. As for Pat
and friends, I don't even WATCH their channel, since I am an atheist.
So far, not watching them tell me what to do hasn't gotten me killed :-)

> If you allow such people to get guns and
>point them in your face you are likely to find that they are running your
>life.

Right now, the only people sticking guns in anyone's faces is the 
government. And they are trying very hard to run my life. Or 
haven't you noticed?

>Phill Hallam-Baker

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble      | College Libertarians of Texas - UH Chapter |
| MECE3D@JETSON.UH.EDU   | Box 113, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, TX 77004   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
