Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00180)

stevestubbs wrote:
> Janet Reno thought David Koresh had more girl friends than she did. 
> She also believed some of them were underage. Aside from the fact 
> that she was probably envious of Koresh, her belief was consistent 
> with what we know about how these cults operate.
There was a major disinformation campaign about the Branch Davidians. 
If you asked their neighbors about them, you saw a very different story 
than you saw on the network news. This is not to say that they were 
mainstream, but they did not rate that high on the Bonewits Cult scale.

> Childten sre yaken out of abusive environments even when there is not 
> sufficient evidence for criminal prosecution. Janet Reno had Elio 
> Gonzalez snatched without first filing a criminal charge against his 
> caretakers.
Yanked. Not burned to the ground. And there was no suspicion of abuse 
with Elio Gonzalez; it was a matter of legal custody. And the FBI does 
not yank children in child abuse cases, unless called in by local 
authorities. The local authorities had CLEARED Koresh of all charges, 
several times.

> > And the group had fewer guns per capita than the average Texan.
> So does an aberage Marine battalion in Iraq.
But they were in Texas. If they HAD been taken in, the BATF had planned 
to use them as a test case for a dangerous precedent: they had proof 
that the Davidians had the means and ability to commit a crime, but they 
had no proof whatsoever of intent. I followed this case VERY carefully, 
because I was in charge of security at the company I was working for at 
the time. Among other things, when a hacker broke into our systems 
(which is what got me put in charge of security in the first place, 
because the hacker had used means that I had specifically warned about 
earlier), I went "undercover" into the hacker boards, and discovered his 
identity and got him arrested. However, had the precedent stuck, I could 
have gotten convicted, because I had the means and ability to break into 
computer systems, in spite of the fact that my intent was to keep people 
OUT of my company's systems.

The U.S. government has a nasty habit of, when they want to create a 
law which they are reasonably certain will not pass the courts, they use 
the principle first against an unpopular group, get their precedents, 
and then use it against the population as a whole. For example, the IRS 
got their precedent to estimate tip income on waitstaff and cab drivers 
(and putting the burden of proof on the taxpayer that they did NOT 
receive that level of tip income) by setting a precedent on prostitutes 
and drug dealers, first.

> I don't think it is illegal to raid an armed encampment if there is 
> illegal ownership of weapons there. Stupid, yes, especially the way 
> they bungled it. But I thought this was a federal matter. Are you 
> saying it was the State of Tecas which was after these kooks? Was 
> your man George W. Bush governor then?
A) There was no evidence of illegal ownership of weapons, and the 
federal government made sure that all evidence, one way or the other, 
was destroyed. All that they had evidence was that, if they had wanted 
illegal weapons, they COULD have them. To put it into simple terms, by 
those standards, anybody who owns a shotgun and a hacksaw can be thrown 
into jail.

B) The raid on Waco was in February, 1993. George Bush was elected 
governor of Texas in November, 1994.

Bart