waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr21.223541.2353@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have >become that way because WE have desired them to be so. We get to >vote on laws, and on the lawmakers.  	I keep hearing people say this.  It assumes that we, at some point, 	had a choice at the ballot box: "Vote yes or no I want the FBI 	and BATF to become latter-day Gestapos".  That just isn't so. 	The process is far more complex.  We do not have direct control over 	the bureaucracy.  When we evaluate our representatives we don't often 	know what their contribution is to the wayward direction of the 	federal law enforcement bureacracy.  To assert that we got what 	we wanted is absurd.    >Waco was an encapsulation of the All-American experience - religious >fanaticism, militaristic thinking and overwhelming violence. Don't >blame it on 'them', the FBI and BATF. They were just acting within >the parameters we have set over the years. We made 'them'. We ARE 'them'. 	Oh, good I feel much better now. ;-)
On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 21:30:12 GMT, Pete Zakel (phz@cadence.com) wrote: > In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes: > >You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on > >the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the > >Constitution.   > This is REALLY STUPID nitpicking.  Capitalization rules in the late 18th > century were quite different from today, and what was posted matches current > capitalization rules.  pete zakel is right, we don't need to worry about capitalization rules. after all, the punctuation gives all the necessary information about the sentence structure. why should anyone worry about whether the text is as close to the original as possible. (sarcasm intended).   > In the original Constitution, "militia", "arms", etc. were capitalized simply > because they were nouns.  This is also done currently in German.  There is > no special significance to these words simply because they are capitalized. > The capitalization denotes no special emphasis.  Then you didn't understand my grumble...  Again, I said to get a CORRECT version of the Constitution.  The first indicator that something is wrong (i.e. the copy has been modernized) is the modern capitalization rules.  The next thing to go is the spelling, and then I've even seen versions where the GRAMMAR was modernized (oh, but don't worry, modernizing the grammar won't change the meaning of the text, right?... ;-)  [p.s.  I have found about 10 *different* versions of the Constitution on the network; And accuracy DOES matter...]  -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:  >gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes: >>On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to >>tear gas, the first thing that came to mind was the location of the exit.  If >>there had been anything in the way, corners to negotiate, doors to open, or  >>any other obstacles to movement, I would have had a difficult time exiting  >You couldn't find a window after six hours?    	I'd bet cash 90% of the people couldn't find the window after six minutes!  Ask anybody who's taken basic training in the military.  It is not at all uncommon for a few soldiers who have not properly attached and cleared their masks to require assistance exiting the chamber.  Since that chamber has a door, not just a window, it's likely a hell of a lot easier to exit than a multi-room, damaged house.
A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:  1. Attempting to storm the compound in broad daylight?  The explanation    we were given (at least at one point) was that they thought the cult    members would be at religious services.  My only comment on this bit    of idiocy is that if you're going to operate as a quasi-military unit,    you'd better understand basic military tactics.  One cardinal rule    is that only a fool plans an operation where if one assumption is    incorrect, the operation will fail disastrously.  2. We were told that ATF got four agents killed because they were    outgunned, they didn't expect such heavy resistance.  When    questioned about why such an overwhelming military-style assault    was planned, we were told that it was because the cultists were    thought to be heavily armed.  Can you say contradictory?  I knew    you could!  3. The BATF has had a bad reputation for years as a bunch of arrogant,    hotdoggers.  I was talking to relatives a couple of weeks ago and    referred to them as a bunch of Crockett and Tubbs wannabes.  I'm    more than ever convinced that's right on target.  An anecdote not    related to the Waco fiasco is that apparently the BATF screwed up    some of the evidence in the World Trade Center bombing.  There's    now an excellent chance some of the forensic evidence gathered by    the FBI will not be admissible in court.  This is not hearsay.  I    was told this by a relative of my wife's who happens to be an FBI    agent.  His opinion of the BATF was, ummm, well, let's just say    uncomplimentary.  4. I have *still* not been presented with one iota of evidence that    the BD's had *any* of the alleged illegal weaponry which was the    reason for the raid in the first place.  BTW, we're *still* hearing    this justification.  AG Reno, on CNN yesterday, made references    to this issue, without any substantiation.  She also waved around    the "He's a child abuser and we heard he was beating the children!"    flag.  Sigh.  5. A point re the Feds in general: their handling of the whole siege    reflected a complete lack of understanding of the probable thought    processes of the cultists.  AG Reno said they pushed the button    because they were afraid a mass suicide was in the offing.  My    only comment on that is that if the cultists were that close to    the edge, what the hell did she think their reaction would be to    an hours-long assault on the compound where holes were punched in    the walls and CS gas pumped in?  If I were a BD, I'd expect the    forces of the godless government to assault me at any time.  In    that light, whether they torched themselves or drank Jim Jones    Kool-Aid is irrelevant.  Also, look at how the siege was conducted:    Bright lights, loud rock music, cutting off communications and    other contact with the outside.  All measures designed to make the    BD's feel more and more isolated and threatened.  This might have    been a great strategy - if they were dealing with criminals.  As it    was, it looks to me like everything they did fed into Koresh's    paranoid delusions.     --   #include <std_disclaimer.h>
In article <1993Apr16.030706.3318@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:  >>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun- >>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters? > >There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year. >The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500 >fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those >occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted >gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably >well under 250 per year.         I'm neither a doctor nor a firearms tech expert, but it would seem that given the way a holstered gun points, accidental injuries inflicted that way would be among the least lethal.
The U.S. Government's campaign of persecution and genocide against the Branch Davidians was a resounding success.  Heil Clinton!  Heil Reno!  The Gestapo is alive and well and living in Washington, D.C.  --  Kevin, who agrees that David Koresh was probably a first-rate nutcase        but who firmly believes that the Bill of Rights guaranteed his        his right to be a religious fanatic and that the government is        guilty of violating his civil rights and of 1st degree murder.         OK, which small, under-represented-in-congress religious group        are we going to persecute next and are we going to torch their        church with a rolled up copy of the Constitution?
I see no difference between Janet Reno's claim of responsibility for the Waco Massacre and the IRA's claims of responsibility for various acts of terrorism against British citizens.   --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
> From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) > Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/.... > Date: 15 Apr 1993 20:57:53 -0500 >  > I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in > our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward > one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished  > values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the > clues....Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that  > we have already lost a great deal of sovergnty.
I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas in 1991 that was caused by guns..... This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS! (Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the figures but they're still *pretty* high right??) I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......   *I* should not suffer because of others.... We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').  Do you have an insurance?? Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...  Do you buy anything?? YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus...  Do you live with other people?? Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)  -What the hell is he trying to say ?? When you live in a society (USA are stilll counted as one...) you have to saccrifice. The question is HOW MUCH.   One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....  I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on other people.  It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only problem is that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you hope to cure him first.  Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.    	This is not a .signature. 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:  > >What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun >control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will >live in a homicide-free world?  They sure make it sound like that.  > >The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that >he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat... >certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant. >  Even a simpleton knows a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon.  If one cannot run away (e.g. old, infirm, even middle-aged if the assailant is younger), a handgun is the most effective means of defense. You won't even have to fire a shot 98% of the time.  >As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife >than a gun, thanks.  Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't >another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have >much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife >assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).  Any real streetfighter (and there are LOTS of them), with or without a knife, will kick the living sh** out of most people "trained in unarmed self defense".  For the majority of people, a gun is the most effective form of self defense.
Haven't seen this one on here yet, so here it goes:  B. arely A. dequate, T. otally F. ***ed!    I don't know about adequate, but it fits the acronym.  =)  --  Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu
kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:  >I just heard some anti-gun-control people giving the usual arguments: >It's everyone's right to bear arms, and the way to solve the problem >of people getting killed by guns is better law enforcement.  >It strikes me that this argument could be logically extended as follows:  >A nuclear weapon is an "arm", hence anyone has a right to have  >nuclear weapons. And if someone uses his nuclear weapons to blow >up New York, L.A., and Chicago, that's okay as long as we have a >good police force capable of finding him and putting him in jail,  >which will serve as a deterrent to others.  >Do any anti-gun-control people disagree with this, and if so,  why?  Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement. Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things. (Can you say "neutron flux"?)  Plus these things have no self- defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use (low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration (translation:  cities and population centers).  Not to mention that for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .
A really sad op-ed appeared in my school's newpaper today.  It claimed that full-auto weapons are illegal in the U.S. I understand that full-auto weapons made and registered before May 19, 1986 are still legal in 40 of the 50 states.  Is Texas one of those states?  Can anyone point me to a source for info on how many people have been  killed by legal full-auto weapons in the U.S.?  And finally, I think it would be great if anyone was keeping a digest of facts on the Waco incident.  In particular, I would like a source for the FBI/BATF mentioning the supposed methamphetamine lab, and information on the beginning of the raid, specifically BATF lies.  I am also interested in past BATF no-knock warrents which have lead to personal and property damage against innocent citizens.  I intend to put together a reply to this op-ed very soon.  The author of the piece states he wants to work for the BATF.  gack!
In the videos of the original BATF attack on the BD church, did anyone happen to see BATF agents on the highest structure, where Koresh's room was? I don't recall seeing BATF agents higher than the roof of the lowest structures, so I made an assumption that BATF helos did the firing down into the tower. Any other info on how the rounds came through the roof?
In article <94380@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes: [...] >Btw, if I screwed up bad enough to get someone hurt/killed, my CO, the >PMS, probably the Brigade Commander, and possibly the Region Commander >could all expect a good amount of heat, possibly including >reassignment or seperationfrom service.  Certainly the PMS would not >be promotable, and would shortly thereafter be asked to retire.  This >is called accountability.  If my PMS knew beforehand about the >activities in which a person was killed, he would be nailed for >failing to ensure that proper safety measures were taken.  If he >didn't know , he would be nailed for improper supervision.  Can we >hold the President of the US to lower standards than his subordinates? >After all, he was briefed on the FBI raid.  He could have asked HOW >they intended to flush the BD's out...  The President is not competent to plan or judge the planning of such a raid, nor does he need to be.  His job is to set basic policies and manage the people under him.  If Clinton instructed Reno to preserve lives, and if she confirmed that the plan for the raid was a safe as could be, then he did his job.  The President should not involve himself in the minor details of these kinds of operations.  This sort of micromanagement only leads to disaster, as was demonstrated so well in Vietnam.  But the raid went bad:  Over 80 civilians have been killed in a controntation with U.S. authorities.  NOW Clinton enters the picture in a big way.  Will Clinton start an investigation?  Or will he try to squash any attempt to investigate? Is he a responsible leader?  Or is he only interested in protecting the image of his administration?  We'll all find out as this unfolds. --
In article <1r27vo$425@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes: >roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >:mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes: >: >:According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off  >:began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh  >:had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.   >:These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of  >:his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar  >:to the way Jim Jones has been described. > >I don't know how accurate the documentary was;   The documentary interviewed Koresh and current and ex-members.   The documentary disucussed Koresh's "Christ" status inside the cult,  cult brain-washing techniques, and unusual sex practices (the leader  gets any he wants, and tells others when they can or can't).  I will let  others decide if using religious authority to have sex with a minor is  technically child abuse or not.  >however, Koresh was never >convicted of any crimes against children, nor was the BATF after him for >child abuse.   >Their purview (in this case) is strictly in firearms violations,  All true.  >so this information is irrelevant to the discussion.  Well, if a fire was deliberately set by members of the cult, then the  history and background of the cult is very relevant.  The history  and backgournd of the Jones cult was very important in understanding  what happened at Jonestown.  Not taking into account the history and background of Koresh's cult may  also help explain why the FBI and BATF so badly predicted the reponses  they would get from inside the compund nearly every step of the way in  this badly handled affair.  >:FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background  >:checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their  >:decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill  >:Koresh's own prophecy? > >Those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain *something*, but whether >their answers even remotely resembles the truth we may never know.  And who >is left alive to care whether the prophecy is fulfilled?  It only holds >meaning for the nine who survived.  It is likely that there will be at least two investigations (JD and congress)  at this point.  >:>Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far, >:>no one else has been able to talk to them. >: >:So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same  >:details, will you believe them? > >*IF* they confirm the story, I probably will.  Definitely not until then,  >however.  Interesting and conflicting details are starting to come out.  I have  reverted back to wait mode to find out whether the fire was intentional  or accidental and how it started and why it spread so fast.  > >Mike Ruff >--
>A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:   >Dan S.    And another one:  Hasn't enyone heard of a leader's recon?  This is when the leader of the assult goes and looks at the objective to see if anything has changed that would affect the mission.  Even the Freshman cadets here in ROTCland know about them.  Mostly because they know it as the part where they  lie on the cold ground for an hour or so, but they've heard about it. Maybe the ATF should have hired out to the local ROTC guys!   --  Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu
In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their  >hands up while national tv cameras watch. > Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."  >scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally  >believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely  >scenarios.  The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.  >The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair. >But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is  >ludicrous.  I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?  Drew
In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) wrote:  > Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI > are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras > that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full > briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the > go ahead. >  > Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?  Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. That sounds like a callous way to dismiss the deaths of 90+ people, but I can't understand why people get so bent about the accidental death/suicide (which is it? could take months...) of some total fucking sociopath/child molester and his crazed followers while opposing U.S. intervention in Bosnia. Just like Billy boy said. I think some of you people have too much time on your hands, and screwed up priorities.  Just my HO...
In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:  >Perhaps you consider that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust  >since the allies could have done more to stop him?  Attention please!  According to the rules of usenet flame wars, once a discussion degenerates to the point where Hitler is mentioned, that flame war may be declared ended.  I would like to take this opportunity to do that now.  Clearly further discussion is not useful with the current set of facts, and the current name calling and invocation of Hitler's name is not productive even by the standards of usenet talk groups.  If you must continue, please don't discuss this in misc.legal.  It's not about the law.  If you would like to discuss the law as it applies to the Waco incident, please ask questions of the form: "if the FBI started the fire accidentally, who would be legally responsible for the deaths".  Note that followups are set not to include misc.legal.
cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes: >> Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people >> leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the >> press first? > >Oh, you mean something like moving the press back to a single >location, 2 miles away from the "compound"?  The press was allowing  That doesn't count as getting rid of the press.  Getting rid of the press would mean getting them far enough away so that they wouldn't be able to see what is going on.
NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!