Friday, December 19, 2008

Horiuchi and FBI HRT "Snipers" Take the 5th

The following short article was originally published in the Fall 1995 (Volume II, Number 2) issue of THE RESISTER.

Horiuchi and FBI HRT "Snipers" Take the 5th

Lon Horiuchi, member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), alleged "Quarter Club" sniper in said unit, and world renowned woman killer, exercised his Constitutional right against self incrimination on 06 September, 1995, during closed testimony in the congressional hearings on the Weaver case. While speculation surrounding his refusal to testify centers around who gave what order when, the real reason does not rest on his ability to follow orders. His ability to do so has already been demonstrated. Indeed, as we reported in our Vol.II, No.1 issue, he told one of our observers that he "jumped on it" when the rules of engagement changed, and that he has no remorse about killing Vicki Weaver.

The real reason he refused to testify rests on his professional competence as a "sniper." He actually used the techniques taught to him by the USMC Scout Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, VA, and relied upon the mil dot fraud in conjunction with moving target training taught there (and everywhere else in the military), with the inevitable and logical consequences.

While everyone is blaming Horiuchi for deliberately shooting Vicki Weaver, the facts, given his training, are less dramatic. But the facts are a telling indictment against the competence of military instructors, both in respect to their craft, and their competence to train law enforcement.

In military sniper schools moving target engagement is taught using the mil-dot ambush method. This involves placing the crosshair on an aiming point a certain distance in front of the target, and guessing the time to shoot as the target moves along your mil-dot reticule. This parlor trick works fine in a school environment on a known distance range when the target is moving according to a rigidly enforced pace and the sniper student gets a number of "sighters" sufficient to refine his guess at what point to shoot. This allows the student "dope" the target-speed-of-the-day. When the target speed is thus known, the hit probability is about 85 percent at 200 yards against a walking body-width "E" silhouette target. In the real world, against human targets moving at random speeds, the hit probability against a running target at 200 yards is less than 15 percent.

This is how Mrs. Weaver got shot. Randy Weaver's friend, Kevin Harris, was running for the cabin. Horiuchi put his crosshair on the cabin door and concentrated on watching Mr. Harris run along the horizontal wire of his mil- dot reticule. When Horiuchi guessed Mr. Harris was at the "ambush point" he shot. The bullet went exactly where it was aimed--the door, where Mrs. Weaver was standing.

On 20 September, 1995, other FBI HRT snipers also took the 5th in testimony before the Senate hearings. An SFU observer who has trained with HRT snipers put their refusal to testify in clear perspective. "The bottom line is that they are punks," he said. "They are bad-asses on a known distance range when they are shooting at quarters--after about 10 sighting shots to get their zero 'refined.' But operationally they are losers."

Any law enforcement sniper who shoots at a moving target should reflect upon his lack of judgment in a prison cell. His cell mates should be the legally incompetent military instructors who taught him that a school house parlor trick was applicable in an operational setting.


Monday, December 15, 2008

An Answer

The following was originally published on my primary blog, Living In The Surreal World, two years ago. With the oncoming anointment of our new Stone-Age God-King it remains relevant today.

Someone Asked A Dumb Question

Some piece of Leftist trash is whining:

Is there any way to ban Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their ilk from the airwaves?

This question touches on the first amendment freedom of speech. But what about speech that provides only hatred, propaganda and divisiveness?

The piece of Leftist trash quoted by P.J. Comix is simply being stupid as usual.

As Ayn Rand used to say, a gun is not a substitute for an argument.

Once force is openly used against those who speak out against the Left then the gloves will come off and force WILL be openly used against the Left. Once the Left openly repudiates the rules for living in a civil society then their victims will no longer see themselves as subject to those same rules.

Or to put it another way to the Left, break the rules of civil society and you will have left us no choice but to break you.

It's called a civil war. And cars with bumper stickers, tee-shirts, and other examples of open posturing will make target identification very easy.

What part of "Liberty or Death" do they persist in not understanding?

It is generally considered to be bad form to advocate violence against someone simply because of their political views. But if some Leftist thug finds himself staring at the muzzle of my favorite rifle it is because the stupid individual put himself there.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Friday, December 12, 2008

Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny

This editorial was originally published in the Winter 1995 issue (Volume I, Number 3) of THE RESISTER.

This editorial explains why I and a number of other rational citizens of the American Republic will not quietly submit to the whims of the newly anointed God-King foisted upon us by the mob of Depraved-Americans, Corrupt-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans.


Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny

Rights are a moral principle, and each man has inalienable rights over himself, his faculties and his possessions. This moral principle, this objective reality, means that a man has a right to his own person, his mind and body, and therefore his own labor. Furthermore, a man has a right to the productive use of his labor and faculties. Because a man has these rights he must respect these rights in all others. Since each man is sovereign over himself, each individual must consent to any activity which directly affects his person or property before such activity can assume moral legitimacy.

In a rational society founded of the moral principle of rights there can be no force or fraud in the relationship between sovereign individuals. When rights are properly exercised they take nothing from anyone, nor do they compel anyone to act in a manner detrimental to their own self-interest. Notice that the rational exercise of each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by an individual takes nothing from, or compels, other individuals in their rational exercise of these rights.

Only individuals possess rights. Groups, being nothing more than a number of individuals can, in themselves, possess no rights other than those which are possessed and exercised individually by each member. Hence, a faction has no rights; nor does a gang, a mob, a tribe, a state or a nation. A group may hove interests but those interests do not assume the moral legitimacy of rights. To assert otherwise is to descend into abstract subjectivism, an evasion of reality, where a society is ruled by the-range-of-the-moment whims of its members, the majority gang of the moment, the current demagogue or dictator.

Government is force. No matter how benign or dictatorial, behind every law or regulation or act there is a gun. The authors of the United States Constitution were fully aware of this fact. They recognized that government in a rational society must derive its delegated powers by the consent of the governed and that these powers must be specifically defined by law--the Constitution; delimited by a law higher than government--the inalienable rights of man; and dispersed by permanent separation of powers. For these reasons they specifically and intentionally REJECTED democracy as a system of government. The system of government created by the Founding Fathers, men devoted to the primacy of the source of all rights, man's faculties (which means; reason), was the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Democracy is the antithesis of the natural rights of man. The philosophical premise of democracy is egalitarianism; not political egalitarianism which holds all men equal before the law (justice), but METAPHYSICAL egalitarianism, the belief that all men are equal in all things. This last construct is such an obvious falsehood that it can carry only one meaning: the hatred of reason. Democracy, by its very definition - rule by majority - is the notion that" might makes right." The exercise of democracy reduces men to mere numbers, and the faction or gang which gathers the greater number of men to its fleeting cause wields the government gun against the minority.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will in almost every case, be felt by the majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

--Publius (James Madison), The Federalist X, 1787

Indeed, specific safeguards were designed into the Constitution to prevent the subversion of the constitutional republic and the natural rights of man by political party gang warfare and special interest factionalism inherent in a democracy: the Electoral College (Article II, Section 1) and the election of senators by State Legislatures (Article I, Section 3).

In the case of the former it was specifically intended that the head of the Executive branch of the federal government be elected by Electors chosen by each state legislature in equal proportion to its representation in Congress; NOT by popular vote. This ensured : "No faction or combination can bring about the election. It is probable, that the choice will always fall upon a man of experienced abilities and fidelity. In all human probability, no better method of election could have been devised." (James Iredell, North Carolina Ratification Cttee., 1788)

The latter provision ensured the logical effect of popular election of members to the House of Representatives (whim based legislation) was offset by representatives elected by state legislature to the Senate to guard against Executive and House encroachment on state sovereignty: "The election of one branch of the Federal, by the State Legislatures, secures an absolute dependence of the former on the latter. The biennial exclusion of one-third, will lesson the faculty of combination and may put a stop to intrigues." (James Madison, Virginia Ratification Cttee., June, 1788)

The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President. This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto-communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man.

The irrationality of democracy was stated most eloquently by Auberon Herbert in his London address on March 9, 1880, before a meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights, entitled; CHOICES BETWEEN FREEDOM AND PROTECTION: "How should it happen that the individual should be without rights, but the combination of individuals should possess unlimited rights?"

--Alexander Davidson


Sunday, December 7, 2008

Open Letter to Our Readers

The following open letter was originally published in the Fall 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume II, Number 2.

Open Letter to Our Readers


Capitalists Armed!

Since it was introduced in June 1994, The RESISTER has become one of the most popular antifederalist publications in the United States. This is remarkable because it is a clandestine publication produced by United States Army Special Forces soldiers. The RESISTER is the psychological warfare organ of the Special Forces Underground. SFU is an association of Special Forces soldiers who know that taking no action against this nation's unchecked decent into socialism and totalitarianism is the very antithesis of their responsibility to defend the Constitution "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." and to "...bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

The Army Chain of Command's response to The RESISTER is a frightening indicator of the political course this nation is following. It has been smeared by communists as an "extremist" publication, without of course the term "extremism" ever being defined. (They mean it is anti-communist.) It has been reviled by racists as a "supremacist" publication, without of course the term "supremacist" ever being defined. (They mean it is anti-multiculturalist.) It has been officially banned from military libraries and bases, despite regulations that explicitly protect it from such arbitrary actions, and rulings by MACOM Judge Advocates General and Inspectors General that The RESISTER is legal. Its authors, observers, and associates have been hunted and threatened with expulsion from the military if caught. Mere possession of The RESISTER by military personnel carries the implied threat of punitive punishment, and vocal support of The RESISTER and its policies has been punished by the arbitrary use of force by fraud.

This official response is singularly unsettling considering the official policy statement of the Special Forces Underground:

"The philosophy of the Special Forces Underground and The RESISTER is straightforward: individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism, and republicanism; in short, the principles upon which this nation was founded.

We oppose: statism, socialism, collectivism, racism, altruism, internationalism, unlimited democracy, pull politics, and the "New World Order," in short, the ideologies of all tyrannies."

Consider the logical implications of the official response to The RESISTER when juxtaposed to the above stated philosophy of the Special Forces Underground.

The Special Forces Underground and The RESISTER are the only pro-constitutional, pro-capitalist, pro-isolationist voice in the United States military. We will never compromise with communists, socialists or totalitarians on any issue. This begs the question, "What principles do you want the United States Army to stand for?"

Would you prefer an Army of patriots willing to fight to preserve the unalienable rights of individuals, or an Army of politically correct sycophants driven by the range-of-the-moment whims of whatever mob gains momentary ascendancy?

Would you prefer an Army devoted to defending the original, strictly defined, constitutional limits on government power, or an Army of toadies serving whatever political gang decides the Constitution is a "living document" they can manipulate at will?

Would you prefer an Army dedicated to the defense of a sovereign America against foreign aggression, and devoted to its legitimate sovereign interests, or an Army subordinate to a United Nations founded by communists, run by communists, and dedicated to one-world communism?

Would you prefer an Army that unflinchingly defends capitalism, the guarantor of true liberty, or an Army of socialist serfs?

Would you prefer an Army subordinate to civilian control in a constitutional republic, or an Army subject to the dictates of the latest totalitarian darling of competing gangs of democracy worshipping collectivists fighting over the ruins of capitalism for their "fair share" of the loot?

Would you prefer an Army in which advancement and promotion was based solely on individual merit, or an Army dedicated to tribal balkanization and the racist policy of so-called affirmative action?

The Special Forces Underground has made it clear that we stand for the former conditions in the above questions without exception or compromise. We reject all socialist premises. The opposition, by their words and deeds, clearly advocates the later conditions. Their official pronouncement that they find The RESISTER "objectionable" speaks volumes about where their true loyalties lay. The opposition's fear of The RESISTER is the unspoken fear of all tyrannies: independent thought.

Since its inception, Special Forces Underground has been slowly gathering together the few remaining true patriots in the United States military; soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who will not compromise on the principles of individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government (unalterably divided by separation of its legislative, judicial and executive powers), isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism, and constitutional republicanism. Given the climate of fear perpetuated by the socialist opposition this is no easy task.

The RESISTER is the psychological warfare voice of the Special Forces Underground. The purposes of The RESISTER are to 1) educate the U.S. military about the true meaning and intent of the Constitution they took an oath to defend, 2) expose the Marxists, internationalists, and statists in the U.S. military and shine a light on their activities, and 3) coalesce the capitalist resistance against communism and socialism.

Special Forces Underground raises funds to continue our fight against socialism by subscriptions to The RESISTER, through its subsidiary, the Militia Free Press, and by the voluntary donations of sympathizers and supporters. In other words, our fund raising is unashamedly capitalistic. If you truly desire to live as a free man (a condition possible only under capitalism) we ask for your voluntary support to help us educate the U.S. military about their constitutional responsibilities, and educate the militia--the armed citizenry--how to resist tyranny and the unspeakable evils of socialism, in all their guises.

Life, Liberty, Property

J.F.A. Davidson


Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Assault on Waco, My Editorial Introduction

A bit over fifteen years ago a small community in Texas was attacked by two packs of predatory animals.

The first pack was a federal agency whose functions were in part a deliberate and explicit violation of the charter and supreme law under which the Federal Government was established.

Even under regulations in effect at the time, the BATF could have sent a couple of agents in coats and ties in a plain government issue sedan to the Branch Davidian residence and asked the federally licenced firearms dealer living there to open his place of business and records to examination. Or if they needed to place the leader of the congregation under arrest they could have taken him into custody while he was out on his morning run. Given Mr. Koresh’s past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could have simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.

The BATF did none of the above.

Instead the BATF attempted to stage a military-style assault, code-named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the socialist filth that had just moved into the White House. Never mind all the innocent women and children who could have been maimed or killed during the raid.

After the BATF goons were driven off another pack of predators, the so-called Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI, descended upon the Branch Davidians.

If it had been necessary to take the Branch Davidian residence by force a trainee platoon from the Benning School for Boys could, in accordance to their training, have entered the building and taken down any armed individuals without deliberately harming the non-combatants. Instead, the HRT, the alleged experts in hostage rescue, proceeded to terrorize the people within the residence. And when the Branch Davidians refused to surrender, they were exterminated by the HRT.

The HRT used some armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the ambient wind to blow through the structure while other armored vehicles injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.

And then the HRT fired incendiary devices into the building.

While the Branch Davidian residence burned to the ground on live television, HRT gunmen stationed behind the building out of sight of the TV cameras shot anyone who attempted to escape the fire from the rear of the building.

The Democrat majority in both houses of Congress were not the slightest bit appalled by the atrocity, instead of condemning the president for his actions and initiating the process of impeaching and removing President Clinton, they chose instead to condemn the victims and those who dared to speak up for them.

Given the choice of obeying the supreme law or violating the law, they chose to violate the law.

Given the choice of preserving innocent life or destroying it, they chose to destroy innocent life.

President Clinton and the Democratic Party could have obeyed the Constitution, the Supreme Law to which the President, the Congress, and the Federal Government in general were subject and stopped the terrorization and murder of the Branch Davidians, but instead chose to violate the Supreme Law.

And like a number of illiterate barbarian chieftains before him, President Clinton and his party used the murder of the Branch Davidians to demonstrate to the rest of us what would happen to anyone who refused to submit to their will. Instead of standing up for the rights and lives of Americans they chose instead to terrorize and murder Americans.

Since then the name “democrat” has become in my mind synonymous with the concept “murderer.” If there is one complaint I have about President Bush it is that he has done nothing to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

Thank you Mr. President, for nothing.

Now that the Party of Death has been given control of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government by a coalition of Depraved-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans we should not be surprised to see yet another demonstration of the depravity and destructive power of the new rulers and those who willingly serve them.

And we will have no choice but to respond in kind.

The following article was electronically published on the Libernet Mailing List in 1993. I'm republishing it here for the benefit of those readers who aren't read in as to why I condemn the Democratic Party and those who willingly support them.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.


Assault on Waco, Introduction and Part 1

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:05:44 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, foreword
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

I thought the people on libernet might be interested in the following article I wrote. For this article I only used a small fraction of the information I have gathered -- with slight exceptions, it only covers events up to and including the assault -- and I will not have the time to write up the rest any time soon. If anyone out there is willing to *commit* to writing it up, I am willing to send them the information I have collected, which includes

- 200 pages of newspaper and magazine articles;

- nearly 50 ascii files containing newspaper articles, commentary, and documents relevant to the Waco Massacre; and

- notes on all of the above, which have been organized by topic (some notes appearing in several topics), giving page numbers (or document numbers) for each note.

[The article itself follows in a series of separate postings. It is about 12-1/2 pages long.]

Kevin S. Van Horn | It is the means that determine the ends. |


Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:07:53 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 1
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

[Author's note: permission is granted for unlimited reproduction of the following article, which appears in the January/February issue of _The American_.]

Assault on Waco
by Kevin S. Van Horn

On January 10 the trials of those few Branch Davidians who survived the Waco Massacre begin. With their home, the Mt. Carmel complex, in ruins, and families and friends dead, they remain stigmatized by the government and press as dangerous, lunatic "cultists." This article is an attempt to counter the defamation they have suffered and publicize the crimes committed against them by the government. Given the limited space available, I have chosen to trade breadth for depth; thus this article will consider only the accusations made against the Davidians, the events leading up to the ATF assault on their home, and the assault itself.

Who Were the Branch Davidians?

Immediately after the ATF assault on Mount Carmel the Federal Government began a campaign of vilification against the Branch Davidians. They were repeatedly portrayed in the press as dangerous, insane, bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet this supposedly sociopathic sect had lived peacefully in and near Waco for over half a century. Let's see what their neighbors have to say about the Davidians.

Collective Impressions

According to the Houston Post, Gene Chapman, owner of Chapman's Fruit Market, has nothing but kind words for the Davidians. "They're just all nice, decent, normal people," he said. "Well, not normal." [30]

A.L. Dreyer, an 80-yr-old farmer, owns a ranch adjoining the Mt. Carmel property. "I've never had no trouble with them people," he said. "I've always said if they stay on their side of the fence, I'll stay on mine... I have no fear of those people." [31]

The ATF's "storm trooper tactics" were "a vulgar display of power on the part of the feds," said former Waco District Attorney Vic Feazell. Feazell unsuccesfully prosecuted seven Branch Davidians in 1988. "We treated them like human beings, rather than storm-trooping the place," he told the Houston Chronicle. "They were extremely polite... They're protective of what's theirs..." [12]

"[T]hey were basically good people," said McLennan County Sheriff Jack Harwell. "All of 'em were good people." [59]


Henry McMahon, a former Waco resident and gun store owner, described David Koresh as a likable guy. "There was nothing out of the ordinary (about Koresh's personality)," McMahon said, adding that Koresh was "an average Joe." [41,43]

"He (Koresh) is a very gentle man," said a Waco doctor who had treated Koresh for three years prior to the ATF assault. "He is very intelligent and articulate. They made him sound like a ruthless killer and that's just absurd." [18]

Gary Coker, a Waco lawyer, said he believed Koresh wouldn't hurt anyone unless he was bothered by outsiders. "It's sort of like a rattlesnake. Unless you step on him, he's not going to hurt anybody." [23]

Steve Schneider

Steve Schneider emerged as a chief negotiator during the standoff, and was considered Koresh's lieutenant. FBI Special Agent Bob Ricks called Schneider "a cool, calm, deliberate individual." Cult Awareness Network `deprogrammer' Rick Ross described Schneider as well-educated, and said he was "a man with a history of deep religious conviction, honesty and integrity." [32]

Wayne Martin

Douglas Wayne Martin held a position of major responsibility among the Davidians; only he and Steve Schneider ever spoke face-to-face with federal negotiators during the siege. Martin was a 42-year-old black lawyer and graduate of Harvard Law School. For seven years he was an assistant professor at the North Carolina Central University School of Law. After moving to Waco he maintained a law practice near Mount Carmel. He had a wife and seven children. [38,42]

Martin was viewed by many who knew him as a quiet, jovial and religious person [38]. He was routinely described as professional and competent in court [34].

"People may tend to dismiss this event as just a bunch of religious fanatics, but having known Doug humanizes it for me," said Mark Morris, a law professor at NCCU. "He was a very bright, smart, able, kind person, and it's a real shock (Martin's death)."

"He left about a year after I got here, but he seemed to be a very nice and personable guy," Associate Law School Dean Irving Joyner said [38].

McLennan County Commissioner Lester Gibson said he and others who knew Martin found it hard to believe he could have been involved in anything so violent. "He was very friendly and quiet," said Gibson. "It was common knowledge that he was a Davidian, but he never talked religion." [34]

Gary Coker, a Waco lawyer, described Martin as a kind man and a particularly devoted father.

Waco city council member Lawrence Johnson had known Martin for five years at the time of the assault. He described Martin as a computer whiz and as a diligent lawyer. "I enjoyed working with him. He was smart, he was well-educated," Johnson said.

After the raid, Martin, still the conscientious lawyer, managed to send Johnson money to reimburse clients he was unable to represent while he was holed up in the compound. "That was his sense of responsibility coming out." [42]

Perry Jones

Perry Jones was Koresh's father-in-law. News reports described him as a polite older man, bespectacled and somewhat frail, and well known at various businesses in the Waco community. Jones was once called "the kindest man and a perfect gentleman." "He was nice and he had good manners," said Tim Jander, general manager of Star Tex Propane in Waco.

Jones died a slow and painful death after ATF agents shot him in the abdomen. [49]

Unsurprisingly, the feds decided that they did not want to hold the trials of the surviving Branch Davidians in Waco. Instead they got a change of venue to San Antonio, nearly 200 miles away, where the jury members would be unlikely to have independent knowledge of the Davidians' character.


Part Two.


Assault on Waco, Part 2

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:09:11 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 2
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

The Roden Gunfight

One incident which the government and press used to paint the Branch Davidians as dangerous and violent was the gunfight with George Roden that took place at Mt. Carmel in 1988. But it was George Roden who was dangerous, violent, murderous and insane.

In 1984 a dispute arose between George Roden and David Koresh over leadership of the Davidians. This culminated in Roden forcing Koresh and his followers off of the Mt. Carmel property at gunpoint [21]. Koresh led his group to the city of Palestine, Texas [26].

By late 1987 things were faring badly for George Roden. He had almost no money, few followers, mounting debts and an angry Texas Supreme Court Justice on his trail [70]. So Roden decided to conclusively settle the leadership dispute with Koresh. He went to a graveyard and dug up the body of a man who had been dead 25 years, put the casket in the Mt. Carmel chapel, and said that whoever could raise this man from the dead was the one to lead the Davidians.

Koresh reported the action to the Sheriff's Department. He was told that his word alone wasn't enough -- proof was needed. So on November 3, 1987, Koresh and several men went out to Mt. Carmel to take pictures of the body in the casket. The Sheriff had warned them to be careful, because Roden was dangerous, so they armed themselves. The plan was to open the casket, take the pictures, and leave, but Roden caught them, and a gunfight ensued in which Roden was wounded [64].

Koresh and seven other Davidians were charged with attempted murder [20]. Jack Harwell, McLennan County Sheriff, called Koresh on the phone and informed him of the charges. He asked Koresh and the others to turn themselves in, and to surrender their weapons. When deputies arrived at Mount Carmel, Koresh and the other Davidians peacefully complied [64]. Officials traced the weapons and found that each was legally purchased [22].

On March 21, 1988, Roden was served with a citation for contempt of court. U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. sentenced him to six months in jail for continuing to file expletive-filled motions threatening the justices with AIDS and herpes, despite orders to cease and desist [70,65,30].

On April 25, Koresh's seven followers were acquitted, and the jury hung 9-3 in favor of Koresh's acquittal. The state then dropped the charges against him [68,20].

Koresh paid up 16 years of delinquent taxes on the Mount Carmel property, which allowed him and his followers to move in [68]. Upon returning to the property they found a methamphetamine lab and large piles of pornographic material. They burned the pornography and reported the meth lab to the DA's office [64].

Fifteen months after Koresh's trial, in the summer of 1989, Roden was approached by a man who claimed to be the Messiah. Roden split the man's head open with an ax [67]. Odessa police charged Roden with murder. The following year he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a state mental hospital [10], where he remains to this day [26].

Allegations of Child Abuse

Another tactic the federal government used to demonize the Davidians was to accuse them of child abuse. These accusations originally arose from Marc Breault, a former follower of Koresh who had a bitter falling out with him. Breault quit the sect at the end of 1989 and moved to Australia. He then threw himself into a campaign to discredit his former mentor, in the process leading away most of the Australian members of the sect.

In March 1990 Breault, his wife and a number of his Australian followers swore out more than 30 pages of affidavits claiming that Koresh was abusing children. A second set of affidavits was sworn out for use in a child custody hearing in early 1992, in which a Michigan man named David Jewell petitioned to gain custody of his daughter, then living at Mt. Carmel with Jewell's ex-wife. However, the allegations were mostly general and lacking in detail [48].

Thus the allegations of child abuse sprung from two sources: (1) a man who hated Koresh and was obsessed with discrediting him; and (2) a child-custody dispute. Note that allegations of child abuse are a common tactic in child-custody disputes.

As a result of Breault's efforts, local authorities began an investigation of the child abuse charges. Officials of the Child Protective Services division of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, and the McLennan County sheriff's office, visited Mt. Carmel in February and March 1992. They found no evidence of child abuse [46].

On April 23, 1993, in response to the Clinton administration's continued claims of child abuse, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services offered the following summary of its nine-week investigation: "None of the allegations could be verified. The children denied being abused in any way by any adults in the compound. They denied any knowledge of other children being abused. The adults consistently denied participation in or knowledge of any abuse to children. Examinations of the children produced no indication of current or previous injuries." Texas child protection officials also said they received no further abuse allegations after that time [48].

Breault had also contacted the FBI, accusing Koresh of a number of other crimes besides child abuse. A February 23, 1993 FBI memo, obtained by the Dallas Morning News, stated that no information had been developed to verify the allegations of "child abuse and neglect, tax evasion, slavery and reports of possible mass destruction."

The Clinton administration alleged that the Davidians were abusing children during the siege of Mt. Carmel. This was contradicted by those who actually saw the children. During the siege a man named Louis Alaniz managed to sneak past federal officials to visit the Davidians (he was not a Davidian himself). After leaving, he reported that the children at Mt. Carmel appeared happy, playing and laughing continuously, and that there were no outward signs of child abuse [44].

Sheriff Jack Harwell, who was the only outside negotiator brought into the Mount Carmel siege, said there was never any proof that children were being abused inside the compound. None of the children who were released from the compound, Harwell said, showed any signs of physical abuse [45].

According to Texas child protective services officials, none of the 21 children released to the authorities showed signs of abuse, and none of them confirmed that any abuse was committed. The children were physically and psychologically examined [45, 47]. Dr. Bruce Perry, the head of the team treating the children, stated flatly: "(N)one of the 21 children had been sexually abused or molested." [69]

After the blaze that killed most of the Davidians, the Clinton administration stepped up its "child abuse" offensive. White House communications director George Stephanopoulos claimed that "there was overwhelming evidence of child abuse in the Waco compound." [39] But this claim was contradicted by others within the federal government itself.

FBI director William Sessions said his agency had "no contemporaneous evidence" of child abuse in the compound during the siege [48]. "[T]here had been no recent reports of the beating of children." In response to Janet Reno's claim of reports that "babies were being beaten," Sessions said, "I do not know what the attorney general was referring to specifically." [37]

The Justice Department itself put the lie to Clinton's and Reno's wild accusations. In a report released in early October, the Justice Department said there was no evidence of child abuse at the compound during the siege or even enough evidence to arrest Koresh on such charges before the February 28 raid [5].


Part Three.


Assault on Waco, Part 3

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:10:26 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 3
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

The Gun Arsenal

The press and the federal government made much of the Davidians' collection of guns. President Clinton claimed the Davidians had "illegally stockpiled weaponry and ammunition." [1] But there is no law limiting the number of legal weapons one may accumulate. Furthermore, by Texas standards the Davidians' gun collection was
rather small. After the siege investigators found only 200 firearms in the ruins of Mt. Carmel [57], which amounts to about two guns per adult. But Texas' 17 million residents own a total of 68 million guns, for an average of four guns apiece, while 16,600 Texans legally own machine guns [33].

The government also claimed that the Davidians were planning an assault on Waco. This claim was based on third-hand information related to ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera, who filed the affidavit for the original raid on Mt. Carmel. Aguilera had interviewed ATF Special Agent Carlos Torres, who had interviewed Joyce Sparks, an investigator with the Texas Department of Human Services. According to Aguilera's affidavit, Torres told Aguilera that Sparks had told him that Koresh had told her "that he was the `Messenger' from God, that the world was coming to an end, and that when he `reveals' himself the riots in Los Angeles would pale in comparison to what was going to happen in Waco, Texas." Furthermore, this self-revelation "would be a `military type operation' and... all the `non-believers' would have to suffer." Koresh supposedly said this on Sparks' second and final visit to Mt. Carmel to investigate child-abuse charges, on April 6, 1992 [63]. But the LA riots broke out on April 29, more than three weeks after Sparks last visited Koresh!

Enter the ATF

In Feb. 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a report that the ATF had "disregarded rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Illegal ATF actions included entrapment and secret lawmaking via unpublished administrative interpretations of gun laws. The report noted that "expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations." In the wake of the report, plans to abolish the agency were shelved after neither the U.S. Customs Bureau nor the Secret Service would accept the transfer of the discredited ATF agents into their organizations [3].

The ATF acted true to form in its investigation of the Davidians -- the purpose of the raid appears to have been to bolster the ATF's image, rather than any protection of the public safety. From Aguilera's affidavit it appears that the ATF collected no reliable new information for its investigation after June 23, 1992. But in mid-November "60 Minutes" began contacting ATF personnel about allegations of sexual harrassment in the agency [61]. In early December the investigation picked up again, after a lapse of 5-1/2 months [62].

On January 12, 1993 the segment aired. It presented allegations by female ATF agents that they had been sexually harrassed on the job and that the agency intimidated victims and witnesses who had pressed sexual harrassment claims. Among the charges was one of near-rape: agent Michelle Roberts charged that another agent had pinned her against the hood of a car while two others tore at her clothes. ATF agent Bob Hoffman told "60 Minutes" that he had verified the complaints of one female agent, and said, "In my career with ATF, the people that I put in jail have more honor than the top administration in this organization." Shortly afterwards, there was also a front-page article in the The Washington Post about racial discrimination in the ATF.

The "60 Minutes" story devastated both the public image and morale of the ATF. ATF Director Stephen Higgins must have been in a panic. A Republican appointee, he stood a good chance of losing his job with a Democratic administration coming in. Even if he didn't, he was going to have a rough time at the congressional budget hearings coming up on March 10. Said one high-level former ATF senior official who requested anonymity, "The show had great repercussions within the bureau... [S]ome [within the ATF] concluded that he [Higgins] was... looking for a high-profile case to counteract the negative image and enable him to go to the budget appropriations hearings with a strong hand." [52]

This analysis was supported by a followup "60 Minutes" report on May 23. Based on statements from ATF agents, Mike Wallace concluded the report by saying, "Waco was a publicity stunt, which was intended to improve the ATF's tarnished image." Consistent with this interpretation, the ATF notified the media before the raid [50,56,35], and there were a large number of television and newspaper reporters at the site on the morning of the raid [50].

Appendix G of the Treasury Department report on Waco suggests another, more disturbing motive for the raid. The appendix, entitled "A Brief History of Federal Firearms Enforcement," contains the following statement:

In a larger sense, however, the raid fit within an historic, well-established and well-defended government interest in prohibiting and breaking up all organized groups that sought to arm or fortify themselves... From its earliest formation, the federal government has actively suppressed any effort by
disgruntled or rebellious citizens to coalesce into an armed group, however small the group, petty its complaint, or grandiose its ambition.

In other words: regardless of whether you break any law, if some federal official doesn't like your politics and thinks you have too many weapons, you will be exterminated.


Part Four.


Assault on Waco, Part 4

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:11:51 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 4
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

Serving the Warrant

On February 25 ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera filed for and received a warrant to search the premises of Mt. Carmel, claiming evidence of illegal conversion of (legal) semiautomic weapons to automatic. Contrary to early ATF claims, there was no arrest warrant for Koresh. The affidavit supporting the warrant was seriously flawed, containing many inaccuracies and patently false statements (such as the "LA riots" quote). According to several legal experts, including a former ATF senior enforcement official with more than 20 years' federal firearms experience, it is questionable that the affidavit demostrated probable cause for a search 51,58].

Steve Holbrook, an attorney in Washington, D.C. area, whose law practice specializes in gun-related offenses, was unequivocal: "Probable cause did not exist. There was evidence cited of a large quantity of legal firearms and parts, including interchangeable parts... Nowhere in the affidavit is it said all necessary parts and materials to convert semiautomatic weapons into machine guns were obtained [by Koresh]." [51]

The claimed violation itself is a tricky area of the law. "This is a very, very convoluted, technical, angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin kind of argument," says Robert Sanders, former enforcement chief of the ATF. "And there are no published rulings telling you what is and isn't [a violation]." [62]

Importantly, this was not a no-knock search warrant, in which agents may knock down doors and burst in heavily armed without prior warning to occupants; such warrants must be specifically applied for, which the ATF failed to do [53]. Nor was a no-knock approach necessary. As we have seen, Koresh and his followers had peacefully cooperated with law enforcement officers on at least three occasions in the past (once after the Roden gunfight, twice during the child-abuse investigation). And in July 1992 Koresh had actually invited ATF investigators to come out to Mt. Carmel and inspect the Davidians' guns [4,6,55], but he was angrily told "we don't want to do it that way." [6]

Furthermore, the ATF knew that nearly all the guns at Mt. Carmel were locked up and only Koresh had a key [63]. To avoid any possibility of armed resistance from the Davidians, they could have simply detained Koresh during one of his frequent excursions outside of Mt. Carmel [18,29] and had him unlock the store of guns in their presence.

Absent a no-knock warrant, U.S. law (Title 18, U.S.C. 3109) states that an officer must give notice of his legal authority and purpose before attempting to enter the premises to be searched. Only if admittance is refused after giving such notice is it legal for an officer to use force to gain entry. Said one former senior ATF official, "Irrespective of the situation inside, the notice of authority and purpose must be given... Unless the occupants of a dwelling are made aware that the persons attempting to enter have legal authority and a legal warrant to enter, the occupants have every right to defend themselves..." [54]

Dick DeGuerin, a well-known Houston lawyer, put it more bluntly: "...if a warrant is being unlawfully executed by the use of excessive force, you or I or anybody else has a right to resist that unlawful force. If someone's trying to kill you, even under the excuse that they have a warrant, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force, and to kill that person." [4]

It appears that the ATF never intended to serve the warrant in a lawful manner. ATF agents told the Houston Post that before the raid they had practiced to where it took 7 seconds to get out of their tarp-covered cattle trailers and 12 seconds to get to the front door. It is absurd to imagine that after such a mad dash to the door, the ATF agents intended to stop, knock, calmly state their legal authority and purpose, demand entry, and wait for a response, all before taking further action.

So how did the ATF serve its warrant? On Sunday morning, February 28, 1993, 100 federal agents arrived at Mt. Carmel in cattle cars and helicopters. About 30 agents dressed in black commando uniforms and armed with machine guns stormed the complex [9,19]. According to an Associated Press report, "Witnesses said the law officers stormed the compound's main home, throwing concussion grenades and screaming `Come out,' while three National Guard helicopters approached." [2]

Who Shot First?

The question of who shot first is in a sense irrelevant, as the ATF agents clearly attacked first when they threw grenades at the Davidians' home. Once the ATF used unlawful force, the Davidians had the legal right to resist them with deadly force.

Nevertheless, the Davidians insist that ATF agents shot first. "They fired on us first," Koresh told CNN. "...I fell back against the door and the bullets started coming through the door... I was already hollering, `Go away, there's women and children here, let's talk.'" [19] Davidians in another part of the city-block-sized complex said the battle began when the helicopters circling overhead fired on them without warning [13].

David Troy, ATF intelligence chief, said a videotape was taken of the entire mission [36]. But although parts of this tape were released to the media, one important part was not: the start of the raid. It seems unlikely the ATF would have withheld this footage if it supported the ATF's contention that the Davidians fired first.

There is evidence to support Koresh's version of events. Federal law enforcement sources told Soldier of Fortune magazine the following:

* One ATF agent had an accidental discharge getting out of one
of two goose-necked cattle trailers used to transport and
conceal agents -- he wounded himself in the leg and cried out,
"I'm hit!" [14] Unless you have a very disciplined group, you
can expect all hell to break loose once any shot is fired; and
according to Charles Beckwith, a retired Army colonel and
founder of the military's antiterrorist Delta Force, the ATF's
raid was "very amateur." [28]

* Steve Willis, one of the ATF agents killed in the raid, was
assigned to "take out" Koresh if necessary. When Koresh came
out, Willis began firing a suppressed MP5 SD submachine gun at
him from the passenger side of the leading pickup. Reporters
kept some distance away from the action would not have heard a
silenced MP5 SD, while the cattle trailer would likely have
blocked their view [14,15].


Part Five.

Assault on Waco, Part 5

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:13:45 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 5
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

The Assault

Concurrent with the attack on the front of the Mt. Carmel complex were two other attacks on the Davidians.

According to Davidians who surrendered during the siege, the helicopters circling overhead fired down through the roof into the complex, killing one man and two women as they lay in their beds [64,72]. The children, whose dormitory was on the second floor, crawled under their beds as bullets ripped through the walls above them [15,25]. Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin viewed the inside of the complex after the raid, when federal officials allowed him to meet with the Davidians and try to persuade them to surrender. He reported seeing bullet holes on the second storey, clearly coming from the outside in, at such an angle that they could only have come from above the complex [64].

Moments after the assault began, an 8-man ATF team began ascending the roof near an upstairs window which they believed to be in the vicinity of Koresh's bedroom and weapons locker [12,15]. Video footage of the raid shows the agents breaking the window, tossing grenades inside, and indiscriminately spraying gunfire within.

A well-placed federal official told the Houston Post that at least 10 Davidians were killed in the battle. One of those confirmed dead was Koresh's two-year-old daughter [24]. Another was Winston Blake, a 28-year-old printer, painter, and welder; he was shot to death as he stood unarmed by the complex's water tank [40].

Four ATF agents were killed in the gunfight, and numerous wounded. Dan Hartnett, associate director of the ATF, claimed that the ATF suffered heavy casualties because of strict rules of engagement that prohibit shooting without a definite target. "We had to wait for a target because there are so many women and children inside," he said. But broadcast video of the raid shows agents exercising poor fire control, firing over vehicles with little or no view of what they were shooting at, at a rate of two rounds per second [11,27].

The ATF's concern for the women and children inside was further demonstrated by their use of the "9 mm. Cyclone" round in their submachine guns. This highly-penetrating round is available only to law-enforcement special operations teams and the military, and is specifically designed to cut through body armor [17].

Two separate federal sources told Soldier of Fortune magazine that such a round was removed from a wounded ATF agent, and that many, if not most, of the ATF casualties resulted from "friendly fire." [17] Newsweek also reported that a federal source involved in the Waco situation said that "there is evidence that supports the theory of friendly fire," and that during the assault "there was a huge amount of cross-fire." [8] Furthermore, in the released video footage of the raid, there is little or no evidence of return fire from the Davidians.

The attack terrified the Davidians, and they were eager for a cease-fire. Wayne Martin telephoned his friend, Waco city councilman Lawrence Johnson. According to Johnson, Martin said "they were in a firefight, they were taking casualties, and a lot of people were hurt. He asked me to contact the media." [42] The New York Times reported that after capturing four federal agents, the Davidians disarmed and released them during the firefight. And both Martin and Koresh phoned 911 about the attack.

ABC broadcast portions of the 911 tapes on its Nightline program. Martin phoned first and spoke with Lieutenant Lynch of the Waco Sheriff's Department. He told Lynch, "There's about 75 men around our building and they're shooting it up in Mt. Carmel... Tell them there are women and children in here and to call it off!" Calling it off took some time. During a later return phone call, even as Lynch and Martin were trying to arrange the cease-fire, Martin's location was receiving heavy gunfire and Martin himself was hit. When requested not to return fire, an unidentified Davidian replied in a disgusted tone, "We haven't been." [7]

In the end, it was not humanitarian concerns or negotiations that brought an end to the hour-long assault; it was lack of ammunition. The 100 agents who participated in the assault had a total of only 40 rounds left among them when they finally backed off [16].



Assault on Waco, References

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:14:26 -0700
From: (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 6
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU


1. Press conference given by President Clinton in Washington,
D.C., on April 20, 1993, 1:36 p.m. EDT.
2. Associated Press, March 1, 1993; appeared in Knoxville News-
3. Washington Times, June 1, 1993, p. E3.
4. Houston Press, July 22, 1993.
5. San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 1993.
6. Houston Chronicle
7. ABC's "Nightline", June 9, 1993.
8. "Was It Friendly Fire?", Newsweek, April 5, 1993, p. 50.
9. Reuters News Service, February 28, 1993.
10. Associated Press, February 28, 1993.
11. "Gun Gestapo's Day of Infamy," Soldier of Fortune, June
1993, p. 48.
12. Ibid., p. 49.
13. Ibid., p. 50.
14. Ibid., p. 51.
15. Ibid., p. 52.
16. Ibid., p. 53.
17. Ibid., p. 62.
18. Ibid., p. 63.
19. Houston Post, March 1, 1993, p. A1.
20. Ibid., p. A8.
21. Ibid., p. A4.
22. Houston Post, March 2, 1993, p. A8.
23. Ibid., p. A13.
24. Houston Post, March 3, 1993, p. A1.
25. Ibid., p. A12.
26. Ibid., p. A18.
27. Houston Post, March 4, 1993, p. A1.
28. Ibid., p. A20.
29. Houston Post, March 5, 1993, p. A1 and A16.
30. Ibid., p. A22.
31. Houston Post, March 8, 1993, p. A1.
32. Ibid., p. A10.
33. Houston Post, March 9, 1993, p. A8.
34. Ibid., p. A13.
35. Houston Post, March 12, 1993, p. A20.
36. Houston Post, March 29, 1993, p. A6.
37. Washington Post, April 21, 1993, p. A15.
38. Houston Post, April 22, 1993, p. A21.
39. Ibid., p. A1.
40. Ibid., p. A21.
41. Ibid., p. A20.
42. Washington Post, April 22, 1993, p. A15-16.
43. Reuters News Service, April 22, 1993.
44. Houston Post, April 23, 1993, p. A5.
45. Houston Post, April 24, 1993, p. A18.
46. Washington Post, April 24, 1993, p. A8.
47. Washington Post, April 25, 1993, p. A1.
48. Ibid., p. A20.
49. Washington Post, April 28, 1993, p. A4.
50. Washington Post, April 30, 1993, p. A1.
51. "Waco's Defective Warrants," Soldier of Fortune, August
1993, p. 46.
52. Ibid, p. 48.
53. Ibid, p. 49.
54. Ibid, p. 74.
55. "Truth and Cover-up," The New American, June 14, 1993, p.
24, quoting an April 21st television interview with Henry
McMahon, the man who relayed the offer to the ATF.
56. Testimony of BATF Director Stephen E. Higgins before the
House Judiciary Committee, April 28, 1993.
57. Associated Press, May 5, 1993.
58. "Gunning for Koresh," The American Spectator, August 1993.
59. Ibid, p. 32.
60. Ibid, p. 33.
61. Ibid, p. 39.
62. Ibid, p. 33.
63. Affidavit to obtain search warrant, submitted by Davy
Aguilera on February 25, 1993.
64. Speech by Ron Engleman on the Waco Massacre. Engleman was a
Dallas radio talk-show host whom the Davidians requested as
a negotiator during the siege. Engleman's speech was based
on his own experiences and interviews with others. A
videotape of the speech may be obtained from Libertarian
Party of Dallas County, P.O. Box 64832, Dallas, TX 75206.
65. Marc Breault and Martin King, Inside the Cult, p. 71 (1993).
66. Ibid, p. 100.
67. Ibid, pp. 106-107.
68. Ibid, p. 369.
69. "The Waco Massacre: A Case Study on the Emerging American
Police State," The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor 19 (July
70. Brad Bailey & Bob Darden, Mad Man in Waco, p. 81 (1993).
71. Ibid, p. 88.
72. Ibid, p. 173.


Sunday, November 30, 2008

On Extremism

The following editorial was originally published in the Summer 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume II, Number 1.


On Extremism
by J.F.A. Davidson

In the wake of publicity surrounding The RESISTER after the Oklahoma City bombing, Togo West, Secretary of the Army, and GEN Sullivan, former Army Chief of Staff, sent official message traffic to all Army activities warning of the dangers of service members participating in or belonging to "extremist" organizations. Their messages were little more than reinterations of AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, Paragraph 4-12, Extremist Organizations. While never mentioning The RESISTER by name, everyone understood the underlying intent. Their motive was clearly designed to smear The RESISTER with the same sloppy rhetoric used by the media to smear patriots and constitutionalists.

The term "extremism" defines exactly nothing. It is a term used to connote an issue no one dare denote. It is a term used by devotees of the cult of moral greyness to 'define' that which they fear the most--principled adherence to truth, morality, and ethics. It is a term used by political moderates to discredit constitutionalists who believe in unalienable individual rights exercised in rational self-interest, the liberty to exercise those rights, and capitalism, which makes possible the acquisition of property--the source of all unalienable rights.

Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1947) defines the word extreme thus: "Ex-treme adj. 1. Being of the highest degree, at best, worst, greatest, etc...." Extreme, then, is a measure of degree. When the word "extreme" is used by political and media smear artists, it is intended to mean an extreme of any degree regardless of its nature. This implication is inherently evil. It means that extreme morality and immorality are equally undesirable; extreme honesty and dishonesty are equally immoral, and extreme virtue and extreme depravity are equally evil.

Defining oneself as a moderate is an admission of being a compromiser and an appeaser. Philosophically, what, then, is the implication of compromise between the truth and a lie? What is the implication of compromise between morality and immorality? What is the ethical implication of compromise between principled action and unprincipled action? The implications are advocacy of lies, immorality, and unprincipled action.

Politically, what is the implication of compromise between unalienable individual rights and collectivism? What is the implication of compromise between liberty and slavery? What is the implication of compromise between capitalism and socialism? The answer is, the same result as the compromise between food and poison--death: the death of unalienable individual rights, the death of liberty, and the death of property. The implications are the advocacy of collectivism, slavery, and socialism.

The term "extremism" is nothing other than a smear; a smear used by self-proclaimed moderates, who have no principles, to defile those who adhere to principled thought and action. It is a terror phrase intended to instill a sense of guilt and uncertainty in the irrational mob by reference to undefined and constantly fluctuating ideological package-deals.

One such package-deal is so-called "white-supremacy." Although racism is implied, the true target of this smear is western culture, (meaning specifically, of course, Anglo-Saxon culture). The deprecation of western culture by moderates notwithstanding, the simple fact they attempt to deny is that if the cumulative impact of minority contributions to western culture were suddenly eliminated from the whole, the advance of western culture would have not been delayed one single day.

Minorities who recognize this fact, those whose rational actions logically embrace the principle of reasoned individual effort as the source of success do, in fact, succeed. Note well that self-appointed minority spokesmen immediately attack those minorities who succeed as traitors to their race! Here, the principle under attack by moderates using the smear "white-supremacy," is reasoned action.

We maintain that race is irrelevant. Rational men are rational men--their skin color is trivia. Irrational men end up exactly where they deserve to be--on the trash-heap.

Another deprecating package-deal term is "isolationism." It is a term used by United Nations one-world socialists, and altruists, to connote lack of selfless concern for the rest of the world. Although no isolationist ever maintained that the rest of the world is of no concern, the smear term "isolationist" is nothing more than a straw man used to misrepresent the principle of patriotism and national self-interest.

The connotation of those who smear others as "isolationists" is that patriotism and national self-interest are evil. Their altruistic goal is to loot the wealth and capital of America and redistribute it to peasants and savages across the world. Their persistent shrieks demanding acceptance of multiculturalism denote nothing less than a demand that a mud hut be viewed as the technological equal of a Skyscraper, a Voodoo priest be given equal status to that of a neurosurgeon, and a story teller be given the same recognition as a literary genius.

We maintain that the premises of one-world socialists, altruists and multiculturalists are unspeakably evil. Productive genius is productive genius--its origin is trivia. Incompetent men deserve exactly what happens to them--failure.

The connotation of those who smear others as "cultists" is that the voluntary freedom of association by individuals is evil. This filthy smear is a direct attack on individual choice, whether that individual choice is rational or irrational.

Philosophically, this smear deliberately sets up the notion that only collective associations are acceptable. All collective associations are, by definition, coercive. They necessarily involve the use of force; either force by fraud, or force at the point of a gun. Politically, this smear is the rationalization of unlimited democracy; the belief that might makes right. This smear is a deliberate assault on the philosophical framework of the First Amendment--uncoerced, voluntary individual choice. The uncoerced voluntary choices of individuals are their own individual responsibility. Collectivists deserve exactly what they advocate--slavery.

Pleas for "moderation" are nothing less than pleas for compromise and appeasement; in other words, the primacy of untruth, immorality, and unethical action. "Moderation" is the abrogation of rights, liberty, and property. "Compromise" is the war cry of evil.

The RESISTER has been smeared by moderates, compromisers and appeasers within the chain of command as an extremist publication. We agree with their assessment-- but not their underlying smear. We admire truth, morality, ethical action, unalienable individual rights, liberty to exercise those rights, and acquisition of the origin of rights and liberty-- -property; meaning, capitalism. In today's political climate our admiration of these philosophical and political values means we hold extreme views. There is no alternative.

There is only one reasonable answer to the question invariably posed by smear artists: "Surely, you don't believe in good and bad, and think in terms of black and white?" The answer is: "You're damn right I do!"

Friday, November 28, 2008

Principles of Clandestine Communications

This article was originally published in the Spring 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume 1, Number 4.

Principles of Clandestine Communications
Michael Bateman

Face-to-face meetings, conducted secretly between operational personnel, are known as clandestine meetings. Such meetings are employed frequently in the field; chiefly with regard to management and administrative functions. In general, the advantages of clandestine meetings are 1) they save time, 2) they are used as a countermeasure against some forms of eavesdropping, 3) they offer a measure of certainty, and 4) they provide a means of exercising control. The stress and delicacy of secret work make human contact between an agent and his handler imperative, if an operation or organization is to survive and function effectively. The disadvantages of clandestine meetings reflect concerns of security. Participants may be under visual surveillance and the link between them may be discovered by direct or indirect betrayal. Accidental observation is also a consideration, as are snap searches. In cases where something physical is being passed, apprehension of the participants will provide direct evidence of clandestine activity.

Clandestine meetings are, for our purposes, divided into four categories: 1) meetings between unacquainted operatives; 2) meetings between acquainted operatives; 3) meetings between operatives and outsiders; 4) silent meetings, or brush contacts.

Meetings between unacquainted operatives require secure prearranged identification signals and special briefing. The general description and distinguishing features of each operative must be established and according to operational necessity known to one or both. The security problems inherent in the meeting must be analyzed. There may be risks in permitting certain operatives the ability to extensively describe others they are to meet. There may be liabilities in denying this knowledge. The description must preclude the possibility of accidental recognition of legitimate parties who just happen to be at the meeting site.

One approach to the problem of providing descriptions is the use of artificial description points, innocuous in themselves, which offer operatives means of recognition. This technique is sometimes called "showing the flag." Examples, which should not be confused with safety signals, described below, include the time-worn flower in a buttonhole or uniquely folded newspaper, familiar enough to readers of fiction. Artificial points are often given in lieu of physical descriptions involving height, weight, color of hair and color of eyes. They must be obvious enough to spur recognition yet common enough not to attract unwarranted notice. These points may also be made to mesh with prearranged dialogue.

Unique objects, such as consecutively numbered currency or two halves of the same bank-note, were once used as means of identification and this practice was continued professionally as late as World War I. Experience shows, however, that this technique should not be employed due to obvious liability in case of search or arrest.

Once initial recognition is achieved, the operatives must approach one another. At this juncture identification is made and a method often employed is that of a prearranged dialogue. This is sometimes known as use of paroles, or "secret conversation." For example: assume that the artificial descriptive point is a volume of Bronte. One operative offers, "I have never read Bronte." The other replies, "Do you mean Charlotte or Emily?" This is the first exchange. First exchanges are usually followed for safety's sake by a second exchange unrelated to the first. Again, by way of example: "I did not know there was a difference; as for me I am a gardener." The reply, "It is difficult to keep a garden in this climate." Such harmless dialogue must be structured to prevent accidental conversations with legitimate characters and must leave no question marks.

Meetings between acquainted operatives obviously do not require prearranged identification signals. In every other respect they do not and should not materially differ from other types.

Meetings between operatives and outsiders are in practice avoided but sometimes become necessary. In case where obvious risks are weighed and found to be tolerable, such meetings will be attempted subject to extensive security precautions. A classic example is the stranger who approaches a member of the Resistance, asking to join. Is he sincere, or an agent provocateur? In practice, if subsequent meetings are decided upon these will be handled by the operative first approached. The ruling assumption in such cases is that if the stranger is in fact an agent provocateur then the operative first approached is already "blown."

The manner by which federal agencies approach underground operatives merits further attention, to serve the interests of those readers who are faced with the task of identifying individuals who have been introduced into their groups. Recent federal instructional material covering this topic reads:

"...if the objective is a group of people, the agent will have to determine how he can join them. This can be done with the assistance of an informant who is in the group or, if it is a large group with formalized membership such as a club or "wing" organization, the direct approach of applying for membership may suffice. "...if the objective is to investigate a particular violation occurring at a specific location or to acquire general intelligence information, the approach could be accomplished merely by frequenting the area and establishing the assumed role."

(U.S. Department of Treasury, Law Enforcement School)

The above, while suitable for investigations of limited scope, does not acknowledge all-important questions of resistance countermeasures. Recruits must not be fully accepted until their past and present records of family life, jobs, political activities , and close associates have been investigated and found satisfactory. The usual practice is to restrict the recruit's contact to one member of the organization and to places other than the organization's regular meeting place.

Countermeasures include 1) loyalty tests, in which potential group members are subject to mock capture and interrogation, 2) a sudden summons to meet with security personnel under ominous circumstances designed to reveal signs of nervousness, 3) "leaks" purporting to inform the recruit that he has been blown and is marked for execution, and 4) a particularly effective technique involving change of meeting places. In the latter instance, potential members are kept unwitting of a change in site for a clandestine meeting at which they are expected to attend. Countersurveillants are posted to discover if the recruit is followed, or if surveillance personnel are in place at the site prior to his arrival. Assuming the recruit passes this test, he is approached and told that the meeting is off, or alternately, informed of the new meeting site.

Silent meetings, normally called brush contacts, are arguably not meetings at all. Orthodox silent meetings are conducted according to the rules of clandestine meeting practice and are normally used solely to pass something physical. Examples are exchanges of identical briefcases in a crowded airport, or the exchange of folded newspapers during a momentary pause on a park bench.

Clandestine meetings are further categorized in terms of their frequency. There are 1) regular meetings, 2) special meetings, and 3) control meetings.

Regular meetings take place according to a prearranged schedule and frequently involve the same site or sites. Such meetings will also be supported by "fall-backs," or alternative meeting times and sites, in case the regular meeting is missed for any reason.

Special meetings take place in response to special signals or requests, typically when the matter is of some urgency. Such meetings may or may not be supported by fall-backs.

Control meetings are functionally a combination of both regular and special meetings and are used in instances where a communication link has been broken or lost. In such cases, the operative must come to a prearranged site at a prearranged time to re-establish contact. Another sort of control meeting involves the use of "places of conspiracy." Places of conspiracy are utilized in emergency circumstances when an operative has been isolated through the capture or compromise of his immediate superior. In this case, the operative knows to visit a predetermined site at a particular time of day, showing certain recognition signals. A representative of the clandestine group takes not of the time and recognition signals, and if these are correct makes the approach. Because of the representative's vulnerable position as a contact for persons in danger, he is limited to this one duty and knows little about other aspects of the organization.

Meetings are held in the open, in public places or conveyances, under safe circumstances (safe-houses), and at a variety of other sites. Meeting sites should be selected on the basis of the ease with which countersurveillance may be practiced. They must be manageable. Deserted areas, for example, are ideal from a countersurveillance point of view, but assuming hostile surveillance the appearance of one operative in proximity to another in such an area may be cause for contamination. Granting this, more public places, such as parks, museums, parking lots, and a host of other locations are often used. Such places, unless selected with considerable care, can be unmanageable due to the volume of foot traffic and surrounding vantage points.

A worthwhile practice is the selection of pre-surveyed sites where ordinary traffic and activity have been observed over a long period of time. Some practitioners have selected convoy operators (countersurveillants) on the basis of their familiarity with the meeting site, acting on the principle that the convoy's job will be easier if he knows the area's normal routine.

Sites selected must actually exist, and must be accessible to both parties at the time set for the meeting. If audio surveillance is a factor the site should present participants with a measure of safety. Obviously the site and the cover must be closely intertwined. An example of this is use of a doctor's or dentist's office, or a motion picture theater. There must be plausible cover for every meeting and each operative must be fully aware of the details of this cover.

In the case of special meetings, requests are necessary. These are accomplished in any one of several ways. Distinctive arrangements of objects, chalk marks, and classified advertisements have all been used to signal requests. A common method is the use of "wrong numbers" in telephonic communication. The requester dials, and when the line is answered, asks for "Joe," or someone else who is not at that number. This is the signal that a meeting is being requested. Upon learning that, "There's nobody by that name here," the requester asks, "Is this 555-1613?" The number is a code which gives the date, time, and place. (In our example, 5 could refer to a place, 16 could refer to a day, and 13 could refer to 1300 hours). Following this the requester is informed he has reached a wrong number and rings off.

If an operative discovers or suspects he is being followed to a meeting site it becomes incumbent upon him to inform his contact of impending danger. To provide for this contingency safety signals evolved. Used in addition to recognition signals, safety signals silently advise meeting participants 1) it is it safe to approach for the secret conversation, 2) if surveillance is suspected, and 3) if a fall-back meeting is feasible.

To again follow our example of an operative with a volume of Bronte, let us assume the meeting is to take place in a public library. The operative is seated, and apart from serving as a recognition point, his book also becomes a safety signal. If the book is placed on his right it is safe to approach; on his left, there is danger. If the book lies open and face down this informs that a fall-back will take place.

Vigorous, often elaborate and time consuming countersurveillance is practiced by both participants on the way to and from meeting sites. Convoys or countersurveillants are often used to guard participants going to and from meetings. Guards are also used in the vicinity of the site itself. Another technique frequently employed is the staggered arrival. Participants arrive separately at intervals, sometimes as long as thirty minutes or more, taking special effort to observe signs of hostile activity.

Drops, known variously as "letter drops" are defined as a person, place, conveyance, or object used to transmit messages, money, or equipment in secrecy between operational personnel. Drops are used in both internal and external clandestine communications.

Drops are used in preference to clandestine meetings. In general, the advantages of drops are 1) greater secrecy for communications, and 2) greater security for personnel. Use of drops can reduce the number of clandestine meetings and offer considerably more flexibility in time. There is no direct contact between parties, and assuming the drop remains inviolate, only one operative is exposed at any given moment. Drops may be established in depth to facilitate increased isolation of either sender or receiver, or used to create a reserve of operational necessities. They are also adaptable for use by different types of personnel, such as low-level utility operatives (cut-outs) or those with poor language skills.

The principle disadvantage of drops is uncertainty. While loaded, materials in drops are outside the operative's immediate control. Drops are also liable to accidental or deliberate discovery with subsequent adverse manipulation, and the ravages of fire, flood, or wild animals. Extensive use of drops may also have a negative effect on management. Fewer meetings decrease the opportunities to train and evaluate agents.

Drops are used for both long and short term storage. Long term storage is calculated in terms of days or weeks; short term in hours. When employed for the purpose of communication, drops may hold original documents or full sized copies; or , alternately, reduced reproductions on film. Film is usually undeveloped, and placed in "trapped" containers. Documents may be in cipher or clear text. As stated above, drops are also used to transmit money or supplies. Examples of the latter include weapons, medical equipment, or other technical apparatus. Drops are of two principle types: 1) "live" drops, and 2) dead drops.

Live drops may be witting or unwitting, id est, they may or may not operate with knowledge of the clandestine purpose. Live drops are not encumbered by any organizational forms and do not require a special cover or camouflage. They are located in stores, restaurants, offices, or small shops such as those maintained by news stands or tobacconists. These locations provide ease of access for couriers and employ a high degree of normal, transient foot traffic.

Another form of live drop is the so-called underground mail station. Such drops may be located in safe-houses especially developed for the purpose with elaborate concealment chambers. As materials are received, housekeepers send coded signals or messages to the next link of the courier line, advising that service is necessary.

Dead drops are categorized variously by type or location. In the former category we find 1) stationary drops, and 2) portable drops. In the later category we find 1) urban drops, and 2) rural drops. Both categories admit of the mobile, or "roving" drop.

Stationary dead drops are selected or prepared in lamp-posts, fences, behind mirrors in washrooms, and in a host of other places such as crevices in rocks of clefts in trees. Portable dead drops, also known as "concealment devices," are discarded or specially constructed objects that contain messages, documents or equipment to be passed. Early U.S. practitioners responsible for devising concealment devices soon discovered that the cardinal principle in producing concealment devices was that the subject of disguise be neither edible nor burnable. In such cases it is liable to be used by some casual passer-by. Magnetic key-boxes, used to hide a duplicate key beneath an automobile bumper, are often used as portable drops. Mobile drops are located in conveyances, popularly the lavatories on trains, buses, or aircraft.

Urban drops are those located in public or otherwise freely accessible places and are typically used for extremely short term transmittals. Rural drops, as the term implies, are located in rustic or rural places. Rural drops are used for either short or long term transmittals.

Advisory signals and indicators are used to express 1) what particular drop is to be serviced, 2) safety or danger, 3) a drop is loaded, and 4) a drop is unloaded.

In common practice, operatives assigned to service drops will do so in response to signaled requests. This signal will usually indicate which drop is loaded, and be supported by a safety/danger signal. We note parenthetically that absence of a safety signal is regarded as a danger signal. Proceeding to the area of the drop, the operative will practice diligent countersurveillance. If the operative is confident of security the drop will be quickly unloaded. He will then make a signal to this effect supported by another safety/danger signal. Safety/danger signals are always made on return journeys, after countersurveillance has been practiced going to and coming from the drop site.

Generally, signals can be divided into five categories, as follows:

1. Graphic. Chalk marks expressing numbers, letters, or designs; notices appearing in the classified section of a newspaper, postcards, or other forms of correspondence.
2. Object. Any small object, such as a flower-pot, or arrangement of an object, such as a window shade. The object may be used independently or tangentially; that is, the object and its position may both hold significance.
3. Light. Ordinary flashlights, automobile headlights, or infrared light.
4. Sound. Radio transmissions, telephone calls, distinctive rings on door buzzers.
5. Personal. Articles of clothing, or objects carried.

Certain signals or combinations may be used solely in conjunction with specific activities. Graphic and object signals, for example, may be used with dead drops. Light and sound signals with some other activity.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Principles of Clandestine Behavior

The following article was originally published in the Winter 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume I, Number 3.


Principles of Clandestine Behavior


Michael Bateman

Individual underground and resistance operatives, expected to cope with sophisticated law enforcement practices or security organizations are often as a singular disadvantage in their efforts to understand systematized techniques and practices of clandestine behavior. The varieties of this behavior, known collectively as "tradecraft," are a traditional province of secret intelligence and special operations; fields reluctant to shed light on operational methods and procedures. There is a dearth of reliable material in the literature of underground and resistance intelligence and unless the operative has an appropriate background, attempts to obtain useful extracts from the broader open literature will prove difficult indeed.

The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an introduction to elements of tradecraft important to evade enforcement operations or security investigations by underground and resistance operators. we have enclosed disciplines set a pattern of practitioners and this pattern is liable to prediction or analysis. We disagree with this theory when it is applied to clandestine behavior. The logic of tradecraft is the logic of fear. Fear is an individual matter.

The _Oxford_English_Dictionary_ defines tradecraft with eloquent simplicity as, "skill or art in connexion with a trade or calling." The trade or calling with which we are immediately concerned is that of the underground operative. Definition therefore becomes a practical matter of describing components expressed in the training literature of intelligence agencies and federal paramilitary organizations. Allowing for purely stylistic variation, or variation born of contextual circumstance, the study of tradecraft is regarded as inclusive of six broad elements:

1. AGENT HANDLING. What we refer to as agent handling includes target group analysis; spotting; assessment; development; recruitment; operational management and termination.

2. PROTECTION. Protection includes methods of establishing and maintaining cover; countersurveillance; use of safe-houses, and technical skills relating to disguise, document work and forgery.

3. COLLECTION. Collection methods are primarily technical in nature and include photography; audio surveillance; physical surveillance; surreptitious methods of entry; flaps and seals work; drawing and sketching, and elicitation.

4. COMMUNICATION. Communication studies include the use of drops and letter boxes; clandestine meetings; secret writing; concealment devices; radios; codes and ciphers, and numerous other forms.

5. INDIVIDUAL SKILLS. Individual skills include observation and memory; evasion and escape; close combat; interviewing; elicitation, and report writing, among others.

6. SPECIALTY SKILLS. Specialty skills include methods of infiltration (ingress and egress), expertise with certain weapons and explosives, and technical specialties relating to any of the categories noted above.

Our delimitation of each category is idiosyncratic. We do, however, present an accurate portrait of the interdisciplines of tradecraft as tradecraft is best regarded by underground operatives.

A major task of the opposition intelligence specialist is developing information concerning underground activity conducted in secrecy. To the extent the activity in question is indeed secret, and presupposing secrecy's role is to actively deny the opportunity for information collection, then the underground operative must be conversant with the pure practices of counterintelligence.

A useful definition of counterintelligence for underground purposes is: intelligence activity, with its resultant product, intended to detect, counteract, and prevent opposition collection encompassing security measures designed to:

1. Conceal the identify or origin of the participants
2. Conceal the activity during its incipient, or planning stage;
3. Conceal the support apparatus exploited by the participants;
4. Conceal the activity or activities during commission;
5. Protect the participants during withdrawal.

Please note that our definition of counterintelligence relates to the study of secrecy as an instrument of concealment. Concealment is the very aim of secrecy. The two are intermeshed but not identical. Concealment apart from being the aim of secrecy is a form of secrecy, while secrecy is a variable of concealment. To study secrecy one therefore begins with the study of concealment.

The study of concealment begins with categorical notice of how concealment is to be achieved. concealment is a three-fold process of manipulation involving 1) the object of concealment, 2) the observation process, inclusive of the observer, and 3) the environment. The manipulation process itself involves a philosophical ground consisting of 1) an assumption of knowledge, 2) a known category of perception, and 3) a time frame into which are injected variables of disguise, deception, and secrecy. Each variable serves an element of the process in consort with each other variable. Disguise manipulates the object, deception manipulates the observation process, and secrecy manipulates the environment.

Proceeding forth from the above we reach the modalities of concealment. These are the techniques employed to fit each variable to the corpus of knowledge and category of perception. With references to disguise, for example, we find cosmetic changes in appearance and substantive changes in form. With reference to deception we find the technique of imbedding, which redirects attention, and dispersal, which expands attention.

By way of illustration we are reminded of an old story concerning a famous smuggler who, for sake of narration, we shall call Pierre. One day Pierre appears at the frontier pushing a red bicycle on which he balances a basket filled with straw. The inspectors descend in force and for their trouble produce a single brick from the bottom of the basket. Breaking the brick, they are disappointed to find it quite genuine.

Weeks pass and the scene repeats itself. Specialists are called in to no avail and always with the same result. The inspectors know Pierre must be smuggling something but they do now know what. Curiosity changes to anguish when informants report Pierre has crossed the border for good and is living comfortably on the other side. In desperation, the Chief Inspector decides to pay the smuggler a call.

"I have, as you know, no power here," he says, "and as it seems you now reside here permanently we shall not meet again. I will ask you, no... I will beg you as one man to another to please set my mind to rest. I know you were smuggling something but I do not know what it was."

Pierre thinks for a moment and then he answers: "Bicycles, your honor, and we did it together."

"Bicycles! We together? But how?" cries the Chief.

"I painted them red," replies Pierre. "You hid them among the bricks."

In the example given, the object or aim of concealment is to prevent detection of criminal activity, id est, smuggling. Pierre's fame as a smuggler and the reaction of the inspectors is the assumed corpus of knowledge. Visual search of objects by inspectors is the category of perception. The element of disguise is red paint, the element of deception a brick, and the time frame is expanded to create the effect of dispersal. Note how all these elements work together in secrecy; so closely that an error in one can contaminate all.

To expand the shades of meaning for secrecy and concealment the technical terms "clandestine" and "covert" evolved. Clandestine refers to activity hidden but not disguised; covert to activity disguised but not hidden. This distinction is important for us to grasp. Clandestine activity is secret because it is concealed. Covert activity is concealed because it is secret. Both are secret, both exist in a continuum of concealment and at the point where one form passes into that of another the same principle of tradecraft apply.

In the traditional sense distinctions between covert and clandestine are deemed necessary to permit denials; a matter of statecraft, not tradecraft. The opposition finds these distinctions significant for other reasons. Sophisticated underground activity from inception through the planning stage is clandestine in character. Upon commission of the activity and thereafter it is covert.

Acknowledgment of the dual character of conspiracy brings us to the dual character of counterintelligence. Counterintelligence is itself clandestine activity expressed 1) defensively, or 2) offensively. The defensive aspect is often referred to as the security function. The security function involves physical and investigative measures designed to safeguard information, installations, personnel and operations. The offensive aspect refers to application of active countermeasures;
counterespionage, countersabotage, or counterreconnaissance as necessity or fashion may will.

Offensively expressed counterintelligence activity is composed of two elements; the control element (sometimes called "preventive" counterintelligence), and operational element (sometimes called "defensive" counterintelligence).

Control measures are regulatory in character. Indeed, all federal, state and local government regulatory agencies are "feeder services" of the opposition's counterintelligence agency. Control measures involve the exercise of influence in five areas:

1. CONTROL OF IDENTITY. The exploitation of identification systems such as vital statistic certificates, driving and other licenses.

2. CONTROL OF MOVEMENT. Limitation or other regulation of internal and external travel.

3. CONTROL OF ACTION. Use of regulations prohibiting certain activities such as public meetings or possession of firearms.

4. CONTROL OF COMMUNICATION. Regulation or exploitation of broadcast communications and telecommunications, whether public or private.

5. CONTROL OF PUBLICATIONS. Censorship, tacit or expressed, of newspapers or private publishing.

Operational measures are uniformly based on the extensive use of informant services. Operational measures are as follows.

1. SURVEILLANCE. Surveillance includes the selective use of static observation posts located in the area of targets of continuing counterintelligence interest. Examples are organization headquarters, airline terminals, bus stations, hotels, and the homes of suspects. Also included is mobile surveillance of counterintelligence targets and sub-targets.

2. INTERCEPTION. The techniques of interception are applied against communications. Included are postal monitors, telephonic and telegraphic monitors, detection and monitoring of clandestine transmitters and the direct interdiction of secured information systems, carriers, or repositories.

3. PROVOCATION. Provocation involves offers of service or supply, the use of false information, and incitement.

4. PENETRATION. Penetration of groups or conspiracies may be accomplished by direct involvement, indirect enlistment, or the exploitation of double agents.

5. INTERROGATION. Interrogation is used against targets and sub-targets in custody, and persons named in previous interrogations.

6. SEARCHES. Searches are conducted against persons, places, or conveyances. Searches run the gamut from extensive cordon operations to snap searches.

Brief notice must be made of the so-called human factors approach to counterintelligence operations. Human factors operations involve the production of estimative intelligence intended to portray the psychological profile of a given counterintelligence target. Examples of techniques employed are indirect personality assessment; analysis of written materials by means of word count and frequency of use; indirect monitoring of certain biological functions; observance of historical behavioral trends, and (in desperation) mystical methods such as handwriting analysis and astrological charting. Please note that what we here describe is not uniquely counterintelligence methodology as assumes much of the character of the
basic analytical function.

Having developed a common ground of terminology and having offered delimitation to the broad expanse of subterfuge and detection, we now propose to justify the study of tradecraft as an end in itself. Our thesis is fortunately rather simple and expressed as follows.

Opposition counterintelligence officers engaged in the application of control and operational measures will be faced with the task of observing and reporting clandestine and covert activity. As discussed, such activity bespeaks greater or lesser degrees of secrecy and concealment designed to foil observation. The very processes of secrecy and concealment therefore become a valid and in many cases the only target for observation. Understanding the character of these processes (id est, understanding tradecraft) will sensitize the counterintelligence officer to the manner in which observation is being manipulated, and in consort with other methodology permit him to pierce the veil of secrecy, uncovering that which is concealed.

We again briefly note the functions of counterintelligence, this time in terms of the corresponding means of secrecy and concealment used to cloak underground activity.

1. CONTROL MEASURES. Control measures are foiled by the arrangements of cover, the application of countersurveillance techniques, and the use of safe-houses.

2. OPERATIONAL MEASURES. In addition to cover, countersurveillance, and safe-houses, operational measures are foiled by the techniques of clandestine meetings, drops, and secret writing.

Each opposition counterintelligence function has to contend with one or more diametrically opposed protective or communicative elements. This is because hidden activity is, after all, a normal process of interaction between human beings; complicated by necessity for secrecy and concealment and the assumption of active attempts at detection.

Axiomatic in the counterintelligence profession is the idea that individuals are most vulnerable when in communication or movement. Why is this? One answer has to do with the quality of counterintelligence itself. Another has to do with the exigencies of agency. Human beings, when used as instruments for the performance of secret activity in lieu or on behalf of others are known as agents. Extensive use of agents, as we know, is a hallmark of conspiracy. Agency by its very definition includes measures of direction and control and an altogether logical and safely assumed process of dialogue. Detection of such communication is in many cases de facto evidence of underground activity. The foiled equipment buy or the foiled
passage of documents are two ready examples.