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.

_

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?
_

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.


EDITORIALS
----------

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

_

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

_

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.

References.
_
_

Assault on Waco, Introduction and Part 1

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:05:44 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (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.
kevin@bert.cs.byu.edu |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:07:53 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (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]

Koresh

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@axon.cs.byu.edu (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@axon.cs.byu.edu (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@axon.cs.byu.edu (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@axon.cs.byu.edu (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].

------------------------------

References.
_

Assault on Waco, References

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

References

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-
Sentinal.
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
1993).
70. Brad Bailey & Bob Darden, Mad Man in Waco, p. 81 (1993).
71. Ibid, p. 88.
72. Ibid, p. 173.

------------------------------