and shot Vicki Weaver in the face. However
adamantly the federal government may decry so-called terrorism, it is the
federal agents who are the terrorists. If they continue to place
children in federal buildings, then it will be clear that their intention
is to use the children as shields, a tactic the federal government hypocritically
attributes to Saddam Hussein. Such cowardly behavior by federal terrorists
wouldn't surprise me a bit.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
Danforth's Folly
Sam Aurelius Milam III, October
1999
On
the very day of his appointment, Special Counsel John Danforth revealed
that his investigation of the Branch Davidian Massacre will probably be
a failure. First, he professed a high-sounding concern with fundamental
principles of government, such as those expressed in the Declaration of
Independence. Government operates by the consent of the governed
and its purpose is to secure the "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Then, he refused to address much of the behavior of
the government that might be a violation of those principles. Instead,
he limited his investigation to a few selected questions. Was there
a cover-up? Did government agents kill anybody? Who started
the fire? He solemnly calls these the "dark questions". I call
them symptoms of the bigger problem, which he refuses to address.
There
are prior and fundamental questions that should be asked. Do unproven
allegations of "child" or "gun" violations justify a potentially lethal
confrontation, and its execution as a para-military invasion? Where
did the government get the authority to pursue a potentially lethal confrontation
against Americans who had not been convicted of a capital offense?
The accused individuals hadn't even been to court. Were they presumed
innocent until proven guilty? Does refusal of a citizen to cooperate
justify lethal response by government? Is "failure to appear" a capital
offense? If equal treatment under the law exists, then why weren't
the Branch Davidians treated the same as Presbyterians? Were the
Branch Davidians members of the governed? Did they consent?
Did the government secure their "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness? Why did the government believe that it could get away
with such a siege? Do government agents believe that they aren't
accountable for their actions? Once it was in position, why couldn't
the U.S. government, the most powerful government in the world, afford
to simply back up a few yards, out of range of alleged (defensive) gunfire
from the besieged Americans in the compound, and continue to negotiate?
The occupants of the compound weren't going anywhere. Wasn't time
on the side of the government? Why was there such a sense of urgency
to end the confrontation? What did the government fear, that caused
the sense of urgency? After Janet Reno accepted responsibility for
the murders, why wasn't she hauled into court? I surely would have
been. The surviving Branch Davidians were.
Unless
John Danforth has the courage to address such questions, then his investigation
will be of little value.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
Danforth's Folly Revisited
Sam Aurelius Milam III, April
2000
In
September of 1999, John Danforth was appointed as a Special Counsel to
resolve, once and for all, the Branch Davidian Massacre. In my article
Danforth's
Folly, October 1999, I predicted that his investigation would be
worthless. It would be nice if I'm wrong, but so far the massacre
remains unresolved, the perpetrators remain at large, and justice remains
a fantasy. As I've said before, when the peaceful pursuit of justice
becomes irrelevant, then the violent pursuit of justice becomes inevitable.
Eventually, it even starts to seem desirable.
Now,
as another Waco anniversary slides past and the murderers remain at large,
I wonder if the various homicidal maniacs who reside within the U.S. government
have pondered their options. I'd suggest that they certainly shouldn't
put their children in federal buildings any more. Maybe they didn't
know any better before the Oklahoma City bombing, but they do now.
If they continue to do it anyway, then it will be clear that they're trying
to use the children as shields. I expect that the children will be
ineffective in that capacity. If there's another attack, then I'm
sure that the bureaucrats will shamelessly and tearfully use the dead children
as another propaganda bonanza to advance the cause of repression, just
like they've done every time that children have been killed — by anyone
except government agents.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
June 11, 2001
Page 4 |
Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
frontiersman@ida.net |
|