Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.law-enforcement
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: CHP engages in felony theft
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:11:49 GMT

> > You claim it was fabricated, however I suspect that you wouldn't believe
> > anything the ATF said.
>
> It is documented in several places. It is also documented that the ATF
> lied to the military to get helicopters.  As you should know, except
> on rare occasions, it is against the law for the military to exercise
> police powers on the civilian population unless they are on government
> property.

Not quite true.  The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the
military in law enforcement unless a special dispensation has been
granted by the President.  He has delegated this authority to the
Attorney General, and some functionary in the DoJ has the authority to
approve specific missions under specific guidelines.

Basically, the guidelines are that the military (in the form of JTF-6)
may provide assistance and support in cases where it would further the
"War on Drugs."  So of course it became standard practice to just
"throw in some stuff about drugs" when applying for this assistance,
whether the "stuff" had any basis in reality or not.  The practice was
winked at for years, but came to light rather spectacularly in the
Waco disaster, and now JTF-6 scrutinizes these applications a bit more
closely.  And they just plain won't work with ATF.  Period.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.guns,tx.general
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: !What BC did at Waco, He will do to you
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:00:21 GMT

In article <34e6a551.68788454@news1.mnsinc.com>, Carol A. Valentine
<SkyWriter@Public-Action.com> wrote:
> Do you think the US military would lend out their equipment without
> supplying the operators? There were no "FBI agents driving tanks," as
> WTROE and other apologists would have us believe . . . unless the FBI
> is now staffed by the military.

No one driving tanks at Waco was on active duty in the U.S. armed
forces.  I forget who they were, exactly, and you're correct that the
military "len[t]" the tanks -- I'm sure they trained the operators,
but they didn't "supply" them.  If they had, someone would now be
in prison for it.

> Now THERE is something worth exploring.  The deputy director of the
> FBI anti-terrorism unit, Col. Ellis, is active duty Army.  The FBI's
> Hostage Rescue Team commandos are trained by military commandos.  Fer
> gosh sakes, Tim, the big FBI training center is situated at the
> Quantico Marine base, in Virginia.  Get that?  Quantico MARINE base.

There's a USMC training base at Quantico.  There's an FBI training
"base" in Quantico (including the FBI Academy).  There's a DEA
training "base" there, too (also including their Academy).  Probably
other federal law enforcement stuff.  They don't mix much with the
Marines, who have plenty of their own stuff to worry about.  There
are *no* operational USMC units at Quantico.

> I wonder how many FBI agents are on military pensions,

None, I'd venture.  If you enlist when you're 17, then serve 20 years,
you'll be 37 when you retire.  That is the *absolute* maximum age at
which U.S. federal law enforcement agencies will consider making you
an agent.  And if an enlisted term of service is all you have behind
you, they won't give you a second look.  You have to have a four-year
college degree and in almost all cases *some* kind of graduate degree.

> in the military "reserves," the "national guard," or other posse
> comitatus dodges?

Probably quite a few (I know a couple, myself), though I'm not sure
why you think this is a "posse comitatus dodge."  The Posse Comitatus
Act prohibits the use of the armed forces *themselves* in domestic law
enforcement activities.  It is silent on whether individuals who
happen to have a past or present affiliation with military forces may,
while not actually on duty with same, act in a law enforcement
capacity.  If you think the restriction should be stricter, take it up
with Congress, but don't call the current state of affairs a "posse
comitatus dodge."  It's no more a dodge than taking a deduction for
mortgage interest is a tax "dodge."

>  And I wonder how many are flat-out posse comitatus violations?

Well, I'm not going to aver that the PCA *never* gets violated, but
it's not quite the cavalier matter you seem to believe it is.  At
JTF-6, they took the Act *very* seriously and were scrupulous about
getting the appropriate waivers for any support provided to civilian
law enforcement.  (You *did* know that the President can waive PCA any
time he feels like it, didn't you?  And that he's delegated this
authority to the Department of Justice?)

I have personally flown anti-drug missions out of San Diego, when I
was in the Navy.  Aircrews don't concern themselves with the details
of the Posse Comitatus Act, but I happen to know that the waiver
process was lengthy and had to be approved by *very* senior
individuals in the Department of Justice.

You may also be interested to know that, when it came out that ATF
agents had lied to obtain waivers for military support of the raid at
Waco, and that they routinely threw in a "suspected drug nexus,"
whether it really existed or not, to obtain such support, JTF-6 swore
off working with them.  As far as I know, JTF-6 hasn't given ATF the
time of day since then.  It's debatable whether the JTF-6 staff knew
or had reason to believe that ATF lied routinely about this --
military officers can be surprisingly naive sometimes about such
things.

Reading over the above, it looks like I'm claiming that the military
in general, and JTF-6 in particular, are completely blameless in the
events that led up to Waco.  I don't believe that.  I believe there
should have been a really hard, serious look at the way JTF-6 did
business back then.  (Frankly, I'd be happier if it were just closed
down, but that's another thread.)  But your specifics are off base
here, and there's no evidence that "the military" did anything
criminal or really wrong in connection with Waco.  Certainly nothing
like ATF/FBI's misdeeds.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------