Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:07:00 -0700
From: Tavares@ALUM.MIT.EDU ("C. D. Tavares")
Subject: Re: Cato Blasts Danforth Waco Report
To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
At 10:42 AM -0700 4/11/01, you wrote:
> CATO Institute Blasts Danforth Waco Report ...
>
> http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=175900
"If the crimes chronicled in his study go unpunished, Lynch concludes, 'the
Waco incident will leave an odious precedent-that federal agents can use
the "color of their office" to commit crimes against citizens.'"
Hardly. That precedent was officially set years ago:
4.35 p.m. ET (2035 GMT) May 14, 1998
By Mark Warbis, Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho (AP) A federal judge on Thursday dismissed an
involuntary manslaughter charge against an FBI sharpshooter
for the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife during
the siege at Ruby Ridge.
U.S. District Edward Lodge ruled in an 18-page order that
Lon Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his federal
authority and was honestly discharing his duties when he
fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver on Aug. 22, 1992.
"The actions of Mr. Horiuchi had tragic results,'' Lodge
wrote. "However, Mr. Horiuchi did no more than what was
`necessary and proper' for him to carry out his duties under
the totality of the circumstances.''
...
In dismissing the charge against Horiuchi, Lodge cited the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which immunizes
federal authorities from liability when acting within the
scope of their jobs.
"That seems absurd,'' said Chuck Peterson, one of the
attorneys who helped Weaver and Harris win acquittal on
murder charges for Degan's slaying. "This clearly isn't a
vindication of Horiuchi. It's like the Simpson verdict: We
all knew he did it, there's just nothing we can do about
it.''
Woodbury did not immediately respond to a telephone call
requesting comment.
Lodge also said evidence supported defense arguments that
Horiuchi acted reasonably because he believed there was a
threat to his life or the lives or others in the wake of
Degan's slaying, and that he acted in accordance with
special "rules of engagement'' ordered by his superiors.
...rules of engagement, you will note, that were ruled two years prior by
the Ninth Circuit Court to be "a gross deviation from constitutional
principles and a wholly unwarranted return to a lawless and arbitrary
wild-West school of law enforcement."
But apparently, killing someone under unconstitutional rules of engagement
is now "necessary and proper." It'sOK, because he was "just following
orders."
If that isn't precedent...
--
Tavares@alum.mit.edu | http://home.earthlink.net/~cdtavares | RKBA!
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
--JAMES EARL JONES