That’s rich, Rick. Apparently you haven’t read Glenn Greenwald very closely. In the middle of the last decade, he argued with me at length about the need for the Fed Govt to be strong against “terrorism,” which Greenwald broadly painted as anyone who disagreed with Greenwald’s view of what is proper government — very much like WJB Clinton did in the piece Balko is criticizing here.

Greenwald’s reputation (in your mind, I mean) is one thing; his positions that he has argued in exchanges with me is quite another.

Greenwald is very authoritarian when it comes to defending Greenwald’s view of proper government. His latest drift toward tepidly criticizing the Democrats is not indicative of the arguments he’s made for over 5 years. If you have evidence that Greenwald has changed his bizarre, childish views on the Fed Govt, I’d suggest you use that evidence, instead of simply citing him by name and his pathetic sycophantic columns at Salon — a journal of foppish dandyism, not legal affairs or governmental studies.

__________________

To answer the question of what is anti-authoritarian left, I would point toward Arthur Silber, Kevin Carson, or Sheldon Richman as name-dropping examples. Glenn Greenwald is still trying to shake off his fond romanticism for the Democratic party, and his long-standing despising perspective toward all things Republican. He calls himself a leftist-libertarian, but his arguments made to me are quite the opposite.

Sheesh.

Wasn’t there an alcove underneath much of the collapsed section? IIRC the only pillar that failed that wasn’t under or on the edge of it was quite close to the bomb blast.

Whether the BATF agents were killed by bullets fired by Davidians, or by each other (shooting blindly through walls or the roof), I don’t know. But if the Davidians did shoot and kill them, it quite possibly was in self-defense.

Read this website for particular individuals who had the misfortune of being jarred out of their sleep by intruders who happened to be police (which they didn’t find out until they had shot at them, thinking they were criminals).

beejeez : (#124)
“But don’t sign me up for this crap that it was part of Bill Clinton’s master plan to destroy anti-government sentiment by deliberately killing not only Koresh, but the innocent kids inside his compound.”

Strawman. Who here claimed that Bill Clinton approved of or even knew of the full intent of the FBI that day? My memory may be off and I’d have to scour a lot of material from years ago, but most accounts I read suggested that even Janet Reno was kept in the dark about some aspects. For example, she gave the OK for gas to be injected in limited amounts at a time, only to be increased if there was “resistance”. The FBI claimed that the Davidians shot at the tanks, at which point they pumped in the remainder of that day’s supply in a few minutes. That seems like the FBI took advantage of her permission to escalate not being very specific and ran with it, knowing that there was no rational reason to put that amount of gas in the Davidian’s home if your intent was to rescue the women and children.

The FBI, by their actions, demonstrated clearly that their intention was not to rescue anyone, but to massacre the people who dared to murder their fellow federal agents. They wanted to send a message to all Americans that killing a federal agent (even in self-defense when they start shooting first while serving a warrant obtained via perjury) will be punished by utter destruction.

“Waco was a simple case of FUBAR…”

Dozens murdered is “FUBAR”? Whoops! We just ran over a bunker full of women and children with a tank. Gosh, we screwed up! You’re awful goddamned forgiving of pre-meditated murder by the FBI Hostage Roasting Team.

“Clinton-Reno deserve blame for not being in control of the situation, but that’s where the fault ends.”

So if they lacked control and realized that the people they foolishly trusted to resolve the situation were murderous bastards, why is it that they didn’t prosecute, fire, or punish them after the massacre? There was no accountability. None. It was utterly evil of Clinton and Reno to cover up the FBI’s culpability, just like when police chiefs and DAs protect felonious cops from being charged (the thin blue line).

Had Clinton and Reno handled the aftermath properly, they would have done a thorough, independent investigation (not the bullshit Congressional whitewash, since those politicians were afraid of the political consequences), prosecuted FBI and BATF agents, and revamped both bureaus entirely (like not allowing them to use military equipment against civilians, clamping down on bad warrants). They would have demonstrated to Americans that there was accountability. The many people who were justifiably angry and justifiably fearful of the federal government might have felt a bit differently. (Not that any of this absolves McVeigh. But perhaps he might not have carried out his mass murder.)

“I suspect they would have been more likely to handle it competently after a couple years on the job, with their trusted personnel in place.”

When you’re the “leader of the free world”, why in the bloody hell should you be given half a term (between a fourth and a half of your entire time in office) to organize your people enough that they’re not running around murdering dozens of people?

I just can’t see it any other way, and you should know that I was extremistly suspicious of that event.

nitpicker: (#120) “ATF agents showed up to the Branch Davidian compound to execute legally obtained search warrants…”

They lied to a judge about a meth lab in order to get military support (War on Drugs loophole). That’s illegal.

nitpicker: (#120) “…the crazy cult leader was continually raping young girls…”

The BATF has no business investigating sexual assault crimes. That’s the purview of Child Protective Services and the local police or sheriff.

Anyone who wanted to take Koresh into custody had the option to arrest Koresh when he went to town and avoid the bloody situation entirely. Instead, they chose to engage in a paramilitary operation to show off their prowess. This was a way to rescue their tarnished image, in the hope of maintaining funding to their troubled bureau.

nitpicker: (#120) “Do you really think Bill Clinton was responsible for that event, which occurred roughly a month after he took office?”

No, and I don’t think anyone else blames Clinton for the BATF debacle. Bush 41 failed to rein in that rogue outfit.

Clinton, Reno, and the FBI had months to handle the crisis. They chose to use psychological warfare. If, as you assert, these people were crazy, was that a wise strategy–to do your level best to make them even more unstable?

nitpicker: (#120) “I am continually shocked by those who seem to defend David Koresh …”

Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what people actually write. Law enforcement officers (LEOs) are supposed to follow strict rules of due process, even if the suspected offenders are dangerous lunatics. Otherwise, if the LEOs are not held to account for breaking the rules in the case of religious lunatic pedophiles with automatic weapons, why should they be held to account if they treat you likewise and cover it up with disinformation about how you skin babies alive, threaten to blow up buildings, and cut the tags off your mattresses?

nitpicker: (#120) “After all, if it weren’t for the fuel oil spread about the compound, there would have been no fire after all.”

You may accept that version as fact, but when I see military tanks pumping highly volatile gas into the home of civilians, creating openings in the walls which provided highly efficient ventilation on a very windy day, I have a hard time discounting the possibility that such foolish (or intentionally evil) action by the FBI was the cause of the conflagration.

Besides, if your goal is to save the women and children, why not just wait them out? Why force the situation to become violent again, when it didn’t need to be?

Rescuers don’t assault civilian homes with military tanks. They calm down the inhabitants and try to talk them out peacefully.

nitpicker: (#120) “Blaming Clinton and defending Koresh is tantamount to saying that McVeigh had a valid point to make.”

McVeigh’s actions were monstrously unethical because, for one reason, he killed innocents (including children) who had nothing to do with Waco.

But just because that madman carried out his terrible deed two years after the FBI did their terrible deeds doesn’t negate the culpability of those who committed the Waco massacre. Nor does Koresh’s guilt make it OK for them to kill women and children.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I’m not trying to say David Koresh was a good person… but the actions of the ATF and FBI were extremely likely to cause violence. They were not blameless.

I am continually shocked by those who seem to defend David Koresh, whose madness led to the tragedy. After all, if it weren’t for the fuel oil spread about the compound, there would have been no fire after all. Blaming Clinton and defending Koresh is tantamount to saying that McVeigh had a valid point to make.

This is always a canard. (And it’s suffrage, by the way.) Even liberal polls showed that the majority of Americans were against Obamacare and it passed anyway. Like Bush’s invasion of Iraq against the majority will of the citizenry, it’s clear that the majority of Americans feel that they aren’t really getting represented.

Regardless of whether the present suffrage is merely symbolic or not, the American Revolution was essentially a tax revolt for lack of representation. As the citizens are taxed and an increasing rate while their representation in government remains unchanged, it’s silly to say that today is so much better than before simply because the majority of colonists weren’t subject to direct taxes of any kind in the first place (until the Stamp Act).

Add in the fact that the Stamp Act was essentially the revenue source for the crown’s own military jobs program, and compare that to the ever-growing public payrolls that are the main cause of the increased taxation. The result is that today is not very much different from yesteryear at all.

I agree with you. And that isn’t what I wrote. I wrote that the stated reasons for the Declaration of Independence were for violations of human liberty that were far less egregious than what the government gets away with today.

Thanks Elliott, in fairness, it took me several hours to realize what I had read. It’s been a long time since I read such a concise testament of anarchism, and I was not expecting it from that source. Since there has been no repudiation or qualification by Radley, I am left only to welcome him with open arms as a public anarchist. It is an honor to have such a high profile member of the libertarian community make such a public statement — maybe as a result more people will awaken to political equality and eschew the use of force in all aspects of their lives.

Next time I’m in OC to see the in-laws, we’ll have to have work on a secret seditious handshake in case we run into each other.

“Non-initiation of force as an absolute is the basis of political liberty, not anarchy. Don’t be confusing the two.” — Seerak

“I believe I read the same comment to which you are responding but I don’t see the confusion. I can’t say it any better so I’ll quote Stephan Kinsella. “To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression”. Am I missing something?”

What Seerak does is the common slur of conflating anarchy with chaos. To a statist, the two terms are interchangeable — actually, it’s worse than that. Given the choice, a statist will ALWAYS use the word “anarchy” as a substitute for “chaos.” The two words are actuall antonyms.

First rule of political subjugation is to control the language.

“Because fundamentally and categorically, I repudiate the use of force and violence to impose my beliefs, political philosophy, or policy preferences on other people.” — Radley Balko

“Welcome to anarchism, Radley. It’s about goddamn time.” — Cynical in CA

“Non-initiation of force as an absolute is the basis of political liberty, not anarchy. Don’t be confusing the two.”

Non-initiation of force IS anarchy. If there is an “arch,” there is force. Get it?

“Anarchism is to politics what a vacuum is to fluid dynamics.”

Anarchism is total political equality at the individual level, nothing more, nothing less.