[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference back40::soapbox

Title:Soapbox. Just Soapbox.
Notice:No more new notes
Moderator:WAHOO::LEVESQUEONS
Created:Thu Nov 17 1994
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:862
Total number of notes:339684

393.0. "OKC bombing" by SX4GTO::WANNOOR () Wed Apr 19 1995 22:20

    
    A quite a few casualties (19, rising by the minute, maybe 80?), 
    I understand, including many children (6 confirmed) who were 
    in the daycare center there?
    
    Per Janet Reno, building housed 550, but only 250 accounted for
    at 3:00 pm PST. She said in cases where there is an attack on
    FED building where death occurs, death penalty is avail and
    probably will be exercised.
     
    Suspects?
    - WACO anniversary? ATF is/was in the bombed building.
    
    - World Trade center, phase II?
    
    - VERY Disgruntled taxpayers?!
    	
    Psych warfare? Y'know - hit the 'safe' heartland, mum and apple pie
    kind of thing.
    
    Geeze, this is madness!!
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
393.1COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed Apr 19 1995 23:3711
The bombing is being treated as a Middle Eastern incident.

Oklahoma City is said to be the largest center of radical Islamic groups
outside the Middle East.  Large convention of Hamas and and other groups
was held in okcity last summer.

These are groups which oppose American support for Israel and will kill
as many Americans as possible to try to get Israel to leave Palestine.
We will be seeing many more incidents like this and worse.

/john
393.2COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 03:06149
Hearst Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- Counter-terrorism experts suspect Islamic fundamentalists
were behind the devastating car bombing of the Oklahoma City federal
building on Wednesday.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an all-points bulletin for three
suspects seen fleeing the area in a rented brown pickup truck, including
two described as appearing to be of Middle Eastern origin.

The specialists, including the former head of counter-terrorism at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, said the bombing resembled four previous
Muslim fundamentalist attacks against American citizens that were designed
to maximize the number of casualties:

-- The World Trade Center bombing in the heart of New York City's financial
district in 1993 that killed six and wounded more than 1,000;

-- The mid-air destruction of Pan Am 103 over Scotland in 1988 that killed
259 passengers and 11 people on the ground;

-- The truck-bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April, 1983 that
killed 46 including 16 Americans and injured more than 100.

-- The truck-bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in October,
1983 that killed 241 Marines.

ABC News reported that the FBI had asked the Pentagon to assign 10
Arabic-speaking investigators to help pursue leads in the case.

President Clinton declared that the United States "will not tolerate, and I
will not allow, the people of this country to be intimidated by evil
cowards."

Clinton vowed "the strongest response" to the attack, adding: The killers
will be "treated like killers" with justice that is "swift, certain and
severe."

Attorney General Janet Reno said the U.S. government would seek the death
penalty against the unnamed plotters.

John Magaw, the former U.S. Secret Service official now heading the federal
Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said the Oklahoma City device weighed
up to 1,200 pounds -- about the size of the truck-bomb planted by Muslim
fanatics beneath the World Trade Center in the heart of Manhattan's
financial district in 1993.

"I think any time you have this kind of damage, this kind of explosion, you
have to look (at terrorism) first," Magaw said.

Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who headed the ATF in the Reagan
administration, declared: "Obviously, no amateur did this," adding: "Right
now there are no suspects -- everybody is a suspect."

Robert Heibel, the former FBI deputy director of counter-terrorism who now
directs the research intelligence program at Mercyhurst College in Erie,
Pa., said he suspected Islamic terrorists.

"My feeling is if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a
duck, it's probably a duck," Heibel said. "Car bombings are the tool of
Islamic fundamentalists."

Dr. Jerrold M. Post, a terrorism expert at George Washington University who
formerly produced psychological profiles of foreign leaders for the Central
Intelligence Agency, agreed that the bombing reflected the tactics and
technology of Muslim extremists.

"Terrorism is designed to have an audience," Post said. "In most major
terrorist incidents, responsibility is eventually claimed as a way of
demonstrating the power and credibility of the cause."

Skip Brandon, a retired FBI counter-terrorism specialist, said federal
investigators will comb the bombing site for evidence of possible suspects
as they successfully did following the World Trade Center bombing.

"The crime scene will talk to you if you let it," Brandon said. "But it has
to be preserved."

The attack came amid the largest criminal trial of alleged foreign-based
terrorists in American history. Federal authorities are prosecuting a band
of Muslim extremists in New York City for allegedly carrying out the
truck-bombing of the twin-towers of the World Trade Center complex on Feb.
26, 1993 that killed six and injured more than 1,000.

Twelve followers of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an exiled blind Egyptian
cleric, are still on trial. Four others have already been convicted and
sentenced to 240 years each in prison.

Bill Licatovich, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshal's Service in Washington,
said security has been heightened at the New York courthouse in recent
weeks.

"They took extra precautions for that," he said, referring to the trial.

Heibel, the former FBI official, said he has "been waiting for the other
shoe to drop," adding: "We've got their Imam, we've got their people in
prison. We always suspected they would hit any where any time. Now the game
gets serious."

Both Post and Heibel ruled out the possibility that embittered followers of
the Branch Davidian movement carried out the attack in retaliation for the
April 19, 1994, raid on their compound outside Waco, Texas, in which dozens
were killed.

The Branch Davidian sect "doesn't have a violent method of operation," Post
said. "They are a religious cult that believes in the coming of the
millennium. Violence occurred because of their standoff with society."

Peter Smerick, a former FBI agent who wrote psychological profiles of David
Koresh during the 51-day standoff in Waco, said he would be "very, very
surprised" if supporters of the Branch Davidians were involved in the
Oklahoma City explosion.

"I did not come across with the feeling that we were dealing with people
who were violence prone," Smerick said. "While they may have considered the
fact that some day the government was going to attack them, they were not
going out and attacking anybody else."

Heibel said that ultra right-wing neo-Nazi organizations have carried out
terrorist attacks in the Southwest over the past decade but none of the
organizations demonstrated the capability to carry out a car bombing.

"These groups have basically carried out armed robberies, murders, little
bombings against the Internal Revenue Service but nothing like this,"
Heibel said.

White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said the Central Intelligence
Agency, the eavesdropping National Security Agency and the FBI's
counter-terrorism branch were "carefully scrubbing every available piece of
information, digging as deeply as we can, to see if there's anything that
might provide a helpful lead."

Brandon, the retired FBI expert, said investigators will review material
gathered by intelligence agencies to check for suspicious movements of
equipment and personnel in recent weeks. Potentially incriminating
communications picked up by the NSA also will be reviewed to spot anything
pertaining to the Oklahoma City attack.

"You go back and look at everything that's available and ask other
intelligence services to do the same," Brandon said. "You look at both
foreign or domestic."

Experts said the technology to produce such a devastating explosive device
is easily available. For example, a book available in may bookstores has
instructions for manufacturing explosive devices from household products,
fertilizer and other materials on sale at hardware stores or supermarkets.

Diagrams are included showing how to wire a variety of detonators including
chemical, electric and non-electric detonators.
393.3COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 03:1290
Reuters

NEW YORK - For the second time in two years, assailants using a rented
truck to transport a massive bomb have killed innocent people, injured
thousands and thrown an American city into panic.

And they have for the second time shown just how vulnerable the United
States, with its traditions of an open society and freedom even to buy a
gun, can be for anyone committed to an act of violence.

The destruction of the Albert Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
sends the same chilling message that the bombers of New York City's World
Trade Centre did in 1993 -- no one is safe anywhere.

"A terrorist gains by creating a climate of fear -- they want us to think
that they can get us anytime, anywhere," said Steven Emerson, a leading
expert on Islamic extremists. And they can, he said.

That bloody message explodes in a city where no one expects such a thing to
happen.

One might anticipate an act of terrorism in New York, America's media
capital, especially after the Trade Centre blast and a plot to blow up the
United Nations and the city's bridges and tunnels and its federal office
building.

But Oklahoma City, a friendly, easy-going city of half-a-million in the
heart of Middle America, is supposed to be more synonymous with the musical
"Oklahoma" than with terror, and terrorism experts say that could be the
reason for the explosion that destroyed the Murrah building, leaving it one
vast hole nine floors long.

"Whoever did it, picked an easy target, certainly easier than the World
Trade Centre is today. Terrorists always pick targets where they are going
to succeed," said Ira Lipman, presidents Guardsmark Inc., one of the
country's largest security firms.

Americans, almost inured to acts ot violence, seemed stunned by the
explosion. President Clinton marched out of a news briefing, refusing to
take question as if he could not control his anger.

No group has as yet come forward and the FBI refuses to confirm reports
that it is hunting two Middle Eastern men. Islamic militants were convicted
of the Trade Centre bombing and are on trial now for the bombing spree
plot.

Attorney General Janet Reno said it was too early to speculate and many
terrorism experts agreed with her.

"It could be a contractor who has access to explosives, a farmer who has
access to fertiliser, it could be a wacko, it could be a professional
trying to cover his tracks by using a simple device," expert Jack Kingston
told CNN.

"There are also about 10,000 pounds of explosives that are stolen and
recovered every year and 10,000 detonators so these devices are available.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to create this kind of bomb. You do
have to be very, very careful and very, very determined."

Emerson, in an interview with Reuters, agreed to a point. "There is no
smoking gun. But the modus operandi and circumstantial evidence leads in
the direction of Islamic terrorism."

He said Oklahoma City has been for the past decade a centre for radical
Islamic activity in the United States, a place where radicals established
homes and networks. It has also been the site of various Islamic
conventions including one in 1992 where 6,000 people cheered calls for
killing Jews and infidels, Emerson said.

But Wednesday was also the second anniversary of the storming of Branch
Davidian headquarters in nearby Waco, Texas, and some experts wondered if
the blast was connected to the cult that died in flames.

"As in the World Trade Centre case, an informant and a slip-up are needed
to solve this," Emerson said.

The big break in that case came when officials discovered the man who had
rented the truck that carried the 1,200-pound bomb to the garage of New
York's tallest building.

They did that because the man signed his own name to the rental form and
gave his right address. Then the FBI came up with an informant.

Now many experts are wondering if the Oklahoma blast was connected to the
capture two months ago of the alleged mastermind of the Trade Centre
bombing, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, in Pakistan after a $2 million reward had been
promised.

His capture led to vows of revenge. Was Oklahoma, where "the grass grows as
high as an elephant's eye," the place for that retribution?
393.4COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 03:1915
TIME magazine:

EXCLUSIVE: AN ISLAMIC CONNECTION? The bombing has some of the hallmarks of
Islamic terrorists, intelligence experts tell TIME correspondent Edward
Barnes. They discounted American radical groups for several reasons. Among
them: few, if any, U.S. groups have the skills used in this bombing, and
the car bomb is a signature weapon of several Islamic groups, but no known
American ones. In addition, perhaps coincidentally, there was a major
national conference of a large Muslim group in Oklahoma City last weekend.
The group, the Islamic Society of North America, is normally considered
moderate, but Barnes says it has promoted a number of radicals to
leadership roles in recent months. Experts interviewed by TIME today also
said that Oklahoma City was not necessarily a surprising spot for a
terrorist attack, since it has a huge Middle Eastern population drawn by
the area's oil fields.
393.5POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 03:241
    This is not a good form of evangelism.
393.6Car Bombs keep goingSHIPS::BUCZMA_GThu Apr 20 1995 11:0016
    re last few..
    
    
    car Bombs are not exclusively used by islamic fundamentalists, other
    countries that have been subjected top this terror for years include
    
    	Great Britain (IRA TERRORISTS)
    	Spain (Basque TERRORISTS)
    	Turkey (Kurdist TERRORISTS)
    	India (various terrorist groups)
    	Italy (Mafia terrorists)
    	Columbia (Drug syndicate Terrorists)
    
    	etc etc etc etc etc
    
    	
393.7Bad news all overFNYCNV::SPA_CONV_REOThu Apr 20 1995 11:1533
    As usual the Terrorists strike out at innocent people to make their
    pathetic points, they are frustrated that no-one listens to their
    points of view, so they kill as many as they can to make a point.
    
    I think it is a little immature however of the president and all the
    other
    	White house officials say things like "we are going bring them to
    	justice quickly etc, and we'll use the death penalty blah blah"
    
    If they begin making promises like that they put immense pressure on
    themselves to come up with a suspect............
    
    Also...
    
    Just think how Americans might feel if these terrorists went to Europe
    and they were seen to be fighting for justice and liberty and the right
    to choose there own destiny, and treated as heroes. Perhaps even
    invited
    	to see European heads of state. Then maybe we can realise how the 
    Brits might have felt at seeing the IRA treated in the same way on
    it's visits to America.
    
    Just to repeat I think the whole business is disgraceful and the
    sooner we co-operae internationally the better.
    
    
    I'm sorry to hear it happenng in America, but I can't help so many
    people in the US take it so personally, that someone dared to attack
    Americans as if they were some special race of people who everyone
    should cower in front of, that Americans are not going to be
    intimidated in this way.....
    
    	Michel
393.8BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu Apr 20 1995 11:4013
RE: 393.6 by SHIPS::BUCZMA_G

> car Bombs are not exclusively used by islamic fundamentalists, other
> countries that have been subjected top this terror for years include

>        Great Britain (IRA TERRORISTS)

If it turns out to be a homegrown terror group rather than some import, 
how long is it before the Prime Minister invites the leader(s) of said
group over for high tea?


Phil 
393.9GAVEL::JANDROWThu Apr 20 1995 12:167
    
    
    i do believe i heard this morning that they have located the brown
    truck in which the suspects reportedly fled.  a manhunt still continues
    for the men, who are (again, reportedly) of middle eastern decent.
    
    
393.10What are we talking about?SHIPS::BUCZMA_GThu Apr 20 1995 12:245
    re .8
    
    I'm sorry I don't understand the question!
    
    cheers
393.11BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu Apr 20 1995 12:3010
RE: 393.10 by SHIPS::BUCZMA_G

> I'm sorry I don't understand the question!

A lot of people over in England were very unhappy about the IRA leader (can't
remember his name) coming to the US and meeting with Clinton about a year
ago.


Phil
393.12POBOX::BATTISLand shark,pool sharkThu Apr 20 1995 12:322
    
    .7  I believe you meant premature not immature.
393.13WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Apr 20 1995 12:3514
    .10 was sarcastically referring to the diplomatic idiotic response
        of making kissy-face with some country or group that has just
        done something irresponsibly violent, no?
    
        as to the white house's response, it was perfectly appropriate.
        just because they would prosecute to the stated intent doesn't
        mean they'd be 100% successful.
    
        my guess is if BC had not took that firm stand and skirted the
        w/h's intent he would've been clobbered for that to by the usual
        presidential piranha feeding frenzy. in fact, i'm surprised
        no one yelling conspiracy here as an aid to his campaign! 
    
        Chip
393.14WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceThu Apr 20 1995 12:483
    >of middle eastern decent.
    
    descent
393.15GAVEL::JANDROWThu Apr 20 1995 12:496
    
    
    thank you...i thought that was wrong, but can't remember where i left
    my dictionary...
    
    
393.16POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 12:501
    Don't need one when there are so many people casting spells...
393.17MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu Apr 20 1995 13:3732
re:                   <<< Note 393.7 by FNYCNV::SPA_CONV_REO >>>

>    If they begin making promises like that they put immense pressure on
>    themselves to come up with a suspect............

I share some of the concern here. Not insofar as the matter of putting
pressure on themselves, but with respect to the high liklihood of need
to come up with ANY suspect, regardless of whether or not it's the
right one. In situations such as this which raise the ire of the entire
nation, the atmosphere is set for enforcement officials to "shoot first
and ask questions later", as it were. The masses tend  to become less
critical in their scrutiny of the law in deciding whether the right
party has been apprehended or whether we've just settled for some random
scapegoat. Obviously, I'd like to see the guilty parties strung up by
their genitalia, but the concern remains that we as a nation may tend to
be less than vigilant in assuring that we have the right guilty party
in these types of circumstances. It's not at all dissimilar to the
fabricated personifications of "the enemy" in Orwell's 1984.

>    I'm sorry to hear it happenng in America, but I can't help so many
>    people in the US take it so personally, that someone dared to attack
>    Americans as if they were some special race of people who everyone
>    should cower in front of, that Americans are not going to be
>    intimidated in this way.....

This I fail to understand at all. I don't know who you are, by virtue of
the clever user name, or where you are, as I didn't bother to try and
locate your node, but do you somehow feel that Americans react to these
terrorist activities in an unreasonable fashion? How the hell do you
react to them in your country? Are we perhaps supposed to calmly accept
it? Do we stand back and rationalize that we "deserved" it? I think
not.
393.18CSOA1::LEECHThu Apr 20 1995 13:4710
    What if it is not imported terrorism nor fringe American terrorism from
    disgruntled <insert disgruntlement of choice>?
    
    I'll hold off on my paranoid conspiracy theory until I see what form of
    repercussions this bombing causes.  If nothing I look for comes out of
    it, my money will be on the middle east (Islamic fundamentalists), as
    current theory has it.
    
    
    -steve
393.19Welcome to the New World order.....DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 14:0122
    Leech,
    
    Every expert without exception concurred with what has been 
    written, "this is not a homegrown bomb".  True, it wouldn't take
    a rocket scientist to build one (it's been said that the "recipe"
    has been on the Internet for some time).
    
    
    .6  Won't argue about your list, but find it unlikely that any
    	of those groups did the deed.  The Islamic groups seem logical
    	because of the WTC trial and the recent arrest of another of
    	their leaders.
    
    I think the White House is being overly optimistic about capture at
    this point; it's hardly likely that the perps will be dumb enough
    to back for their deposit on this truck!!
    
    Also, if the terrorist DO NOT try to leave the country, but instead
    blend back into the Arabic community, it could be almost impossible
    to locate them unless someone talks or someone decides he wants to
    be a martyr.
    
393.20GENRAL::WADEAh'm Yo Huckleberry...Thu Apr 20 1995 15:3720
re. .7
        
>    I'm sorry to hear it happenng in America, but I can't help so many
>    people in the US take it so personally, that someone dared to attack
>    Americans as if they were some special race of people who everyone
>    should cower in front of, that Americans are not going to be
>    intimidated in this way.....
    

	You're damn right alot of us take it personally.  Is that
	too "low brow" of a concept for you?  

	Please, kick us some more while we're down.

	Damn!  We haven't even buried the innocent babies who were killed
	and you're in here beating your IRA vs. Brits drum.  Stick it.

Most Disrespectfully,

Clay
393.21WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Apr 20 1995 15:403
    what Clay said...
    
    Chip
393.22OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Thu Apr 20 1995 15:468
    Re: .7
    
    >but I can't help so many people in the US take it so personally, that 
    >someone dared to attack Americans as if they were some special race
    
    We are special.  Unlike most other countries, we have not had an
    opportunity to accustom ourselves to terrorist attacks.  We're the last
    virgins, so to speak.
393.23MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Thu Apr 20 1995 16:026
    Lay you 10 to 1 odds we haven't learned our lesson yet...and that this
    sort of thing will happen again.
    
    Remember, the criminal is not at fault.  He/she is a victim!
    
    -Jack
393.24NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Apr 20 1995 16:031
Jack, how do you propose we prevent bombings by fanatics?
393.25Immune? No-Just lucky up to now.SWAM1::MERCADO_ELThu Apr 20 1995 16:0417
    I don't think any American thinks that our country immune to this sort
    of attack. My personal opinion is that we have been extremely lucky
    up to this point.  We live in a country where illegal aliens flow
    into the country with ease.  Our country is so large that it would
    be an enormous feat to have any semblance of control over our borders.
    It is apparently very easy for people of all countries to enter our
    country as "students".  
    
    There are so many groups on the international scene that see America
    as the "great Satan" and are willing to martyr themselves for the
    cause, it's amazing we haven't seen more terrorism here.
    
    Sometimes I think that we would have been better off by keeping some
    of the heightened security at airports etc. that we had during the
    Gulf War.  
    
    -Elizabeth
393.26SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu Apr 20 1995 16:1213
    
    RE: .24
    
    >Jack, how do you propose we prevent bombings by fanatics?
    
    Gerald,
    
     I think the Israelis are the best at this... We may not be able to
    prevent such bombings, but I believe we can keep them at a minimum by
    applying a dear cost to the perps and their suppliers...
    
      With our technology, "surgery" is very precise....
    
393.27MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Thu Apr 20 1995 16:2010
    Well, now that you mention it, Israel was the example I intended to
    use.
    
    Fear and pain are international languages.  It works for Israel for the
    most part.  What we need to do is hold people accountable for their
    actions...which apparently we haven't done for a while.
    
    By the way, the arsonist of Waco isn't a whole lot better.
    
    -Jack
393.29COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 16:3298
Focus on Mideast as bombing suspects sought

Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- As they struggled with the shock of Wednesday's massive
bombing in Oklahoma City, government specialists in terrorism were coming
to a grim realization: the attack had crossed a line never before crossed
in America.

"This is the big one," said one security specialist.

"It has to be a turning point, a water shed," said Stanley Bedlington, a
retired senior analyst at the CIA's counter-terrorist center.

With investigators focusing on who was behind the bombing, attention
quickly turned to a Middle East connection.

A law enforcement source said there were several facts that suggested such
a link, such as the size and sophistication of the bomb as well as
information that there are several militant Middle Eastern groups based in
Oklahoma. One of the groups, the source said, is called the Muslim
Community of Al-Jihad, which lists a post office box in Granite, Okla.

"It is unfair to suspect all Muslims, but there is a militant fringe
there," he said.

One image seems to have triggered the same conclusion among
counter-terrorism officers across Washington -- a TV shot of the building,
one whole side sheered away.

A couple of hours after the explosion, an intelligence officer was talking
on the phone to a journalist. "At this point we don't have any idea who did
it," he was saying. As he spoke, he noticed TV footage of the building.
"Whoops," he said. "Looks like Beirut."

The bombing of the US embassy in Beirut on April 18, 1983, was the work of
a suicide car bomber and killed 63 people, 17 of them Americans. Similar
methods were used in the bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in July
1994, where 95 people died. The radical Islamic Hizbollah group is believed
to have been responsible for both those bombings.

John Magaw, director of the Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said that
the Oklahoma City bomb weighed between 1,000 and 1,200 pounds -- similar in
size to the device used in the Feb. 26, 1993, attack on World Trade Center
in New York. Six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured in that
bombing.

Pointing to similarities between the World Trade Center attack and Oklahoma
City, one federal official said, "To develop a bomb of that size and to
carry out a terrorist strike of this magnitude suggests a high level of
planning and sophistication. It would require a sustained commitment."

Elie Krakowski, a Boston University professor of international affairs and
a former consultant to the Pentagon on terrorism, warned that without
aggressive countermeasures the US could see more such attacks.

"The signature looks Middle Eastern," noted Sherman Teichman, an expert on
terrorism at Tufts University. "But we have to be very careful not to be
too quick to judge. It is too easy to demonize the region and the religion
of Islam."

By the middle of the afternoon Wednesday, the FBI, CIA, National Security
Agency and an array of other intelligence and security organizations had
convened in Washington for an urgent teleconference to pull together what
they knew.

FBI officials were working on the assumption that the explosion was
produced by a car bomb. Others participants at the meeting brainstormed
what had happened this day in history, in search of possible hints of the
identity of the perpetrators. It was the second anniversary of the
devastating attack on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Branch
Davidian members Wednesday firmly denied any connection.

The CIA and FBI agreed that the modus operandi looked very much like the
1983 Beirut bombing. Eight individuals had phoned to claim responsibility,
officials at the meeting were told. All but one or two were from groups
that appeared to be Middle Eastern. One other came from an extremist
"militia" that seemed to be some sort of survivalist group.

Five members of New York's joint terrorism task-force, which includes FBI
agents and police investigators, were on their way to Oklahoma City to
assist in the investigation.

The tragedy and the high loss of life is likely to trigger a whole new
approach to security in public buildings, officials predicted -- "a
modified siege mentality," said one -- along with demands from politicians
for more aggressive actions against groups in the Middle East and elsewhere
thought to be behind terrorist attacks.

From a terrorist's point of view, former CIA official Bedlington noted, the
Oklahoma City bomb was perfectly placed. The timing and location -- 9 a.m.
local time, right in front of the main entrance -- were apparently chosen
for maximum human destruction.

Terror bombers look for a place where security is lax, Bedlington said.
They want a target with symbolic significance -- like a government building
-- and they need a location where they have a support cell, sympathizers
who can provide logistical assistance and concealment.
393.31CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 16:4210


 There are plenty of other countries from whom we could withdraw support
 before Israel, IMO.




 Jim
393.32CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikThu Apr 20 1995 16:506
    re .30
    
    Out of curiosity what percentage of the budget is spent as foreign aid
    for Israel IYO?
    
    meg
393.33How long?TLE::PERAROThu Apr 20 1995 17:015
    
    How long did it take to find the suspects for the New York bombing?
    
    MEP
    
393.34CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 17:079


 Not too long..week or so?  Returning for the rental deposit on the van
 helped considerably.



 Jim
393.35How much freedom would you sacrifice for security?DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 17:1041
    Forget cutting off Israel; they are the only people that have the
    intestinal fortitude to deal with terrorists.
    
    Elizabeth brought out a good point about easy access to our country
    by students.  A talk show this AM was discussing "a free and open
    society".  People were calling in saying we have to do something,
    but there were many others who said they don't want the government
    interfering in their lives; top level security would demand that we
    sacrifice a lot of our freedom of movement.  I can think of a lot
    of people in this conference that would go ballistic if Uncle Sam
    intruded more than he does now.
    
    Israel deals with terrorism best but even they are not successful
    100% of the time, they can't be when people are willing to go on
    suicide missions to attain their goals.
    
    I tried to think of what we could do, but most of it really isn't
    practical:
    
    	Prevent ALL entrance to US by all Arab citizens?
    	Try to use existing records (if they exist) to round up all
    	 	Arab citizens already here?  What about those who may
    		have become US citizens?
    
    Chels is right; we've been virgins up to now.  We sat and watched
    it happen in London, Beruit, (pick a spot in the middle East).
    
    One former Navy Seal intelligence officer said we've slowly been
    dismantling the intelligence units of many agencies (we were told
    they had been bad boys and this was goodness).  The signs have been
    all around us and we no longer have any organization with the tools
    and skills to accurately read what's been happening under our noses.
    
    IMO, some of you were a little harsh on the guy from across the pond.
    Seems a little arrogant to claim that Americans are any more special
    that other folks who have been dealing (and sacrificing) because this
    has been in their backyards for some time.
    
    We've been damn lucky, but our luck has just run out.
    
                                                         
393.36......SWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 17:1117
    re.7
    
    We take it personally, because we are a united country, as in 
    United States of America. You see the the same people from state
    to state. The problem with Europe is 500 miles in another 
    country separated by culture,language etc. It's easy to let
    things like this happen.Because it's the other country's
    problem.
    
    And most of us are raised to care about our fellow man.
    
    This act though crosses borders. It's a monsterous act. 
    
    Dave
    
    
    
393.37Remember bombing Libya?TLE::PERAROThu Apr 20 1995 17:1310
    
    Somehow I don't think that will be happening this time, although the
    rental agencies would be a good place to start to get descriptions.
    
    The news last night was sickening.  These militant groups will never
    learn that they will not get people to listen by these types of
    actions. Funny, but after the attempted terriost acts of Libya and 
    then the US going over and bombing shortly after, they quieted down....
    
    
393.38...difficult answers.NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 17:168
    
    
        As good as the Israelis are in counter-terrorism,...they
        can't stop it either. They close their borders,..etc., and
        are still hit. It's like,..I hit you and you hit me,..I bomb
        you and you bomb me,...it's insane.
    
        Ed
393.39MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Thu Apr 20 1995 17:196
    It is atroocious that it took 2 years to try the twin towers bombers.  
    How about a separate justice system for foreign terrorists caught?
    
    Kind of like military code being different?!
    
    -Jack
393.40DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 17:216
    Networks just broke in; per BBC and Reuters, a suspect has been
    detained at Heathrow.  Suspect had flown out of Chicago on US
    passport; apparently the Brits do a thorough screening, this
    guy didn't pass muster and they detained him.
    
    
393.41SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Apr 20 1995 17:226
    One is chagrined to report that he agrees with the Brits who are now
    laughing at Clinton's determination to find and punish these murderers
    as they recall the White House welcome extended to Gerry Adams last
    month.  
    
    DougO
393.42loose warheadsSWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 17:2213
    
    After this, the threat of some nuclear incident becomes more real.
    I pray that it will never happen, but whoever is capable of doing
    this type of thing. Would have no hesitation in letting a nuclear
    device go off in one of our cities or towns.
    
    
    
    
    Dave
    
    
    
393.43ICS::VERMAThu Apr 20 1995 17:2310
    
    .32 re Israel aid.
    
    it is in the range of 5 to 6 billion dollars out of a budget of
    1.4 trillion dollars. small % of budget. 
     
    btw, Egypt gets about 4 to 5 billion.
    
    folks don't expect too much in the way of retaliation from the war
    hero in the white house. 
393.44if I recallSWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 17:287
    
    re. -43
    
    didn't Clinton do something when Bush was Threatened awhile ago?
    
    Dave
    
393.46....just round em' up...huh.NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 17:3415
       
    
    
        .35
    
        "Round up all Arabs",.....is that like "round up all Japanese"??
    
         Get Real!! If this does have a so called mideast connection,...
         ....the mideast is a big place. What if the bombing has a
         "Pakistan connection",...do you want to "round up" all Pakistanis?
    
         Let's get our facts straight first and kick the RIGHT asses!
    
    
         Ed
393.47SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu Apr 20 1995 17:465
    
    
    I  believe kicking some asses is beyond this spineless
    administration...
    
393.48SWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 17:495
    
    Clinton may do something...he wants another 4 years.
    
    Dave
    
393.49COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 17:508
	Well, at about 3:00 we may find out more, from Janet Reno's
	press conference.

	By then the suspect arrested at Heathrow now being flown back
	may be identified.

/john
393.50MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 17:516
    Andy:
    
    ... I disagree. Janet will test bomb a few religious sects in
        rural America, That'll show 'em!
    
    -b
393.51COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 17:5314
The official death toll is the number of people actually removed from the
site and taken to the morgue.

The workers have stated that their first priority is to find anyone who
may be alive, and that they are crawling over dead bodies to try to get
to the living.  Bodies still in the building, even if they have been
seen, don't count yet.

The number missing is down now, though.  There were 550 employees, and an
estimated 250 visitors in the building when the bomb went off.  Some 700
are now accounted for (dead in morgue, injured in hospitals, and others),
so the final toll may be closer to 100 than to 300.

/john
393.52...who kmows?NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 18:0816
    
    
    
         I think retaliation depends on where the "trail" ends. If it
         ends in Tripoli,...or Baghdad,...then a military option is
         possible. However,...if it ends in Tehran,...well,....that's
         another story. The Israelis won't even hit Tehran! A lot of
         the training,...supplies and money that support sects like
         Hamas are reported to originate in Iran.
    
         Of course one never knows,...but no president to date has done
         anything to Iran,.....militarily. Let's face it with $14 billion
         a year in oil revenues,....in conjunction with a "candy ass"
         European community that has all kinds of economic ties with
         Tehran,.....chances are,..are "allies" won't support a military
         solution.
393.53CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 18:1611


 Of course Baghdad has 2 of our citizens in their jails.






Jim
393.54DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 18:1823
    Bullock, don't go foaming at the mouth, I said I knew it WASN'T
    practical to round up everyone of Arabic origin!!!!  Believe it
    or not, there ARE people already suggesting this as a viable
    option.  I wouldn't agree to this anymore than I agree with what
    we did to Japanese-Americans during WWII!!
    
    This is the dilemma of a free society.  It would be near impossible
    to get Americans to go along with the concept of border-like check-
    points or giving authorities the right to pull someone over on the read be-
    cause they didn't like their looks or they looked suspicious.
    
    I agree with the person who mentioned nuclear devices being planted.
    This could be just the tip of the iceberg.  Even if we catch all immed-
    iately involved with this incident and promptly dispatch them to
    Hades, there are probably plenty of other waiting to step into their
    shoes.
    
    We could be in for a hard row to hoe if this continues around the
    country.
    
    
    
    
393.55COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 18:2517
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:58:34 -0400 (EDT)

     (London) -- Britain says a possible suspect in the Oklahoma
bombing is being flown back to the United States.
     The British Home Office says the man carried an American
passport when he arrived in London on a flight from Chicago.
     C-N-N quotes Home Office sources as saying the man is a
Jordanian-American who was headed to Rome.
     He's now being flown home, but British officials won't give
other details.
     In Washington, a Justice Department official says, "We are
bringing back to the United States from London someone we have
reason to believe may be a witness."
     The spokesman says the man is not under arrest.

     (Copyright 1995 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

393.56NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 18:2510
    
    
        .54
    
         Right,...right,...right,...what you said about "rounding them 
         up" isn't practical,...it dosen't even make sense! I'm surprised
         you even thought about it.
    
    
         Ed
393.57MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 18:2629
    
    Tough nuts for the allies. America should take the following
    steps in dealing with this:
    
    1. Tell the UN to <r.o.> off
    
    2. Catch and try the individuals. Give the CIA explicit license
       to break the laws of other nations, if necessary, to detain
       and arrest the individuals.
    
    3. When the EC whines, tell them to see figure one.
    
    4. Apply the death penalty.
    
    5. Use the air base in Iran to launch a strike against
       Tehran. Seven days (to pick a nice Bibical number)
       of sustained B52 carpet bombing.
    
    6. Any attempt by _any_ nation to intefere militarily will
       be answered with a _nuclear_ response.
    
    7. When the bombers have flattened Tehran, on to Damascus,
       and finally Bagdad. Seven days of burning hell for each
       place.
    
    Extreme? You bet your ass. However, if I were president,
    this is exactly what I would order (so be glad I'm not).
    
    -b
393.58CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 18:3010


 Can't say I disagree with Mr. Markey, though I'd stop short of the nookuler
 option.




Jim
393.59MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 18:327
    
    Jim,
    
    I would only use nukes as a threatened response to any nation
    that dared attempt to interfere (read: Russia, China, etc.)
    
    -b
393.60SHRCTR::DAVISThu Apr 20 1995 18:363
    <<< Note 393.57 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>

Best stick with the day job, Brian.;>
393.61MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 18:395
    
    Oh don't worry Tom, unlike the rest of the Republican party
    (or so it seems), I _won't_ be running for President in '96! :-) :-)
    
    -b
393.62POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 18:407
    Um, Brian, that's stooping to their level.

    Pinpoint the terrorist stronghold and bomb it, not the entire Arab and
    Islamic world.

    Intelligence sources should be picking out targets for surgical type air
    strikes.
393.63MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu Apr 20 1995 18:426
(Brian,
   I'd like to talk to you about capital punishment and our penal system.
   I think we can find some common ground.)

:^)

393.64MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu Apr 20 1995 18:4510
.37>    The news last night was sickening.  These militant groups will never
.37>    learn that they will not get people to listen by these types of
.37>    actions.

I often wonder if they even have the slightest desire to have anyone
"listen" to them. I think they're much too consumed with their own
"statements" to stop to think about anything else. Rarely are these
things done with and explicit threat or message asscoiated with them.


393.65MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 18:4617
    Glenn,

    By "terrorist stronghold" you imply a military target. Good
    luck. We've been searching for such a target for years.

    Intelligence sources know of some potential targets, but
    this does not target the ideology.

    I said nothing about my plan being a "reasonable one" by
    US standards. Stooping to their level, as you put it, is
    exactly what is called for. But, we're a much more powerful
    nation, and we have the ability to lay a serious hurting
    on these people. And, I betcha there would be public support
    for such a response.

    -b
393.66DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 18:4619
    Should be interesting if any of the suspects can be linked directly
    to Iraq.  Wasn't it just 2/3 weeks ago when the UN prevailed upon
    us to relax the imbargo because innocent Iraqi citizens were
    suffering?
    
    A follow-up report said the man being flown back from Heathrow
    is not considered a direct suspect.  He is, however, believed to
    have information about who actually planted/built the bomb.
    
    Follow-up also said that the three men are thought still to be
    in the US.  After hearing of the bombing a highway patrolman
    remembered giving directions to 3 men who stopped and asked for
    directions 50-75 miles outside of OC.  Patrolman's description matches
    the description given by a motel employee in OC.  Report said
    brown truck registration does not match license plates.  I believe
    the report said a 4th man has been picked up back in OC (my phone
    rang, didn't catch it all).
    
    
393.68POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 19:031
    What do the Israelis do? They don't carpet bomb Lebanon.
393.69MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 19:083
    
    The Isrealis don't have the resources to... we do.
    
393.70Israel knows what to doICS::VERMAThu Apr 20 1995 19:103
    
    just the same, the Israelis get the job done and then some.
    
393.71POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 19:174
    Carpet bombing is too indiscriminate.

    The US has the resources to target specific installations. They should
    hit those hard, much like they dealt with Libya in 1986.
393.72SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu Apr 20 1995 19:207
    
    
    The Israeli intelligence sources are incredible...
    
    And besides.. they always level the playing field... something their
    enemies understand.. and something we don't seem to..
    
393.73GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingThu Apr 20 1995 19:227
    
    While I have alway respected Isreal, my respect has been ratcheted up a
    few notches.  They called and offered their assistance yesterday.  They 
    are good at dealing with this type of thing and were willing to send
    some folks over.
    
    Mike
393.74MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 20 1995 19:235
    But Andy! Leveling the playing field is _exactly_ what I'm
    proposing! :-) :-)

    -b
393.75POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 19:255
    Usually, within an hour of an attack in Israel, Israeli fighters are
    sent to a target. 

    The US is capable of doing this, but has had no reason to do so until
    now.
393.76".....an escalating chain of events".NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 19:2610
    
    
        Israel hits their "enemy" and their "enemy" turns and hits
        Israel. For every base they hit in southern Lebanon, another
        takes it's place. For every assasin they eliminate,..another
        takes his place.
    
        They continue to attack the "client states",...not the country
        (server)....like Iran. But you know,...this can only go on for
        so long. 
393.77late breaking newsSWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 19:2814
    
    according to the radio news. they have arrested 3 men. All from the 
    middle east part of the world.they are being questioned.
    
    if they did it, they are to be handled over to the citizens of
    OC for hanging.....ooops slipped a bit on that thought.
    
    Also, there has been an explosion at a government building
    on Prince Edward Island. ONe killed, windows blown out..
    
    grabs your guns and dig in.
    
    Dave
    
393.78CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 19:2913

 re .73  


 I liked that as well.  Maybe Bill and Janet Reno can take a few days off
 and let the pros handle this.





Jim
393.79NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Apr 20 1995 19:292
PEI?  Isn't that a rather unlikely spot for terrorism?  Did they state a cause
for the explosion?
393.80SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu Apr 20 1995 19:307
    
    re: .76
    
    yes, but you notice that it's usually on the "frontier"? and not as
    often as one might expect in that part of the world where one wants to
    annihilate the other?
    
393.81real briefSWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 19:315
    
    it was just a short blurb.
    just said an explosion.
    
    
393.82NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 19:347
    
    
       Were the three suspects still in Oklahoma?
    
    
    
       Ed
393.83Is PEI worth bombing? :-}TIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSThu Apr 20 1995 19:355
Prince Edward Island? in Canada?

Prolly the spanish fishing-lobby terrorists :-}    
    

393.84CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 19:3614



    
    
>       Were the three suspects still in Oklahoma?
 

      Nope..they moved to South Pacific and were last seen heading to 
      see My Fair Lady with the Music Man.   
    
    
       
393.86NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Apr 20 1995 19:384
>      Nope..they moved to South Pacific and were last seen heading to 
>      see My Fair Lady with the Music Man.   
    
Jim, your corn is as high as an elephant's eye.
393.87NEMAIL::BULLOCKThu Apr 20 1995 19:396
    
    
      .84
    
    
       Oh really,......casual dress or formal?
393.89NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Apr 20 1995 19:422
Let's see...  Lots of spuds in PEI, lots of spuds in Idaho.
Musta been one of those Idaho survivalist groups.
393.91NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Apr 20 1995 19:462
The Canadians are very moral.  There are lots of veterans, but only one
has affairs.
393.92POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 19:551
    8^)
393.88POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyThu Apr 20 1995 19:561
    The Department of Veterans Affairs is headquarted in Charlottetown.
393.93DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 20:0110
    They showed all the employees of the different federal buildings
    who were evacuated due to sickos calling in bomb threats (or dummies
    wanting the rest of the day off).  How many people are in the
    Boston bldg; seemed like a large # employed there.
    
    Heard today that a lot of cities have started restricting parking
    around some federal buildings; would this be feasible for the
    long haul?
    
    
393.94COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 20:3419
3 Middle Eastern men said to be held by immigration authorities

Reuters

OKLAHOMA CITY - Three Middle Eastern men are being being held by the
Immigration and Naturalisation Service after suspicions about their car
were raised by Oklahoma police, it was reported on Thursday.

All three, whose names were read by CNN, are being held on immigration
charges, but CNN said so far they have not been classified as suspects in
the bombing of an Oklahoma City government office building on Wednesday.

Two of the men were said to have been taken into custody in Dallas, and the
other in Oklahoma City, CNN said.

The network reported that the men asked directions from an Oklahoma highway
patrolman who noted the licence plate number and later discovered that the
plate did not belong on the car but on a blue Cavalier vehicle rented from
Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. That car was found at a nearby motel.
393.95I Can Really Use Two Million "NOW".ICS::EWINGThu Apr 20 1995 20:439
    
    
    Two million dollars is being offered for the reward for two suspects
    involved in the bombing in Oklahoma City.
    
    
    I can really use those two million dollars right now. I hope I'm the one
    to spot those "two white males".
                          
393.96I'm technically declined :-(DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 20:549
    Did anyone indicate how the authorities are so sure the axel
    that they used to trace the vehicle back to the car rental place
    is the axel of the vehicle that contained the bomb?
    
    Would the axel have some residual chemicals on it more so than a
    van that might have been unfortunate enough to be right next to
    the van containing the bomb when it blew?
    
    
393.97CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 20:593

 axle
393.98.-2MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu Apr 20 1995 21:005
re: .-1

Good question. This is why I begin to worry about the "nab a suspect - any
suspect" mentality/atmosphere that brews after one of these incidents.

393.99CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 20 1995 21:0211


 I hope Oklahoma doesn't televise their court proceedings (whenever they
 catch the perps).





 Jim
393.100nah, just shoot emSWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 20 1995 21:186
    
    
    .....televise the execution!
    
    Dave
    
393.101Don't just carry a big stick, use it!LIOS01::BARNESThu Apr 20 1995 21:4138
    
    A couple of notes have discussed various levels of response depending
    on the who and where support of the bombers came from. 
    
    I have long held the opinion that our response to such attacks needs to
    be totally out of proportion to the the severity of the original
    attack. You blow up a building, we blow up one of your cities; you blow
    up a city bye-bye your country. The response has got to be so expensive
    that it discourages further attacks. An even exchange with a handful of
    suicidal bombers just encourages further attacks. Responses which
    threaten the extinction of the cause they support gets attention. Yes,
    it would be distasteful to have to kill civilians but better theirs than 
    more of ours.
    
    If the terrorists prove to be from the mid-east it shouldn't be too hard to
    pin down their country of origin. IMHO we shouldn't execute them but should
    provide free transportation back to their native land Slim Pickins style 
    (for those of you who remember the end of the movie Dr. Strangelove).
    
    Before everyone climbs on my back, not to worry, if we get the bombers
    Bill is more likely to wet his pants than carry out any serious 
    retaliation. Our courts will take forever to try them and if convicted
    they will probably die of old age in better living conditions than many
    Americans enjoy.  
    
    Re: .7 Like someone else has said I don't know where you are located
    but you obviously don't understand Americans. Generally, we are a
    peaceable bunch and argue a lot about different issues amongst
    ourselves. But don't make the mistake of how we may react when one of
    us gets stepped on. Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, when he discovered that the
    American carriers were not sunk at Pearl Harbor, was reputed to have
    said, "That he feared that all they had accomplished was to awake a
    sleeping giant." If the terrorists think that they can keep this up
    with virtual impunity they better start worrying about who our next
    Commander-In-Chief will be.
    
    
    JLB
393.102I'm coming to get them, Keep out of my way.VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu Apr 20 1995 22:0825
    > The Isrealis don't have the resources to... we do.
    
    Bullchit.  The US had to go out of our way to keep the isrealies
    off Iraq during the gulf war.  
    
    The jews will go anywhere in the world to get their people out from
    harms way, (remember entebbe?)   I admire them for that (but I hate
    the fact WE fund them).  I think isreal shows a lot of restraint in
    trying to get along with its neighbors, but it won't hesitate to kick
    ass when necessary.
    
    We've got 2 Americans sitting in Iraq right now.  Our leadership sucks
    terribly.
    
    President MadMike wouldn't nuke anyone.  I wouldn't even jump up and
    down very much.
    
    I'd make sure baghdad knew I have 3 carrier battlegroups parked off
    shore.  I'd have the rubber bands wound up on everything I had in the
    area.  I'd TELL Mr. Sadumb, that, "At 5PM on of my helicopters is
    going to be landing at the gate of your prison and my people will be
    allowed to get into the helicopter.  Any threat, real or percieved by
    my forces in the area..."  Have a nice day.
    
    And I'd tell the UN to <r.o.> off as well.
393.103yDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 20 1995 22:094
    .97
    
    Uhhhh....sorry(tm)
    
393.104COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertThu Apr 20 1995 23:0214
	There is more info on the man the British detained at Heathrow
	and deported back to the U.S.

	He had been questioned in Chicago, which had caused him to miss
	his flight to Rome with a connection to Amman.

	His bags went without him.  He rerouted himself through London.

	In Rome, his bags were searched by authorities.  Bomb making
	material was found in his bags.

	/john

393.105EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesThu Apr 20 1995 23:1010
re .96

>    Would the axel have some residual chemicals on it more so than a
>    van that might have been unfortunate enough to be right next to
>    the van containing the bomb when it blew?

I believe so.  Something else to consider:  The axle of the vehicle with
the explosives would get a sudden force pretty much straight _down_, the axle
of a neighboring vehicle would get mostly a sideways force.  Just analyze how
it's bent.
393.107OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Thu Apr 20 1995 23:378
    Re: .106
    
    >Why don't we tell Israel and her opponents to stop killing and love 
    >each other?  It is easy to do it
    
    It's easy to say.  It's obviously not easy for them to do.  It's
    obviously easier for them to kill each other than love each other,
    because if it were easier, they'd do it.
393.108EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesThu Apr 20 1995 23:5416
re .106:

>    Because US is perceived on the other side of Israel.  The bombing
>    is a strong message how they hate US.   And no one in the notes
>    string understand that.  Why don't we tell Israel and her opponents to
>    stop killing and love each other?  It is easy to do it,  just reduce
>    the aid to Israel and Egypt.   I understand Israel is doing what they can
>    to promote peace now.   But it is not enough.

(Assuming it was Arab terrorists that planted the bomb) By doing this we
gives the terrorists what they want.  This will encourage them to terrorize
us to give in on other demands.  On the other hand if we say "For each of
our buildings bombed that we determine was done by Islamic fundamentalists,
Israel gets an extra billion in aid", _that_ will discourage them...
(Of course then maybe Israel will start launching terror against us, making
it look like the Arabs did it... :-) )
393.109POWDML::LAUERLittle Chamber of Fuzzy FacesFri Apr 21 1995 02:4410
    .106
    
    >	You are right, the killing countinues and eventually it comes 
    >to US.  Becuase your tax dollars to Israel are promoting killing.
    >Because US is perceived on the other side of Israel.  The bombing
    >is a strong message how they hate US.   And no one in the notes
    >string understand that.
    
    Er...I think people understand this.
393.110CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Apr 21 1995 03:249

 Is it really necessary for local (Boston) TV stations to have reporters on the
 scene. I'm not questioning the seriousness of the situation, but what can they
 tell us that Connie Chung, et al can't?



 Jim
393.111TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 03:257
    
    If anyone remains curious, the PEI bombing was a small pipe bomb.
    One person was injured.  Totally unrelated to this event.
    
    Prolly just some bored kids tryin' out some stuff they learned from a 
    book they ordered outta the back of `Soldier Of Fortune'.
    
393.112MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Fri Apr 21 1995 03:285
re: .110, Jim

They speak the language, Jim. They can discuss matters relative to
the cahs in the pahking garage.

393.113CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Apr 21 1995 03:298


 That must be it.



 Jim
393.114RDGE44::ALEUC8Fri Apr 21 1995 11:035
    i can't believe i read .57
    
    peace, brother
    
    ric
393.115WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 21 1995 11:1220
    RU, making a statement like us pulling support/aid from Isreal
    would stop (or minimize the risk) of this kind of act is so far from
    from the truth it isn't funny.
    
    JLB is right on. Barnicle did a powerful and moving editorial last
    night on Chronicle. This country is more concerned that it might offend
    someone than protect its own citizens. The U.S. average citizen's life
    has been worth squat to last few administrations starting with Johnson
    and Nixon in SEA, Carter and Iran, Reagan in Beirut, etc...
    
    It's a low risk to kill americans and there lies the problem. Like
    Barnicle said, find these people and kill them. Find the people
    that helped and kill them. If a country supported/funded these 
    people, launch a severe military response and kill a bunch of them 
    
    This crap has stop, and like right now. 
    
    One disgusted and fed up American!
    
    Chip 
393.116SUBURB::COOKSHalf Man,Half BiscuitFri Apr 21 1995 11:228
    I didn`t like the way the UK papers were,in a sense,gloating over what
    happened and President Clinton`s reaction to it. (This happening after
    he shook hands with Gerry Adams,and plenty of "now you know what it
    feels like to be the victim of a terrorist organisation" type of comments).
     
    Whilst they have a point,I think it`s still bad taste.
    
    
393.118PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 21 1995 11:3420
    re: 393.104
            
    >In Rome, his bags were searched by authorities.  Bomb making
    >material was found in his bags.
     
    any more on this?  haven't heard confirmation.
    
    re: 393.106
    
    >Because US is perceived on the other side of Israel.  The bombing
    >is a strong message how they hate US.   And no one in the notes
    >string understand that.  
     
    this ain't Sesame Street.
    
    thinking you are the only one that understands something is probably
    how MacNamara felt int he 60's.
   
     
    
393.119GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 21 1995 11:4210
    
    
    RE: .106  Ru-I guess you don't know very much about Isreal and their
    situation.  If they didn't have nukes, they wouldn't be in existence 
    right now.  There's nothing that many of the countries in the area 
    wouldn't like better than to see Isreal destroyed.  Your simplistic
    view of things sounds just peachy, but it is not realistic.
    
    
    Mike
393.120PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 21 1995 11:4411
    
    -1, meant to include from 393.106 
    
    >  Why don't we tell Israel and her opponents to
    >  stop killing and love each other?  
    
    Ain't Sesame street.
    
    must need coffee.  
    
    al
393.121TOOK::GASKELLFri Apr 21 1995 12:4520
    Re. 115
    
    
    I agree.  I'm all for Civil Rights but what about my rights as
    a law abiding taxpayer.  
    
    
    We need to take a lesson from the Russians.  Back when 
    Iran was taking American hostages, the Iranians also 
    kidnaped a Russian.  The KGB found out which group was
    holding their citizen, found the head of the family - the
    grandfather - of the leader and kidnaped him.  I wont describe
    what the KGB did to him it was too gross to take first thing in
    the morning, but it was a kind of mutilation that is
    understood in the Middle East.  After they returned the
    grandfathers body to his family, no Russians were taken again.
    
    I don't like what the Russians did, but they took care
    of their own people first and it worked.
                                   
393.122MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Fri Apr 21 1995 12:493
    ZZ   i can't believe i read .57
    
    Yes...you are learning to read...congrats! :-)
393.123RDGE44::ALEUC8Fri Apr 21 1995 13:217
    >Yes...you are learning to read...congrats! :-)
    
    yup, comprehension next 8^)
    
    and in .57's case that is very hard!
    
    ric
393.124Weathermen revisited...NEMAIL::BULLOCKFri Apr 21 1995 13:429
    
    
    
       It's soooo easy to get caught up in the "point your finger
       mentality". Oklahoma bombing suspects,....two White males,
       ....medium build,...etc,...
    
    
       Ed
393.125POBOX::BATTISLand shark,pool sharkFri Apr 21 1995 13:567
    
    this "witness" that was flown back to the U.S. from Rome, is going to
    wind up being a suspect or maybe one of the group that did the actual
    bombing. I agree with -b in .57. We should have made Iraq a parking lot
    when we had the chance, then moved on to Iran and leveled its sorry ass
    as well. Then moved on to Libya and more of the same, after all this
    was accomplished, it would make for a more quieter world.
393.126PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Apr 21 1995 14:014
    .57, .125

	where do you people come up with this mindless stuff??
393.127POBOX::BATTISLand shark,pool sharkFri Apr 21 1995 14:063
    
    Di, I don't know it just comes to me in my dreams, maybe I should
    knock off the Kool-Aid before bed.
393.128POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyFri Apr 21 1995 14:126
    Well, carpet manufacturers could stand to make a healthy profit in all
    of this.

    The air force would leave rugged terrain in its wake.

    Wall to wall carpet bombing. I'm floored.
393.129 SUBURB::COOKSHalf Man,Half BiscuitFri Apr 21 1995 14:1410
    So it`s not ok to murder innocent Americans but it is ok to murder
    innocent Iranians?
    
    er,um...
    
    That`s a bit like the IRA plant a bomb in Warrington shopping centre,
    so the British govt plant a bomb in a Londonderry shopping centre. 
    
    
    
393.130MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Fri Apr 21 1995 14:176
    Tis true.  I work with an Iranian here and he is without doubt one of
    the nicest most congenial individuals I've met.  Keep in mind there are
    alot of babies and children in Iran, Iraq, and Libya...who are far
    removed from politics.
    
    -Jack
393.131SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 14:1714
    
    
    re: .129
    
    Can you say "surgical strike"??
    
     I knew you could!!!
    
    
     The parking lot and carpet bombing is an emotional reaction to what
    happened...
    
      The appropriate retaliation, ie. Israeli type, is not...
    
393.132TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 14:298
    
    The `Israeli Response'...
    
    ...has anyone stopped to question just how well the `Israeli Response'
    has worked for the Israelis?
    
    Seems to me the terrorism is continuing there on a weekly basis.
    
393.133SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 14:3610
    
    re: .132
    
    You may be right, but as I stated earlier... it's usually on the
    frontier, usually very minor (relatively speaking) and most of the time
    involves the military...
    
     I know... no consolation to the dead soldiers or their families, but
    they do have a handle on it...
    
393.134WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 21 1995 14:3713
    i would agree that Bush should have finished the job. we'll live with
    that legacy as long as the current criminals remain in power.
    
    Re; Isreal's success... understand that they play a somewhat less
    restrained game than we do, but their responses are "controlled"
    responses. if they ever get pushed into a corner get the hell outa
    the way. it's called politics, man, politics.
    
    Re; innocent civies... the enemy is the enemy. the scum that were
    involved with the bombing were babies once... ugly statement? yup,
    but i'm sticking to it in this case...
    
    Chip
393.135TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 14:4311
    
    Well...I keep hoping that those smarter than myself can come up with
    a more creative solution than just `tit-for-tat' military action.
    
    Ultimately, groups like the PLO, the IRA, and the Khmer Rouge end up
    being forces to negotiate with rather than combat.  We may not like it,
    (I certainly don't) but how many people have to die before we finally 
    get to that point?
    
    jc
    
393.136MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Fri Apr 21 1995 14:5111
ZZ    i would agree that Bush should have finished the job. we'll live
ZZ    with that legacy as long as the current criminals remain in power.
    
    It would certainly have cost more lives...it would have gone against
    the UN...which to me is meaningless but not to the average sheepish
    fickle American.
    
    Furthermore, Iraq would probably be Shiite right now.
    
    -Jack    
    
393.137RANGER::MAYNARDFri Apr 21 1995 15:028
    Commentator on NPR was talking about the new generation of terrorists-
    he called them "super-terrorists". These are people who've grown up
    in the middle of the violence in the Mideast,Northern Ireland, et al,
    who have taken the current techniques of terrorism to another level.
    There's a whole generation of very pissed off people out there with
    nothing to lose. Consequently, it's going to get a lot uglier.
    Oklahoma was just the beginning.
    				Al Legory 
393.138NEMAIL::BULLOCKFri Apr 21 1995 15:1311
    
    
    
      re .137
    
    
      The Oklamoma suspects appear to be "Americans",....wonder what
      pissed them off.?
    
    
      Ed
393.139RDGE44::ALEUC8Fri Apr 21 1995 15:166
    .57,.125 etc
    
    so which bit of the US are you going to flatten if it turned out the
    bombers were US citizens?
    
    ric
393.140NETCAD::WOODFORDI&lt;--TheInfoWentDataWay--&gt;IFri Apr 21 1995 15:1811
    
    
    Does anyone have extensive info on the bombing in P.E.I.
    that they could send me?  It would be most appreciated.
    
    
    Thanks,
    
    Terrie
    NETCAD::WOODFORD
    
393.141CSOA1::LEECHFri Apr 21 1995 15:193
    re: .139
    
    How about we start with DC.  8^)
393.143small bombSWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 15:307
    
    re 140
    On the news out here in L.A they said it may have been a pipe bomb
    placed under a porch. Blew out some windows. Contrary to earlier
    reports, nobody killed. One person injured.
    
    
393.144CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Apr 21 1995 15:3210

 Wonder if the 2 who rented the truck may have become one with the ground
 on which the explosion took place.





Jim
393.145SX4GTO::WANNOORFri Apr 21 1995 15:5635
    
    
    2 factors have to be taken into account:
    prevention and retribution.
    
    The OKC bombing underlines the fact that the US intelligence
    is caught with their pants down, IMO. This is a terrorist doing
    (domestic or foreign is immaterial) which COULD be prevented if
    the FBI, NSA and CIA actually do their job. Come on, they do have
    international resources to work with (intepol, scotland yard, mossad,
     et al) as well as domestic evesdropping and whatever else.
    I am not saying that strikes like this can be prevented ALL the time,
    but quality intelligence is a crucial weapon to counter guerrilla
    tactics.
    
    Did you know that it is ILLEGAL to deny entrance to the US to a person
    who is associated with a group known to be "terrorist-inclined" (I
    learned this from a Congressman interviewed on NPR yesterday), unless
    there is proof that this person has actually been active in a terrorist
    activity?!  Give me a break, what's the point then?? I do understand
    that we do not favor a blanket "discrimination" based on guilt-by-
    association, but then again, if someone is obviously on that high-
    risk list, why not detain for further investigation?
    
    I also believe that terrorists caught (line the NY case) should be
    tried differently than a civilian case; terrorists bombing is not
    the same like the OJ murder case (sorry - ran out of examples!) or
    bank robbery trial! This is a clear case to exercise capital punishment.
    
    Remember words like TREASON?
    
    
    
    
    
393.146POBOX::BATTISLand shark,pool sharkFri Apr 21 1995 16:005
    
    .139
    
    well New York city comes to mind, as does parts of L.A. and Chicago.
    HTH
393.147you can't spy on everyone.NEMAIL::BULLOCKFri Apr 21 1995 16:0910
    
    
        It sounds like it dosen't take a ton of expertise to make
        this so called "fertilizer bomb" and the chemicals are 
        readily available.
    
        The culprits that did this might not be affiliated with anyone,
        ....just pissed off,...or insane with access to bomb material.
    
        Ed
393.148let's slow down a tadTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSFri Apr 21 1995 16:1320
I have heard calls on the various TV shows and in here(the box in general) to
use different trial techniques for terrorists just try 'em and kill 'em.

I have one question; In the rush to find a perp, any perp, how do you get the 
right one? If our justice system is broken(Which it is IMHO) and trials are 
too slow and punishments do not fit the crime and appeals take far too long
Isn't it better to fix the system than set up a seperate "fast-track" that 
will in all likelyhood punish the wrong people in a significant percentage of 
cases? What do you say after you executed the first ten mid-east types
who were in OK-city then discover it was really Martians who commited the
crime?

I am in favor of the death penalty for these people.
I am in favbor of retribution against their overseas base(if they are foriegor 
directed by foreign powers)
I am against mistakenly executing those who "look" suspicious.

Amos

393.149NEMAIL::BULLOCKFri Apr 21 1995 16:139
    
    
        re .146
    
    
        What about where you live?
    
    
        Ed
393.150POBOX::BATTISLand shark,pool sharkFri Apr 21 1995 16:183
    
    well Ed, considering I live in Chicago, my neighborhood could be up
    for consideration.
393.151MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri Apr 21 1995 16:399
    >so which bit of the US are you going to flatten if it turned out the
    >bombers were US citizens?

    Smug. I have no use or time for smug. So I'm not going to bother
    answering your question. If you want to engage in debate, I'm
    perfectly willing, but not while you have your arse glued
    to a high horse...
    
    -b
393.152PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 21 1995 16:438
    
    Heard on the radio at lunch that an arrest is expected soon.  
    People "close to the investigation" indicate the names and
    location of the two suspects is known.   Not much else about them.
     
    Also, the guy brought back from Europe has been relesed.  He's not
    a suspect.
    
393.153NETCAD::WOODFORDI&lt;--TheInfoWentDataWay--&gt;IFri Apr 21 1995 16:467
    
    
    Thank you, Mr. Topaz, and others for the info on PEI.
    
    
    Terrie
    
393.154total wimp out42344::CBHLager LoutFri Apr 21 1995 16:495
> you have your arse glued to a high horse...
    
you mean instead of having it glued up your arse?

Chris.
393.155PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Apr 21 1995 16:563
	.151  what a cop-out.

393.156They accused the wrong People.ICS::EWINGFri Apr 21 1995 17:0010
    
    
    >>  Also, the guy brought back from Europe has been released.
    >>  He's not a suspect.
    
    
    Thank goodness! I've heard that there have been death threats leveed
    against some families of Middle-Eastern descent in Detroit and Chicago.
    Can anyone confirm this? The reason why I'm asked, I've been mistaken
    for being someone from the Middle-East in the past.
393.157MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri Apr 21 1995 17:015
    RE: .155
    
    I will defend my position. I can't be bothered defending myself.
    Better things to do. I hope you can see the difference...
    
393.158TROOA::BROOKSFri Apr 21 1995 17:0521
    two points:
    
    It's utterly amazing that anyone could be identified so early after
    such an event.  If they are indeed the people who did it, I am
    thoroughly impressed by the cops down there!  The fact that someone all
    the way across the pond can be tracked down (among the tens of
    thousands of people who travel every day) related to an event in
    Oklahoma speaks wonders about modern society today, especially about
    technology!
    
    Second, I hope the people in charge/with power make the right decision
    and don't frame someone in the name of justice.  Every so often we hear
    about a N.American tourist robbed/killed/etc. in one of those idyllic
    caribbean/Mexican tourist resorts, and most of the time, some poor slob
    is identified, tried, and charged.  Given that the small islands depend
    so heavily on tourism, it is in their interest to see that justice is
    seen to be done.  Similarly, the kennedy assassination (sp?) comes
    to mind as an event where corners were cut (potentially) in the name of
    higher purposes.
    
    Doug
393.159PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Apr 21 1995 17:057
    
>>    I will defend my position. I can't be bothered defending myself.

	The question put to you would seem to pertain to your position.
	Are you willing to employ the same radical tactics domestically as
	you propose to employ abroad?  What's the matter with that question?

393.16042344::CBHLager LoutFri Apr 21 1995 17:0914
>    I will defend my position. I can't be bothered defending myself.
>    Better things to do. I hope you can see the difference...
    
your position is that you've suggested flattening whatever country
the terrorists come from, without any regard for whether the individuals
you've proposed frying have any connection with the terrorists.  This
big talk doesn't look so clever when the terrorists might come from
your own country.

Once they find the culprits, they should make them pay dearly, but
make sure you've got the right people first otherwise it'll only make
things far worse.

Chris.
393.161ICS::VERMAFri Apr 21 1995 17:177
    
    according to latest radio news FBI is close to making the arrests 
    of two suspects, hopefully by the end of the day today. they now
    know who they are.
    
    all speculation points to bombing being the work of a white
    supremacict group.
393.162TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 17:193
    
    That's it...carpet bomb Mississippi!
    
393.163POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club BaloneyFri Apr 21 1995 17:201
    With Dupont Stainmaster area rugs!
393.164WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceFri Apr 21 1995 17:207
    That's actually a relief of sorts. I think we have a better chance of
    impressing upon americans the importance of not committing terrorist
    actions than we do people from cultures who view terrorism as a way of
    life.
    
     None of which mitigates this horrible atrocity, nor reduces my wish
    for vengeance. Savages must die.
393.165TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 17:243
    
    Wall-to-wall retribution!
    
393.166CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Apr 21 1995 17:2914


 According to what I saw last night, the initial tip came from the camera
 in an ATM across the street (or near by) from the Fed Bldg.  The camera
 had snapped a photo before the bombing and included in the photo was a
 truck parked in front of the bank.  They enhanced the photo and determined
 that it was a Ryder truck.  They also found the axel (mentioned earlier) 
 a couple blocks away which had the VIN of the truck which they traced to
 Junction City, Kansas.



 Jim
393.167TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 17:334
    
    "White supremacists", eh?  Shall we now see calls for surgical strikes
    on KKK offices?
    
393.168WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 21 1995 17:385
    -1 nope... just hunt 'em down and kill 'em like the filth they are.
    
       (whether they're guilty of this or not)
    
       Chip
393.169TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 17:403
    
    Soooo...Chip...any big plans for the weekend?   :^)
    
393.170WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 21 1995 17:403
    -1 Sssshhhhhhhh.... :-)
    
       Chip
393.171SPEZKO::FRASERMobius Loop; see other sideFri Apr 21 1995 17:522
        Just in (CNN=> Wolf Blitzer):  One of the two suspects is in OK
        police custody
393.172CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Apr 21 1995 17:534


 Woof woof
393.173TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 17:533
    
    Wanna bet he "resisted arrest"?
    
393.174no much info yetSWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 18:015
    
    yep, an arrest in Perry, Oak. Reno is supposed to cover this
    in a news conference later. No details, just an arrest.
    
    
393.177GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 21 1995 18:119
    
    
    
    The scary part is that the news mentioned militias in their talking
    about this a few minutes ago.  Now the gov't is going to have "cause"
    to go after militias.  
    
    
    Mike
393.178appears tv doesn't capture SWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 18:2210
    
    workers at the site, only go in to the building for a period of
    two hours. They are then pulled out, and sent to "grief" 
    counselors.
    
    somebody at the site stated that is how is is working now, since
    there is so much horror within the wrecked building.
    
    Dave
    
393.179More info.ODIXIE::ZOGRANYoungest one's walking - OH NO!Fri Apr 21 1995 18:245
    Heard on the news that the FBI is raiding a location in Decker (sp),
    Michigan.  From what the radio says, the bombing is white
    supremacist/Waco related.
    
    Dan
393.180How are the two related?TLE::PERAROFri Apr 21 1995 18:485
    
    What do white supermists have to do with what happened in Waco? Were
    the Davidians considered white supremists?
    
    
393.181SHRCTR::SIGELTakin' care of business and workin' overtimeFri Apr 21 1995 18:5110
    The terrorists that did this should be thrown in a pit with a bomb and
    have someone set it off and let them get bombed to bits, they will get
    what they deserve the sickos.
    
    I remember two summers ago I went to New York City, went to the top of
    the World Trade Center and spent the whole Saturday touring Ellis
    Island and the Statue of Liberty which you take ferries out from
    Battery park.  Approximately one week from my visit there was a bomb
    threat and both islands of Ellis and Liberty had to be totally
    evacuated. Now that hit home.
393.182TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 18:563
    
    Don't hold back, Lynne.  Tell us how you *really* feel.
    
393.183PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Apr 21 1995 19:016
	I don't know - maybe it's just me, but I'm often somewhat terrorized
	by the sentiments expressed in this conference.  

	Amazed too.

393.184ODIXIE::ZOGRANYoungest one's walking - OH NO!Fri Apr 21 1995 19:0211
    re .180 - I am not real sure of the WS/Waco connection, but the radio
    has inferred that the WS group was anti-Gov't (ATF?), and that the
    anniversary of the raid and the location (ATF out of OKC was involved)
    were Davidian incident related ("Remember the Davidian dead" type of
    bombing?)
    
    Dan
    
    
    
    
393.185SX4GTO::WANNOORFri Apr 21 1995 19:0821
    
    
    re .148 - Amos
    Certainly I do not advocate letting go or skipping any DUE PROCESS.
    Any perps, once facts are established, should be put on trial. I was
    pointing out that trying a terrorist case ought not be lumped in
    'ordinary' civilian criminal trials; this is NOT equal to railroading
    a just and fair due process.
    
    re .175 - mr oppelt
    Nope, gathering and utilizing intelligence properly (I know that's
    another rathole topic, right?) does NOT mean a dossier is kept on
    everybody - let's not be paranoid about this!
    
    To not utilize a tool/resource such as intelligence however is rather
    foolish, don't you think? So are you afraid that the FBI over time
    becomes a Gestapo/SS organization? Even when Hoover was around, with
    his warped snooping around, that scenario did not happen. Intelligence
    is not summarily evil. This society will not let that happen.
    
    
393.186CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Apr 21 1995 19:1611
    I was wondering about the whodunnit part when I was watching Connie
    chomping at the bit looking for the faintest glimmer of a mid-east
    connection so she could scoop the rest of the world in the finger
    pointing game.  I was not convinced and found myself somewhat appalled
    at the immediate, thinly veiled threats towards mid-eastern factions.  
    I find myself leaning to unrelenting persectuion and an equally 
    unmerciless dispatch of the guilty parties along with proven conspirators.  
    I hope we don't screw this up in our zeal to make the wheels of justice
    turn too swiftly.  
    
    Brian
393.187TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 19:196
    
    >...Connie chomping at the bit looking for the faintest glimmer of a 
    >mid-east connection...
    
    I dare say Connie wasn't the only one...
    
393.188CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Apr 21 1995 19:227
    No, she wasn't but she was certainly looking for someone to slip up and
    confirm, prematurely, that the connection was there.  I must admit, it
    was an obvious first guess and who knows, there may be a lot more to
    come out on this before we actually get the whole story, if we ever get
    the whole story.  
    
    Brian
393.189SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 19:2511
    
    re: .183
    
    >I don't know - maybe it's just me, but I'm often somewhat terrorized
    >by the sentiments expressed in this conference.
    
    >Amazed too.
    
    
      Nature of the beast....
    
393.190TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 19:279
    
    Same scenario as described in 359.0.  The media can spout whatever they
    want in these situations and not have to be accountable for it.
    
    For that matter...look at how much time was spent in THIS topic
    discussing trans-atlantic retribution.
    
    jc
    
393.191PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Apr 21 1995 19:3010
    
>>      Nature of the beast....

    So the sentiments aren't real - they're just manufactured
    for the forum?  Hyperbole runs rampant in here at times, but
    I don't think that explains it all.

    
    

393.192The statement has begun...BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 19:369
    We have at least one arrest in this case now (and the names of the
    three men who are suspected of the bombing.)  They went by too
    quick for me to catch, but two of the men are brothers with the
    last name of Nichols.
    
    They are Americans and the bombing was anti-Federal government
    (particularly anti-BATF for the handling of Waco), apparently.
    
    A statement from the Justice department is coming within minutes.
393.193SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 19:377
    
    re: .191
    
    Di...
    
    perhaps I should have added "emotional" nature of the beast...
    
393.195(Not sure what the other news was about Nichols brothers.)BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 19:386
    Timothy McVay, age 27, was arrested on a traffic violation outside
    OK city a number of hours after the bombing.  (He's the one with the
    light brown hair in the police drawings.)
    
    The other guy (from the drawings) has not been named, but is still
    being sought.
393.196ASABET::YANNEKISFri Apr 21 1995 19:403
    
    Thanks Suzanne ... please keep the updates coming!
    
393.197CSEXP2::ANDREWSI'm the NRAFri Apr 21 1995 19:403
    Re: VIN on axle?
    
    Actually I think they've been doing that for years now.
393.198TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 19:437
    
    >...the bombing was anti-Federal government
    >(particularly anti-BATF for the handling of Waco), apparently.
    
    ...the irony being that the federal government usually uses this sort of
    thing to increase their powers.
    
393.199Sorry for the partial info earlier.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 19:439
    Janet Reno is not speculating about the motive (the other CNN portion
    that discussed this was operating under the banner heading 'Bomb
    suspect arrested' and they spoke of anti-Federal government and
    anti-BATF for the handling of Waco motives, but I didn't hear the
    first part of that report so I can't confirm where they got this
    from.)
                
    Also, the arrested man's name is Timothy McVeigh (spelling
    correction).
393.200Did John post this news?HELIX::SONTAKKEFri Apr 21 1995 19:4322
From Nando Times:-
----------------------------------
Earlier in the day, the Justice Department announced that the FBI had released a
Palestinian-American detained in London and returned to the United States on
Thursday. The man had left Oklahoma City shortly after the bombing, and flew
from Chicago to London.

"We let him go," Justice Department spokesman John Russell said. "He's free to
go wherever he wants and I understand he's going back to Oklahoma City."

In Dallas, brothers Anis Siddiqy, 24, and Asad R. Siddiqy, 27, and a third man,
Mohammed Chafi, were all released after being questioned about the case on
Wednesday.

There had been reports that the three were suspects, and CNN had reported,
apparently erroneously, that they had been arrested.

"They questioned me for like 16 hours and let me out at 9 o'clock this morning,"
Anis Siddiqy said Thursday night during an intervie in Chafi's North Dallas
apartment. "They took everything in this apartment." He denied any involvement
in the bombing.
--------------------------------
393.201CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Apr 21 1995 19:4410
    Many parts are serialized especially parts of the drive train and then
    tied back to the VIN.  Getting a fake license, and credit card would
    not be too difficult given some time and persistence.  I think you can
    even rent a vehicle for cash under some circumstances.  
    
    If this is truly an anti-gov't act, I wonder how the feds will react
    short and long term.  This should be quite interesting.  I am more
    afraid of internal agitation than I am of outside involvement.  
    
    Brian
393.202He was arrested 60 miles from OK city, 1.5 hrs after bomb.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 19:495
    The arrested suspect has been in custody since Wednesday morning
    (when he was arrested for the traffic violation) - the Justice
    Department spokesman (appearing with Janet Reno) did indicate that
    they received the drawing *before* they connected the arrested man
    as being involved in the bombing.
393.203SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 19:547
    
    
     Would any of you folks care to take a stab at how long it'll take the
    "activists" to come out of the woodwork and condemn the preliminary
    finger-pointing at certain "ethnic" groups?
    
      
393.204home grown nutcasesSWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 19:578
    
    
    if middle east countries don't want to get blamed for terrorist acts.
    then those countries should put a stop to terrorism.
    
    maybe it will work that way, but in this world, who knows.
    
    
393.205POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club Butt TinkeringFri Apr 21 1995 20:053
    Well, I for one am relieved that it wasn't an Islamic group responsible
    as it would have created an atmosphere of hatred towards all middle
    eastern peoples. Now everyone can hate the race haters. Fine by me.
393.206GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 21 1995 20:068
    
    
    Clinton's using this as an opportunity, as is Reno, to blow up the
    Justice Dept, the FBI, the BATF and all the federal authorities.  
    THis is just too frickin bizzare.
    
    
    Mike
393.207GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 21 1995 20:087
    
    
    RE: .205  I think you're mistaken Glenn.  The New York bombing didn't
    have this effect.  I don't think this one would have either.
    
    
    Mike
393.208WDFFS2::SHOOKthe river is mineFri Apr 21 1995 20:138
    
    cnn reporting the suspects are members of a group called the "michigan
    militia."  they are showing pictures of the fbi raiding a two-story
    white house located in decker, mi., but no commentary on who or what
    they are looking for, although one can assume it is the nichols'.
    
    
    bill
393.209POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club Butt TinkeringFri Apr 21 1995 20:138
    Oh yes it would have.
    
    6 deaths in New York? Big deal right? That's a good day in New York
    right?
    
    Oklahoma City? 100 deaths and toll rising, 18 children? Very different.

    People started talking about leveling countries in this very forum.
393.210GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 21 1995 20:178
    
    
    Raids are going on throughout the country according to Clinton.  And
    there was talk of raids a few weeks ago wasn't there?  Hmmm, guess they
    found their excuse.
    
    
    Mike
393.211Where's Mercier when you need him?DECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allFri Apr 21 1995 20:196
    re: .206
    
    Indeed... this whole apparent resolution takes on the appearance
    of being incredibly, er, convenient for the powers-that-be.
    
    Chris
393.212GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 21 1995 20:218
    
    
    And before anyone says they wouldn't do anything like that, remember
    what happened in Waco in the name of saving the kids.  How many kids
    died there?
    
    
    Mike
393.213SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 20:227
    re: .211
    
    
    
    Careful... you might be labeled as one of those paranoid loonies...
    
    You know the ones who wouldn't put anything past the goverment?
393.214Long Term RepercussionsSTRATA::BARBIERIFri Apr 21 1995 20:2312
      Of course, I believe the event was heinous, BUT
    
      I can't stand what the BATF and DEA have sometimes been
      doing lately.  We know Weaver and Waco and Jim Sadin
      posted a recent newspaper article that depicted BATF  
      and DEA doing some heinous things as well.  Like going
      into homes of innocent people and (sometimes) killing
      them.
    
      VERY convenient.  Maybe convenient enough to remove some
      more of our rights.  For our good of course.   :-(
           
393.215?????ICS::EWINGFri Apr 21 1995 20:259
    
    
    
    
    NPR is now interviewing the Nichol's neighbors. One neighbor said that
    he saw them making bombs. He said that they told him that they did not
    need any drivers license to drive their car. He said that they did not
    pay no income taxes neither. The neighbor said that he thought that it
    was a big game or joke what the Nichol's was doing.
393.216Who First???STRATA::BARBIERIFri Apr 21 1995 20:263
      Thats right, the govt. has killed children too.
    
      Wow.
393.217Doesn't matter WHO did itCANON::HARTFri Apr 21 1995 20:2710
    RE: .205
    
     >Well, I for one am relieved that it wasn't an Islamic group responsible
     >as it would have created an atmosphere of hatred towards all middle
     >eastern peoples. Now everyone can hate the race haters. Fine by me.
    
    Food for thought: Ask any of the parents of the blown-up children if
    they feel relieved that it was Americans that killed their kids.
    
                                                     Bob H.
393.218You get what you ask forHELIX::SONTAKKEFri Apr 21 1995 20:3110
Let me get this straight:-

When you thought there was a middle-eastern connection you wanted US Governement
to "blow up" the middle east.

But now you find that the attack had nothing to do with a foreign hand, you
fear that your own government will have an "excuse" to go after the organization
who conducted the worst act of terrorism in its history?

- Vikas
393.219SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 20:3410
    
    re: .218
    
    Not quite right....
    
    The "excuse" would be going after what the government considers
    "fringe groups"... no matter what they've done (or haven't done)...
    
     That's the scary part...
    
393.220TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 20:368
    
    .219, Andy:
    
    You see quite clearly how that applies inside your borders...
    
    Can you not see that the same might apply to `surgical strikes'
    outside your borders?
    
393.221SX4GTO::WANNOORFri Apr 21 1995 20:3713
    
    
    I too am very relieved this is NOT a Muslim thing k'now, being one
    myself!
    
    Okay, now if proven that these are the perps, do you (those who
    were upset about different trial tracks erlier) maintain that they
    go thru the same civilian trial processes - if we think the OJ thing
    is bad enough, can you imagine the legal and media circus this can
    cause? 
    
    What's the excuse now - temporary insanity?
    
393.222The IronyXCUSME::WINANSFri Apr 21 1995 20:408
    I suspect there will be more arrests before this is all over and 
    done with. Who knows maybe Mid-Eastern connection will be established 
    somewhere along the line. If you want to read on groups such as the
    Michigan Militia, just pick up a copy of Soldier of Fortune or any
    other of the paramilitary mags out there. 
    
    This will be so ironic if in fact the killers turn out to be American
    with connections to...?????? 
393.223STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityFri Apr 21 1995 20:4015
                       <<< Note 393.215 by ICS::EWING >>>
                                   -< ????? >-

>   NPR is now interviewing the Nichol's neighbors. One neighbor said that
>   he saw them making bombs. He said that they told him that they did not
>   need any drivers license to drive their car. He said that they did not
>   pay no income taxes neither. The neighbor said that he thought that it
>   was a big game or joke what the Nichol's was doing.

The neighbors saw all this and didn't report it to the authorities?
Sounds like Reichsfuhrer Reno should inform these peasants about the 
Violent Crime Control Act of 1993.  

Isn't it a federal crime not to turn in your neighbors for such known 
terrorist activity?
393.224MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Fri Apr 21 1995 20:404
    Guarenteed the administration will use this in the firearms control
    issue!
    
    
393.225SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasFri Apr 21 1995 20:4214
    
    re: .220
    
    Not quite the same....
    
    If you look back, my `surgical strikes' were against the responsible
    parties... whether groups or nations.... 
    
     If the government sticks to "responsible parties" here in the states,
    I'll have no problem with that...
    
     What I have a problem with is the impication that anything with the
    word "militia" is going to be fair game...
    
393.226POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club Butt TinkeringFri Apr 21 1995 20:432
    Why should the parents of victims prefer a middle eastern connection.
    If they would prefer one, does this not raise a horrible specter?
393.227The neighbor just laugh. ICS::EWINGFri Apr 21 1995 20:505
    
    RE. 215
    
    As I listened to the radio while the Nichol's neighbor spoke, he was
    laughing the whole time (weird).
393.228appeals and stays and appeals andSWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 20:5312
    
    
    -221
    
    no they will be convicted.
    
    But It will be the year 2005 or 2010 before they are executed.
    
    .....sounds like  a long time huh? it is.....
    
    Dave
    
393.229SX4GTO::WANNOORFri Apr 21 1995 20:5412
     re -223? O'kelley
    
    	why should they? We've been crying all along that this is
    	a FREE country right? Any nut doing any nutty thing is
    	perfectly alright, after all we cannot be that intolerant
    	and snoopy, right?
    
    	Maybe the JD ought to publish a list of "terrorist activities":
        making a bomb, buying/storing a combination of chemical x,y,z,
    	etc???
    
    	
393.230Ooops Correction- Reply to .223ICS::EWINGFri Apr 21 1995 20:552
    
    
393.231TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 20:5833
    
    Note 393.225, Andy:
    
    >If you look back, my `surgical strikes' were against the responsible
    >parties... whether groups or nations...
    
    "responsible parties" are those that can be reasonably demostrated
    (say, in a court of law) to have built and delivered the weapon.
    Air-to-surface ordinance, no matter how surgical, cannot hope to
    attain that level of precision.  It's a seductive option, but that
    doesn't make it right, and historically speaking, it doesn't generally
    make it a solution.
    
    >If the government sticks to "responsible parties" here in the states,
    >I'll have no problem with that...
    
    Fair enough.
    
    >What I have a problem with is the impication that anything with the
    >word "militia" is going to be fair game...
    
    What *I* have a problem with is the implication that any foreign group
    or nation that can be linked to such an incident is fair game for an air
    strike, regardless of how many or how few innocents might get caught in 
    the middle.  This was the BIG problem I had with Clinton's retaliatory 
    strike for the George Bush assasination plot.
    
    The principle is the same, Andy.  How broad a net should be cast?  How
    many human rights will Clinton trample in the weeks ahead?  How many did
    he trample when ordered the above-mentioned strike?
    
    jc
    
393.232WDFFS2::SHOOKthe river is mineFri Apr 21 1995 21:056
    
    the head of the michigan militia says the three men named are not
    members, nor have they ever been.
    
    
    bill
393.233MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri Apr 21 1995 21:0642
    The Oklahoma bombing will have one effect: it will solidify
    national opinion with regard to terrorist attacks. And we
    all know that even if this was not a middle east-related
    attack that we have yet to avenge countless others (Lockerbie,
    etc.), not to mention the inevitable ones in our future,
    due to weakness in our national policies.

    We have a serious problem with the middle east, and I still
    prefer the Israeli solution. Namely, tit for tat. Hit back,
    and hit hard. Each terrorist attack brings a retaliation.

    One thing is certain, we cannot play by Europe's rules.
    Europe's rules suck. The effect Europe has had on our own
    policies sucks even worse. The Israeli assassination squads
    are the correct response to the individual terrorist groups.

    But there is still the issue of the client states. While the
    client states continue to finance terrorist organizations,
    we will continue to be victims of it. Puffy little smart
    bomb attacks are meaningless. They are useful for military
    purposes, but for bending the knee of your enemy you need
    some serious bomber power. You can feign all the indignity
    you want to, but the fact is that the only possible military
    solution is a heap big one.

    As for it turning out to be Americans:

    I feel the same way about this that I felt the day it happened.
    I am extremely saddened by this event; for the children, for
    their families, for civilians. This was not a good thing.
    The people involved should be punished severely; they should
    be executed.

    And yes, I would feel quite differently if these people had
    the 'nads to do a true military strike on the BATF in retaliation
    for Waco. Bombs are for cowards. If you're that pissed off,
    attack and confront your enemy. However, they chose to show
    the same level of cowardice and disregard for law that the
    BATF and DEA show... I weep not for the BATF or DEA, but
    I most definitely weep for the innocent victims.

    -b
393.234TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarFri Apr 21 1995 21:1312
    
    Note 393.233, Brian:
    
    >...the fact is that the only possible military
    >solution is a heap big one.
    
    Yes...as in:  Go over and completely occupy the offending nation...
    forever.  Otherwise, the tit-for-tat will go on forever, or until
    somebody finally breaks down and decides to try to solve the problem.
    
    jc
    
393.235SPEZKO::FRASERMobius Loop; see other sideFri Apr 21 1995 21:169
        Well said. Just too broad a brush when talking about Europe.
        
        The SAS  (I  worked  briefly with them in a previous existance)
        have the answers, unique  to  the UK.  Ever seen the TV footage
        of them taking out terrorists  in the embassy seige in London a
        few years ago? Only enough for questioning came out alive ...
        
        Andy
        
393.236WDFFS2::SHOOKthe river is mineFri Apr 21 1995 21:278
    
    john doe #2, terry lynn nichols, turned himself in to police
    in harrington, kansas.  must have been an excellent composite
    drawing, or at least he thought it was.  of course, it's possible
    he missed the president calling for the death penalty, but he'll
    find out soon enough.
    
    bill
393.237LABRYS::CONNELLYKill your televisionFri Apr 21 1995 21:3718
About the first 7-8 posts on the OKC bombing in the Internet newsgroup
'alt.conspiracy' said, "The US government did this bombing so they could
get away with cracking down on the militias and blaming them."  Given
that the MO was so similar to the WTC bombing, does anyone think this
was a strange reaction even from the crew of paranoids in alt.conspiracy?

I guess i'm wondering if some of the people posting these assertions may
actually have been knowledgeable about what was going on and preparing
their excuses ahead of time.  Should the FBI be taking names from these
postings to investigate that possibility?  (Assuming that the FBI
monitors that newgroup anyway, since so many nuts post stuff there.)
The level of hostility toward the US government displayed there is very
reminiscent of what Hofstadter describes in "The Paranoid Style in
American Politics" from the McCarthy and peak Birch Society periods.

- paul

393.238SPEZKO::FRASERMobius Loop; see other sideFri Apr 21 1995 21:536
        Strangely reminiscent  of Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" - working
        from a home-grown  "terrorist  act", blame placed elsewhere for
        political /moral high ground.
        
        Andy
        
393.239BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 22:1515
    The arrest of Timothy McVeigh is very reminiscent of John Grisham's
    book 'The Chamber' (where one of the bombers is detained for a
    traffic violation after a bombing,  but he is not suspected over
    the next few days - and he is almost released - until his story about 
    his slight injuries from the bomb blast is determined to be somewhat 
    fishy.)

    Also, every time Ted Bundy was taken into custody (for his first
    trial, the capture from his first escape from jail, and the capture
    after his second escape from jail - after he had murdered several
    young women and a 12 year old girl in Florida), it was for traffic
    violations - usually, he just drove really erratically.

    If he'd been a better driver, he might have gotten the chance to
    murder quite a few more people.  Kinda strange.
393.240.....SWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 22:329
    
    Clearly Bundy and this guy had their minds on other things (evil things
    -worrisome, guilt ridden things) and didn't pay attention to their
    driving.
    
    That state trooper that pulled him over must be feeling good.
    
    Dave
            
393.241State troopers have been shot for a lot less in traffic stuff...BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 22:523
    Considering how Timothy McVeigh was armed (and had just murdered
    probably over 100 people), I suspect the state trooper who pulled
    him over must be feeling kinda lucky to be alive.
393.242back he goesSWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 21 1995 22:547
    
    That first suspect is being transferred to OC for arraignment.
    
    I wonder how many police will be needed to guard him from 
    a most likely very outraged,and angry public.
    
    
393.243BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 23:0911
    He looked pretty surrounded when going into the helicopter
    (in an orange suit, all covered with chains.)
    
    The helicopter just left.
    
    Update about his traffic arrest - his car did not have tags on
    it (and when he got out of the car, the state trooper saw he
    was armed.)
    
    After the OK cops saw the police drawing, they realized that
    this guy looked like one of the suspects and called the FBI.
393.244GOOEY::JUDYThat's Ms. Bitch to you!Fri Apr 21 1995 23:1714
    
    
    	I haven't read all of the last 100 replies so if this is
    	a repeat, I apologize.
    
    	X Nichols (don't remember the first name) has surrendered to
    	police.  So we now have the two suspects the feds and police
    	have been looking for.  Speculation is that they are from a 
    	white supremacist group but Clinton is asking us not to jump
    	to conclusions.  (yeah, right)  It's uncertain as to whether
    	other arrests will be made in connection with the bombing.
    
    	JJ
    
393.245BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Fri Apr 21 1995 23:335
    It seems like the authorities are expressing doubts about the
    suspect Terry Lynn Nichols (who resembles the John Doe #2
    drawing, but may not be directly involved, per CNN.)
    
    Timothy McVeigh's name was on the truck rental, apparently.
393.246WDFFS2::SHOOKthe river is mineFri Apr 21 1995 23:466
    
    renting the truck in his own name and speeding away from the scene
    of the crime with no license plates?  can this doofus really be the
    brains behind this?  seems very unlikely.
    
    bill
393.247COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSat Apr 22 1995 02:00100
Episcopal Church responds with aid following Oklahoma City bombing

     (ENS-April 21) From the first moments after an April 19 bomb blast
destroyed a federal office building in Oklahoma City, Episcopalians joined
the swelling ranks of volunteers who rushed to help.

     "Dozens of volunteers have flooded into the cathedral grounds, a half
dozen of them newly confirmed Holy Saturday night," wrote the Rev. George
Back, dean of the nearby St. Paul's Cathedral, as he recorded his
impressions of the first few hours following the explosion. The cathedral
was also severely damaged by the blast.

     Literally thousands of volunteers, many Episcopalians among them,
flocked to the blast site, to the nearby hospital and to relief centers to
offer aid, reported the Rev. Charles Woltz, diocesan canon to the ordinary.
"In this part of the country, people care for each other," he said. "The
expression of grace is just wonderful to see."

     The blast severely damaged both the Roman Catholic and Episcopal
cathedrals, as well as the Episcopal diocesan offices, reported Bishop
Robert M. Moody of the Diocese of Oklahoma. While no diocesan staff members
at the offices were injured, "several Episcopalians are known to be in the
rubble," he wrote.

     The numbers of Episcopalians killed or injured in the explosion is not
yet known, but the diocesan office is compiling lists of names, reported
Woltz.

     "Yesterday was a day of horror for this city," wrote Moody. "The
force of the bomb is impossible to describe. The damage that extends out
from the city is remarkable." He walked with Woltz to the bomb site within
the first 20 minutes of the explosion and reported that "the number of
people who had been injured was overwhelming and the damage was
indescribable."

Diocesan buildings damaged

     At the cathedral, "five of the six dormers have fallen, the bricks and
stones crushing the bushes and benches beneath them," wrote Back. "The St.
Francis window lies crumbled and twisted amidst the pews. Its companion
dangles among the organ trumpet pipes." In addition, he wrote, the
cathedral roof has shifted and "the heavy oak doors are 10 feet into the
cloister."

     At the diocesan offices, about a block further from the blast, windows
were broken, roof tiles dislodged, and at least one heavy metal door frame
twisted. "It was like the whole building was picked up, shaken and put back
down again," said Woltz.

     Despite the damage it sustained, the cathedral was called into service
the day of the blast as a support center for volunteers, with the magnitude
of the catastrophe prompting what seemed like super-human efforts, noted
Back.  "The city wants to feed 200 firefighters supper in Dean Willey
Hall," he wrote. "It is three o'clock. The hall is in shambles, the floor
is covered with shattered glass and ceiling tiles. By six o'clock the floor
is clean and 20 tables are set."

     The Rev. B. Wayne Kinyon, an Episcopal chaplain at St. Anthony's
Hospital where many of the injured were taken, was coordinating the
ecumenical efforts of the scores of clergy who came to the hospital to
help, reported Woltz. "I've never seen such an outpouring of offers to help
from volunteers," Woltz said. While he was at the hospital, he reported,
one woman approached him and said, "I'm a pastor's wife. How can I help?"

     Bishop Moody participated in an ecumenical prayer service the day
after the explosion, and churches throughout the city were planning special
services or vigils, Woltz said. The cathedral plans to hold its regular
services Sunday.

Relief funds established

     The President Bishop's Fund for World Relief sent an immediate
emergency grant of $25,000 to the Diocese of Oklahoma, reported Nancy
Marvel, the fund's interim director. In addition, the Episcopal Church is
represented through the ecumenical efforts of the Church World Service
(CWS). The Rev.  Peter Van Hook of the Diocese of Utah, an Episcopal
volunteer disaster resource consultant with the CWS, has joined efforts in
Oklahoma City to set up an immediate interfaith support program for
families of victims, she said.

     Donations for the bomb relief effort may be sent to:

     The Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief
     815 Second Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     (checks should be made out to the Presiding Bishop's Fund for World
      Relief, and marked for bomb blast relief)

In addition, donations may be sent to:

     Victim Relief Fund
     924 North Robinson
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     (checks should be made out to The Diocese of Oklahoma, and marked
      "Bomb Blast")

     Cathedral Restoration Fund
     127 N.W. 7th Street
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     (checks should be made out to St. Paul's Cathedral)
393.248CSEXP2::ANDREWSI'm the NRASat Apr 22 1995 02:181
    Latest news is that Nichols is NOT a suspect, but a witness...
393.249TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarSat Apr 22 1995 02:2313
    
    >That state trooper that pulled him over must be feeling good.
    
    Y'know, I think it's worth noting that cops tend to take a lot of
    heat for this routine traffic stuff, but I can't count the number
    of times I've heard about serious cases that were broken by this
    sort of routine police work.
    
    Just a thought...
    
    jc
    
            
393.250TROOA::COLLINSFrom Sheilus to the Reefs of KizmarSat Apr 22 1995 02:295
    
    Oh, and I think that the second suspect turned himself in because he
    was quickly beginning to realize that the safest place to be was
    *in custody*!
    
393.251SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CSat Apr 22 1995 13:35218
Bomb suspect is held, another identified; two questioned


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times

WASHINGTON (1:15 a.m.) -- Just 48 hours after the Oklahoma City
bombing, authorities Friday arrested a suspect whom a witness described in
court papers as enraged over the federal raid on the Branch Davidian
compound near Waco, Texas, two years to the day before the blast.

Investigators also said they had identified a second suspect in the bombing,
an Oklahoma man whose whereabouts are unknown and whose name they
did not disclose.

And they questioned two longtime associates of the arrested man, searching
a Michigan farm where the three once lived together for evidence of
explosives or ties to domestic right-wing groups hostile to the federal
government.

The breakthrough in the investigation of the worst terrorist attack ever on
U.S. soil came as law-enforcement officials in three states pieced together
fragmentary evidence and got a few lucky breaks. It prompted Attorney
General Janet Reno to conclude that the bombing was most likely the work
of an American group and not international terrorists.

Friday night the suspect under arrest, Timothy J. McVeigh, a 27-year-old
Army veteran, was brought before a federal magistrate at Tinker Air Force
Base in Oklahoma on charges of maliciously damaging federal property.
The government submitted an affidavit quoting witnesses who said they saw
a man matching his description at the scene only minutes before the
explosion.

In that affidavit, a former co-worker said McVeigh was "known to hold
extreme right-wing views" and had been "particularly agitated" about the
Waco raid, which led to a fire that killed some 80 members of the Branch
Davidian sect.

The co-worker, who was not identified in the affidavit, said McVeigh had
been so upset about those deaths that he had visited the charred site and later
expressed "extreme anger at the federal government" and said the
government "should never have done what it did."

McVeigh was captured in a web of circumstance worthy of a thriller. He
had been jailed in Perry, Okla., 60 miles north of Oklahoma City, since
being stopped on Interstate 35 there Wednesday, just 90 minutes after the
bombing, because the car he was driving had no license plates.

When he was pulled over, he was found to be carrying a 9-millimeter pistol
with "cop-killer"bullets and a knife in the car.

He was detained by county officials on misdemeanor charges of carrying a
concealed weapon. But they had no clue that he was being hunted by the FBI,
or matched the composite sketch of the crew-cut bombing suspect identified
a day later -- on Thursday -- only as "John Doe No. 1."

Then a routine check of his Social Security number matched one flagged by
the FBI as belonging to a suspect in the bombing. That led to an urgent call
demanding McVeigh's continued detention only 30 minutes before he was to
be released on bail Friday morning, and he was handed over to the FBI.

Wearing orange prison fatigues, his hands manacled to a leather strap around
his waist, McVeigh was taken under heavy guard from the Noble County
Jail in Perry on Friday as a crowd jeered and shouted, "Bastard!" He was
flown by military helicopter to Tinker Air Force Base for his initial hearing
pending formal arraignment.

McVeigh entered no plea at that hearing and then was taken to the El Reno
Federal Corrections Center, just west of Oklahoma City.

In addition, officials said that they now knew the identity of the man whose
sketch they had labeled as "John Doe No. 2" and that they believed he was
from Oklahoma but were unsure of his current whereabouts.

They said that they had all but eliminated as suspects the two additional men
being questioned but believed that the two had information about
McVeigh's activities.

One of the two, Terry Lynn Nichols, turned himself in this afternoon in
Herington, Kan., a small farm town 25 miles from Junction City, where the
truck suspected of holding the bomb was rented Monday.

The other is Nichols' brother James, an organic farmer in Decker, Mich.,
about 80 miles north of Detroit, whose house there was searched by federal
investigators Friday for evidence of explosive paraphernalia.

The affidavit released at McVeigh's hearing quoted an unidentified female
relative of James Nichols as saying that McVeigh had lived and worked on
the farm.

The relative also said she had heard that James Nichols had been involved in
building bombs about last November and "that he possessed large quantities
of fuel oil and fertilizer" -- the substances investigators believe were used
in the devastating blast.

Investigators believe that the Nichols brothers and McVeigh might have ties
to the Michigan Militia, a paramilitary group that opposes gun control and
believes that the federal government is conspiring to deprive citizens of
their rights.

But a spokesman for the Michigan Militia, which claims as many as 10,000
adherents, denied any knowledge of the Nicholses and said the group had no
connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

There was other evidence that marked McVeigh as a sympathizer of the
Branch Davidians. The ill-fated raid on the sect's Waco compound occurred
two years to the day before the Oklahoma bombing, and investigators said
he had given 4-19-93 as the date of issuance of the forged driver's license
that was used to rent the truck linked to the bombing.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which the Branch Davidians
and their sympathizers blamed for the Waco outcome, had offices in the
Oklahoma City building. But the bureau lost none of its employees in the
blast, officials said Friday, because its offices were on the side not damaged
by the bomb.

After 48 hours of fevered speculation that the attack was linked to
international terrorism, Attorney General Reno declared after McVeigh's
arrest Friday afternoon, "Every evidence indicates that it is domestic in
nature."

President Clinton announced that he would attend a memorial service for the
victims of the bombing in Oklahoma City on Sunday. In a news conference
at the White House, after McVeigh's arrest, the president vowed to "solve
this crime in its entirety," and said grimly of the bombers, "We will seek the
death penalty for them."

It was a day of fast-breaking developments in Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan
and Washington, where Ms. Reno announced the first arrest even as CNN
was televising live pictures of investigators surrounding and searching
James Nichols's farm in Michigan.

Neighbors there said McVeigh, who grew up in Pendleton, N.Y., near
Buffalo, had served in the military with Terry Nichols and had seen action
in the Persian Gulf war.

The neighbors said McVeigh had spent time on the Nichols family farm and
was often seen with guns. Investigators said they had linked him to the
Nichols brothers through his personal effects.

Investigators said McVeigh had served for a while at Fort Riley, Kan., but
no other details of his service record were available. The truck that the
authorities say was used to carry the explosives was rented in Junction City,
Kan., adjacent to Fort Riley, on Monday by two men, one fitting McVeigh's
description

Information about McVeigh's background was extremely sketchy Friday
night, and officials variously gave his first name as Timothy and Thomas.
He grew up and went to high school in Pendleton, where schoolmates
recalled him as unremarkable.

"He's a quiet boy, he kept to himself, he didn't seem like he was a
troublemaker or anything like that," said Tanya Panepento, 26, a fellow
student at Star Point Central School in Lockport.

McVeigh checked into the Dreamland Motel, half a mile outside Junction
City, under his own name last Friday and gave his address as 3616 North
Van Dyke in Decker, Mich., the Nichols farm. He checked out Tuesday
morning.

Lea McGown, the owner of the motel, said he had arrived well dressed, in a
1977 Mercury with Arizona license plates, and had talked her down to $20 a
night for a $28 room.

She said he had later driven a Ryder truck to the motel, backed it far away
from his room, No. 25, and locked it. She thought that was unusual, and
because the truck was close to a dropoff in the parking lot, she made him
move it.

"He's a talker," Ms. McGown said. "He paid attention to his appearance. He
was a very neat person. The feeling was he just washed his pants and put
them on."

Terry Nichols and his wife had lived at his brother's farmhouse but moved
away about a year and a half ago, after his 2-year-old son, Jason, died on
Nov. 22, 1993. The local sheriff's department logged an ambulance call to
the farm because of a report of a child not breathing.

Neighbors said McVeigh himself had left the farm about six months later.

Asked Friday whether the background of the suspect meant that the
government would take a new and tougher look at militant or
white-supremacist groups, Clinton cautioned against drawing quick
conclusions.

"We need to finish this investigation, we need to finish the rescue," he said.
"We then need to obviously examine anew, as we will over the next few
days, the sufficiency of out efforts in the whole area of terrorism."

Clinton also said various federal agencies, including the FBI and the Public
Health Service, had recently been deployed somewhere in the nation to deal
with a "tip of a possible terrorist incident, which, thank goodness, did not
materialize."

White House officials later flatly refused to say anything about the location
or timing of the potential threat, and said Clinton had raised it only in an
effort to reassure the public that authorities were constantly vigilant in
monitoring, and countering, possible plots against the nation.

Clinton announced that he and his wife, Hillary, would go to Oklahoma City
on Sunday for a 3 p.m. memorial service for the victims, and he declared it a
national day or mourning. He is also scheduled to be interviewed live on "60
Minutes" from Oklahoma City that evening.

Both Clintons also plan to use the president's weekly radio address Saturday
morning to address the topic, and will be joined for the broadcast, from the
White House, by parents and children from the Washington area
representing the 13 federal agencies that had branch offices in the bombed
building.

"The children of America need to know that almost all the adults in this
country are good people who love their children and love other children, and
we're going to get through this," Clinton said. "I don't want our children to
believe something terrible about life, and the future, and grown-ups in
general because of this awful thing."


393.252SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CSat Apr 22 1995 13:36146
KOCO
Channel 5
Oklahoma City

OKLAHOMA CITY FOOD BANK

Here is a quick summary of what the Oklahoma City Food Bank is
doing relative to the current disaster: 

 1. We are serving as a drop-off point for donations of food or
   other items from individuals, companies, etc. We are
   located at 30 S.E. 17th Street, between Robinson and
   Central Avenue, just south of the river. We are open
   8am-5pm. Donors can call 236-834 9 with questions. 
 2. We are picking up donations that cannot be brought here or
   arranging for volunteers to make pick-ups. 
 3. We are picking up and transporting prepared foods in our
   refrigerated "Second Helpings" truck. This food is
   transported directly to Salvation Army for serving to
   disaster workers. 
 4. We are supplying Salvation Army with food, drinks, and
   supplies as needed and available for use in their mobile
   disaster kitchens (4 now set up and operational), and in their
   main kitchen and shelter area. Many disaster workers are
   taking food and sle ep breaks at the Salvation Army. 
 5. We are storing donated food and other products and
   supplying it as needed to the disaster area. We will also be
   supplying items to emergency food pantries and other
   agencies that we regularly work with. We expect an
   increased demand for food and suppl ies in the inner city
   area beyond the immediate situation, as displaced residents
   and those with damage to their property try to begin
   recovery. 

Some items we have immediate need for are: 

   Hot cups and cold cups 
   Heavy duty paper plates 
   Napkins 
   Garbage bags 
   Coffee 
   Sugar 
   Bread 
   Lunch meat & cheese 
   Fruit 
   Tylenol or aspirin 

We expect to have an ongoing need for other items that could be
collected or the truck placed at 1300 E. Britton Road. These would
include: 

   Canned meats, soups, fruits & vegetables 
   Peanut butter & jelly 
   Other nonperishable foods like macaroni & cheese, canned
   or powdered milk, and other packaged 
   foods 
   Paper products of all kinds 
   Toiletry items like bath soap, shampoo, aspirin, laundry
   soap 
   Baby items like diapers and formula 

Any help you can give will be appreciated. Feel free to call Sally
White at 236-8349. You may also call the Executive Director,
Rodney Bivens. 


RED CROSS INFORMATION

SHELTERS

   Outreach Center (36TH & Walker), Mass Care and Mental
   Health (Red Cross is facilitating) 
   Shelter - St. Luke's Methodist Church (14th & Harvey) 
      First Aid (minor injuries) 
      Mental Health (Helping any person through the
      trauma) 
      Approximately 100 people there now: 500 person
      capacity 

What People Can Do To Help

The most immediate way to help disaster victims is through
financial contributions. Call 1-800-HELP-NOW, or mail to your
local Red Cross, 601 NE 6th, Oklahoma City, OK 73104. 
The blood donation number is 297-5553 

Inquiries For Missing Persons

Call 232-7121 or 1-800-537-6374 or if in Oklahoma City go to
36th & Walker. As of 9:30 on April 20th, the Red Cross had taken
1150 calls concerning missing family. 


HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS

DONATIONS

   Money (Red Cross), 1-800-435-7669 
   Blood (Oklahoma Blood Institute), 297-5553 
   Equipment, floodlights & generators (OKC Fire
   Department), 297-3439 
   Construction equipment (Assn. of Contractors), 528-4605 
   Relief to volunteer workers (Salvation Army), 270-7800 
   Donations of hot and cold cups, heavy paper cups, napkins,
   garbage bags, coffee, sugar, bread, lunch meat, cheese, fruit,
   sealed Tylenol or aspirin, canned meats, soups, fruits &
   vegetables, peanut butter, jelly, and other non-perishables
   can be donated at KOCO studios, 1300 East Britton Road
   8am-6pm 

MEDICAL VOLUNTEERS, contact the Red Cross at
1-800-435-7669

AMERICAN RED CROSS, 232-7121

SHELTERS

   Outreach Center, 36th & Walker 
   St. Luke's Methodist Church, 14th & Harvey, 232-1371 

COUNSELING

   Contact (24 hour), 271-5050 
   Crisis Intervention Center, 848-2273 
   Hillcrest Health Center, 680-2000 
   Compassionate Friends (OKC), 789-8840 
   Compassionate Friends (Norman), 360-4287 

MISSING PERSONS INQUIRIES 

   American Red Cross, 232-7121 
   American Red Cross, 1-800-537-6374 (First Christian
   Church at 36th and Walker in OKC) 

HOSPITALS 

   St. Anthony Hospital (24 hour), 272-6063 
   Southwest Medical Center, 636-7225 
   Presbyterian Hospital, 271-5100 
   University Hospital, 271-3600 


If you need to contact KOCO Channel 5 in Oklahoma City, send
email to koco@ionet.net. 

--> 
393.253McVeigh was even a Gulf War veteran?BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Sat Apr 22 1995 15:573
    The press is now looking to paint the bombers as white supremacists,
    but it appears that McVeigh's views were pretty ordinary - only his
    method (the bomb) was extreme.
393.254CALDEC::RAHan outlaw in townSat Apr 22 1995 16:068
    
    the press is frantic to backpedal its inital accusations against
    unamed hezboallah operatives.
    
    they are self perpetuating and feed on the ignorance and stupidity 
    of us teevee audiences in general. 
    
    
393.255US is a-changingTINCUP::AGUEDTN-592-4939, 719-598-3498(SSL)Sat Apr 22 1995 16:486
    McVeigh, a pathetic paranoid, who was so afraid of the federal
    government taking away his freedoms, has apparently committed an act
    that will have long-range effects of taking away freedoms from the 
    rest of us.
    
    -- Jim
393.256COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSun Apr 23 1995 23:1686
This is an extract from a VERY long 1994 ADL report (Anti-Defamation League,
not Arthur D. Little, as I had originally thought when I looked it up).

The full report, titled "Armed and Dangerous" is at

	http://www.acsys.com/~sims/revolution/adl-report.html

Michigan

The militia movement has gained a following in Michigan. The most visible 
such group in the state has sprung up in northern Michigan. Spokesmen there 
make the (probably exaggerated) claim that militias have 10,000 members and 
that brigades are operating or are currently forming in 66 of the state's 
83 counties. Meetings reportedly draw 50 to 100 attendees. 

The issues animating Michigan's militias are the same as those fueling the 
movement nationally. Chief among them is a belief that gun control 
legislation is but a prelude to a complete ban on firearms ownership in 
this country. An essential additional ingredient, though, is their 
conviction that the government intends to wage war on citizens who refuse 
to give up their weapons. They cite as evidence for this view the tragic 
assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. and the 1992 raid 
on the cabin of Randy Weaver in Idaho, in which Weaver's wife and son and a 
federal marshal were killed. They also contend that this same federal 
government is acquiescing in the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the 
United Nations and other international bodies. The militia's aims are to 
"stand against tyranny, globalism, moral relativism, humanism and the New 
World Order threatening to undermine these United States of America." 

Norman E. Olson, 47, a Baptist minister and gun-shop owner in Alanson, is 
the Commander of the 1st Brigade, 2nd Division, Northern Michigan Regional 
Militia. After a few months of discussion and recruitment, the group was 
established in April 1994. It conducts training exercises twice a month. At 
a recent session, weapons reportedly included Chinese SKS semi-automatic 
assault rifles, shotguns and deer rifles. 

When residents complained about militia members clad in camouflage uniforms 
and painted faces gathering with their rifles at a village park and a 
public campground in Pellston, the village council banned firearms from 
those and other village sites. Militia commander Olson threatened to sue 
the village for allegedly violating his rights. He also announced that his 
group would no longer convene in the park or the campground, saying: "The 
people of Pellston have got to want the light of liberty." 

Olson strenuously denies that the Northern Michigan Regional Militia is 
racist or anti Semitic. He claims some Jewish ancestry, and professes 
admiration for Israel. But his militia's rhetoric on occasion has been 
extreme and alarmist. In reference to the aborted march on Washington 
promoted by Indianapolis militia leader Linda Thompson, Olson has written: 
"Many thousands are prepared to go to Washington in uniform, carry their 
guns, prepared to present the ultimatum to the President and to Congress. 
This may be the beginning of a Concord-like confrontation." A militia 
pamphlet distributed at a May meeting in Petoskey attended by some 55 
people reportedly asked: "What force exists to prevent a state or federally 
orchestrated massacre like the one in Waco from occurring in Michigan?" Ray 
Southwell, a real estate agent who is the group's information officer, has 
said: "I'd guess that within the next two years, you will see the 
Constitution suspended." His further prediction: "Christian fundamentalists 
will be the first to go under fascism this time. Just like the Jews were 
the first last time." 

Southwell speaks as though he regards confrontation with law enforcement as 
inevitable. His militia is preparing for the day "when martial law is 
declared." "We are taking a stand." he says, "and are prepared to lose 
everything." 

Other militia activists in Michigan have had their own encounter with the 
law. Police in Fowlerville (Livingston County) arrested three militia 
members on September 8, 1994. Loaded rifles and handguns, as well as gas 
masks, night-vision binoculars and two-way radios, were found in their car. 
At the men's scheduled September 14 hearing, at least two dozen uniformed 
supporters staged a protest in front of the courthouse and stomped on a 
United Nations flag. The suspects failed to appear and are considered 
fugitives. They were described by their supporters as security aides to 
Mark Koernke (a.k.a. "Mark from Michigan"), a former Army intelligence 
officer whose "America in Peril" video and speeches have helped to recruit 
members to militias around the country. 

All the confrontational talk has caught the attention of law enforcement 
authorities. "Some of their material is disquieting because it defines the 
U.S. government as the enemy said a Michigan State Police commander. "It is 
disquieting if people think redress is in armed conflict with the U.S. 
government." The head of the Detroit office of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms expressed the hope "that the militia groups would use 
the power of the vote rather than the threat of armed violent confrontation 
to accomplish their goals."
393.257DELNI::SHOOKFowl Play Suspected in Hen House DeathMon Apr 24 1995 05:0025
    
    
    on 60 minutes last night, leslie stahl did a story on the michigan
    militia, and interviewed the head of the group. nothing all that new
    from what has already been reported, but it really irked me to hear
    this idiot speculating that the government might have actually planted
    the bomb itself just to frame the militias. to make it even worse, some
    of the members "cheered" upon hearing about the bombing, and felt that
    it was revenge for waco. 
    
    how waco ended was a tragedy, and while i feel badly about what 
    happened to the children, koresh himself pretty much had it coming.
    it's very disturbing to hear people actually believing that because an 
    agency of the government, be it dea or atf, is doing their duty of 
    enforcing a law(s), regardless of what it is, that if there is 
    disagreement with the law, it's alright to commit acts of violence 
    against these agencies. i have friends, and relatives, who work in law 
    enforcement, and i hate to think that there are some people, like mcveigh 
    and some of these militia members, who could actually carry out and/or 
    condone this type of behavior and still consider themselves to be americans
     
    sorry, but REAL americans do not do this type of thing, nor do they
    condone it! 
                                                      
       
393.258Their coming to tale us awayGLDOA::POMEROYMon Apr 24 1995 05:215
    But Bill, he was only protecting us from being invaded but the UN
    Forces that landing at Selfridge AFB in their black unmarked
    helicopters.
    
    Dennis
393.259GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingMon Apr 24 1995 11:406
    
    
    RE: .218  Show me where I said that I wanted the US to go and blow up
    any country.  
    
    Mike
393.260SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CMon Apr 24 1995 12:0520
    
    
re:  <<< Note 393.257 by DELNI::SHOOK "Fowl Play Suspected in Hen House Death" >>>
    
    
>    how waco ended was a tragedy, and while i feel badly about what 
>    happened to the children, koresh himself pretty much had it coming.
    
    	Ah yes, he'd committed no crimes, had complied with authorities in
    the past, but he 'had it coming'. Very nice. You remind me of the folks
    who say a woman who wears seductive clothing deserves to get raped.
    
    	What happened at OKC was a horrible tragedy and nothing could be
    more grotesque than someone cheering for it. But sitting back and
    believing that the militia ordered this bombing or had anything to do
    with it is ludicrous. It was the act of one or two extremist loonies
    and nothing more....get it through your head!
    
    	jim
    
393.261SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CMon Apr 24 1995 12:1014
    
    
>    but it really irked me to hear
>    this idiot speculating that the government might have actually planted
>    the bomb itself just to frame the militias. 
    
    
    	While I don't think the government actually planted the bomb, it's
    not such a far fetched scenario as one might think. Do not historians
    believe that the Reichstag was burned by it's own people just so they
    could blame it on the opposition and insititute their own agenda in
    Nazi Germany?
    
    jim
393.262CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 12:5973
    Actually, to be perfectly honest, my first impression of the bombing
    was that it was engineered indirectly by the US government or perhaps
    one of the globalist groups.  There can be NO "new world order" as
    long as the US is sovereign.  This was my impression long before I
    heard what any conspiracy group/conference had to say on it.  After
    Waco, I put nothing beyond our elite rulers (or rather the elite behind
    the scenes).
    
    This may seem paranoid as first glance, but just wait and see what
    comes out of it.  I refuse to believe that loonies just pop out of thin
    air at strategic times to help with the neutering of the BoR.  Of
    course, as of yet nothing concrete has come of this bombing in the way
    of law (it's far too soon), but I make a prediction that you will see 
    legislation- fully backed by the American sheep- that addresses internal 
    terrorism (which will complement parts of the passed crime bill).  This
    legislation is likely to take on the form of internet controls, militia
    controls and/or more gun control.  It is also likely to be used to
    EXPAND the BATF at a time when Americans are calling for its collective
    head to be cut off.  It may well encompass FBI increases, as well as more 
    "national police" (perhaps a new group committed to internal terrorism, or 
    expanded powers to other groups).
    
    Already we see a verbal attack on the organized militias by the
    controlled media.  The conditioning of the American sheep has begun. 
    It won't be long before most Americans will be completely  brainwashed
    into believing that all militias are future internal terrorists in the
    making (thus we need additional national police to be able to deal with
    such a threat).
    
    No, this whole thing smacks of convenience to me.  It is too convenient
    for the powers that be, to be just some looney.  Even some of the
    mild-mannered conspiracy folks will think it just some looney who helps
    to eliminate their rights by terrorism, rather than a small part of a
    greater scheme.  
    
    In a time when the American people have drawn a line in the sand for
    Congress; a time when we are pushing hard to reign in a bloated and 
    power-hungry government; a time when representatives are elected en
    mass due to their pro-BoR and small government platforms; and a time
    when the American people seem determined to bring back the Constitution
    as the law, rather than just a guide that can be ignored when
    convenient; I find it amazing that we are being once again exposed to a
    "national crisis" event that is slowly being spun as a propaganda
    campaign against militias, and one that can lead to the expansion of
    federal powers all in the name of controlling terrorism.  I find it 
    amazing that in such a time of unity of people to take back their 
    government, a major event happens that plays upon emotions, that may 
    possibly be used to enact "emergency" measures or even legislation that 
    can further distance the American people from their BoR.
    
    At some point in time, coincidental timing becomes hard to swallow. 
    Maybe the above is just a paranoid fantasy, I'll admit, but the whole
    thing stinks, IMO.  As the "Contract" with America goes on rather
    successfully, I kept wondering what the globalist-types could do to
    turn the people's focus away from taking back the government (which is
    certianly opposite of what they'd like to see happen).  I kept
    wondering how this resurrection of American spirit for freedom would be
    quenched.  Certianly not by a simply looney opening fire in a
    McDonalds, that wouldn't be enough.  It would have to something big
    enough for the media to bite into for weeks, and big enough to hold the
    people's attentions throughout.  It would seem that the OKC bombing
    fits this bill quite well.
    
    Well see in the not-too distant future whether my ramblings are
    paranoid conspiracy nutter ramblings, or if just maybe there is
    something more sinister at work.  We may never know the truth one way
    or the other, but perhaps the fruit born out of this event will bear
    witness to what is behind it.  Certainly, I hope my first impression is
    utterly incorrect.
    
    
    -steve (just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get
    me  8^) ) 
393.263SHRCTR::DAVISMon Apr 24 1995 13:0618
             <<< Note 393.256 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

> The issues animating Michigan's militias are the same as those fueling the 
> movement nationally. Chief among them is a belief that gun control 
>legislation is but a prelude to a complete ban on firearms ownership in 
>this country. An essential additional ingredient, though, is their 
>conviction that the government intends to wage war on citizens who refuse 
>to give up their weapons. They cite as evidence for this view the tragic 
>assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. and the 1992 raid 
>on the cabin of Randy Weaver in Idaho, in which Weaver's wife and son and a 
>federal marshal were killed. They also contend that this same federal 
>government is acquiescing in the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the 
>United Nations and other international bodies. The militia's aims are to 
>"stand against tyranny, globalism, moral relativism, humanism and the New 
>World Order threatening to undermine these United States of America." 

Boy, does that sound like some of our illustrious 'boxer's or what? Kinda 
gives you the the willies...
393.264PATE::CLAPPMon Apr 24 1995 13:0925
    
    re: 393.262
    
   >                                        It is also likely to be used to
   > EXPAND the BATF at a time when Americans are calling for its collective
   > head to be cut off.  It may well encompass FBI increases, as well as more
   > "national police" (perhaps a new group committed to internal terrorism, 
   > or expanded powers to other groups).
     
    Driving in this morning, they mentioned that the FBI was precluded for
    infiltrating these groups unless they committed a crime.  The
    legislation the Clinton administration is putting froth would permit
    the government to infiltrate organizations based on suspicion.  
    
    They seem also to want to make a gun issue out of this, although no
    guns were used.
    
    Living in a "free" society has it's drawbacks.  It's not utopia.
    I'd rather live in a "free" society and take my chances.
    
    
      
    
    
    
393.265RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Mon Apr 24 1995 13:1714
    Re .101:
    
    > I have long held the opinion that our response to such attacks needs to
    > be totally out of proportion to the the severity of the original
    > attack. You blow up a building, we blow up one of your cities; . . .
    
    Good-bye Detroit.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.266SHRCTR::DAVISMon Apr 24 1995 13:1729
       <<< Note 393.260 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

    
    
    
>>    how waco ended was a tragedy, and while i feel badly about what 
>>    happened to the children, koresh himself pretty much had it coming.
    
>    	Ah yes, he'd committed no crimes, had complied with authorities in
>    the past, but he 'had it coming'. Very nice. You remind me of the folks
>    who say a woman who wears seductive clothing deserves to get raped.
    
>    	What happened at OKC was a horrible tragedy and nothing could be
>    more grotesque than someone cheering for it. But sitting back and
>    believing that the militia ordered this bombing or had anything to do
>    with it is ludicrous. It was the act of one or two extremist loonies
>    and nothing more....get it through your head!

It doesn't matter what Koresh did in the past. He had every opportunity to 
do battle to protect his rights in the courts, but instead he choose to 
make a martyr of himself and the people in his compound. The gummint made 
mistakes, and may have overstepped its legal bounds at the outset, but 
Koresh is the one who made the situation deadly for innocents.

No one said that the militia is directly responsible. It's the seige 
mindset that these guys foster that can be pretty much harmless in a bunch 
of war hero wannabies but *disasterous* in someone who's got major head 
problems.

393.267MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 13:175
> The legislation the Clinton administration is putting froth would permit
> the government to infiltrate organizations based on suspicion.  

Time to write your congresscritter again, folks . . . 

393.268MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 13:236
>It doesn't matter what Koresh did in the past. He had every opportunity to 
>do battle to protect his rights in the courts, but instead he choose to 
>make a martyr of himself and the people in his compound.

This didn't work for George and it won't work for you, either.

393.269SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 13:249
    
    RE: .231
    
    jc,
    
     So what would be the solution in your world??
    
    
    
393.270TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Mon Apr 24 1995 13:4122
    
    .269, Andy:
    
    In my world, which is probably not far off from your world, the tit-
    for-tat tactics of Israel have OBVIOUSLY not worked, thus they were
    forced to resort to negotiation with the PLO.  I imagine that most such
    disputes end in similar fashion, if they end at all.  Military strikes
    are not a creative solution, and usually not a solution at all.
    
    Do I have a better solution?  Well, an intelligent addressing of the
    issues at hand might go farther than endless strikes and bombings.
    A problem well stated is a problem half solved.
    
    If the deaths in the WTC bombing were crimes, than so would be any non-
    combatant deaths resulting from a `surgical strike'.  If you think that
    those deaths are acceptable, then you are essentially admitting that
    you are at war, and better be prepared to accept more in return.
    
    As for your militias...well...I guess you saw 60 minutes last night.
    
    jc
    
393.271SHRCTR::DAVISMon Apr 24 1995 13:424
        <<< Note 393.268 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

Care to tell me how I'm "georging"?

393.272MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 13:4811
>Care to tell me how I'm "georging"?

Quite simple, actually.

George contends that the BATF did no wrong (other than _possibly_ handling
the situation a bit extremely) and that Koresh should have done battle
in the courts rather than in the Waco compound. You're apparently of
the same opinion. As has been mentioned multiple times by many in here,
you are both wrong. Rather than rehashing the thing, review the Waco
topic.

393.273SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 13:5117
    
    re: .270
    
    jc...
    
     Well... that sounds all well and good, except fot the fact that it
    doesn't matter how the Israeli/PLO thing works out. They may "settle"
    things and it'll work for a little while, but the outcome will always
    be the same over there...
    
      Do you really believe, with the murderous hate that's prevalent in
    the minds of those people, that it can ever come to real peace? The
    pessimist in me sort a doubts it, although I would like to see peace
    there...
    
      With human nature the way it is, yours is a far-fetched utopia...
    
393.274CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 13:5413
    Something I forgot to mention under my "convenience" issue was that
    suspects are already in custody for the bombing (which was the same
    with the WTC bombing).
    
    Strange, but with the bumbling efforts given in the past by the federal
    authorities (breaking into the wrong house, etc.), I have to wonder how
    they suddenly become super-detectives in this case.
    
    Of course, I'm on the "question everything" philosophy when it comes to
    the government.
    
    
    -steve
393.275NEMAIL::BULLOCKMon Apr 24 1995 14:0211
    
    
    
        re .274
    
    
        Seems to me that this McVeigh dude wanted to get caught. Speeding,
        no plates,...he probably believes that he's now a p.o.w.
    
    
        Ed
393.276CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenMon Apr 24 1995 14:181
    ....and will be a martyr for "the cause".   
393.277CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 14:303
    re: last two
    
    That's always a possibility, I suppose.
393.278SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CMon Apr 24 1995 14:35211

                BILL CLINTON'S REICHSTAG FIRE
                   -- by L. Neil Smith --

     How very convenient.  

     How very damned convenient.  

     A heinous act is committed in Oklahoma City -- the bombing
of a federal building in which many lives, including those of a
dozen innocent children, are blasted away -- and the spokesmen of
both established political parties see nothing in it but another
opportunity to nourish their insatiable desire for control over
the lives of others at the irrational, unnecessary expense of a
sacred American tradition, more two centuries old, of unfettered
individual liberty.

     The spectacularly popular Republican showman who frequently
identifies himself on his national radio program as the "Doctor
of Democracy" spends two days wallowing in orgiastic fantasies of
collective punishment -- a variety of socialism characteristic of
Europe or Japan (where the light of the Constitution never
shines) wholly alien to anyplace in America but the Army and the
public schools. He pompously declares the moral equivalent of war
and implies that it is time for Americans to sacrifice their
time-honored and vital liberties for mere physical security.

     Meanwhile, American history's most discredited president and
his power-hungry wife get a second lease on their worthless and
destructive political lives as, lower lip extended and trembling,
he struts and pouts on national television like the comical
transvestites in _The Rocky Horror Picture Show_, pretending to a
strength of character and resolve he never possessed and never
will.

     Having done her level best to start a second Civil War, his
Attorney General, a dangerously stupid and incompetent piece of
work who has allegedly stated on more than one occasion that
anyone is a potential criminal or terrorist whose opinions
regarding life's most fundamental issues happen to differ from
her own, is now free to assert without public opposition that she
is vindicated.

     Likewise, equally stupid and incompetent people in the
national mass media, who have sucked up unceasingly during the
20th century to those in power and have lately made a habit of
attempting to identify distinguished and respectable civil rights
organizations such as the Libertarian Party and the National
Rifle Association with hate-motivated groups like the skinheads
and the Ku Klux Klan, continue to profit from the lies they
shovel daily at the public.

     Efforts in Congress -- some of them apparently in earnest --
to repeal more than four decades' worth of viciously
unconstitutional legislation get sidetracked and, if the
president and his cronies have their way, derailed altogether.

     Outlaw government agencies responsible for one increasingly
illegal, murderously violent attack on innocent citizens after
another receive a massive whitewashing by the whorish,
authority-bedazzled media, while local police who have taken to
imitating those agencies renew their "license to kill".

     Private talk and public forums on the computer internet,
previously immune to scrutiny, censorship, or control by the
establishment media or the government get closed down "for the
duration" -- for which anyone even faintly familiar with history
reads "forever" -- to the colossal relief of both major parties.

     Americans who were beginning to regain control of their own
political lives can now be lumped together with racists and
perverts -- and effectively silenced.  The Bill of Rights,
threatening for the past several years to make an unwanted
resurgence in American political life, goes into the shredder,
instead.

     What a windfall.  

     What a damned convenient windfall.  

     It's exactly the kind of windfall enjoyed by Adolf Hitler's
National Socialist German Workers' Party when the Reichstag, the
seat of representative government in that country, burned down
and the newly-elected Nazi chancellor, blaming the fire on his
political enemies, used it as an excuse to turn his country into
a dictatorship.  Historians are generally agreed that the Nazis
themselves started the fire -- whereas the pattern of the
Democratic Party in America has been to wait around, like
vultures on a cactus, until something horrible happens (the
assassination of a presidential candidate, the shooting of a
score of restaurant patrons) that they can make the best
political use of.

     Nevertheless, the effect is the same.  

     The simple, politically inconvenient fact, however, is that
terrorist incidents do not stem from any insufficiency of
government, but invariably from too much of the stuff.  This
country's problems in the Middle East -- very much on America's
guilty conscience following the explosion in Oklahoma City --
would not even exist if American politics were kept within
American borders.  Yes, that's what I said -- and if this be
isolationism, let us make the most of it!

     If, as it presently appears, the Oklahoma tragedy relates,
instead, to the infamous and tragically needless events of 1993
in Waco, Texas, then it is time to drastically reduce the role of
government in American lives, as well, not to condone and expand
the scope of the state terrorism which apparently provoked it.

     There is only one way to accomplish that -- and to prevent
this bombing from being used as yet another excuse to terrorize
and punish millions of Americans who had absolutely nothing to do
with it -- but there are many ways to begin.

     First, all federal agencies must be disarmed, their
employees forbidden to carry personal weapons on the job (or to
wear masks or to affect military clothing), and their heavy
weaponry and vehicles-of-war surrendered to the nearest units of
a denationalized National Guard.  These agencies must then be
reduced to that number specifically authorized by the
Constitution under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  If a few
remaining federal investigators wish something to be done that is
both lawful and requires the use of force, they may apply to
local law enforcement for assistance -- and, more importantly,
for consent.

     Next, the "War on Drugs", a disastrous Republican error
which, by design or otherwise, has provided most of the
justification for government incursions on individual liberty in
recent years -- and which has served only to enhance departmental
appropriations, numbers of personnel, and the dictatorial power
of bureaucrats and politicians (while enriching their nominal
enemies the so-called drug lords) -- must come to an immediate,
screeching halt.  It was never anything but a war on the Bill of
Rights in any case.  And any law -- like RICO -- which authorizes
unconstitutional seizures of property must be repealed.

     All foreign aid, defense assistance, and overseas military
presence must end, and a drastic reduction in "diplomatic"
activities undertaken, as well. Americans are not the "cops of
the world" and every attempt to make them so merely adds to the
likelihood of another disaster such as that we have just
witnessed.  Scholars mindful of the dismal political history of
the 19th and 20th centuries, once warned that the Vietnam War
would lead to shrinkages of freedom at home, and they were right.
We are witnessing the culmination of that process.

     Stringent -- make that, "draconian" -- enforcement of the
highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights, must become
America's number one political priority.  The population that
must be scrutinized all collect government paychecks.

     These measures would constitute a good beginning.  The
question arises, how is it to be accomplished?  Certainly not by
relying on the Democratic or Republican Parties which have long
since betrayed all of their constitutional responsibilities.
Before the Oklahoma City bombing, the media were full of reports
that Americans are hankering for a third party, although mention
was seldom made of which party it might be or what they believe
it should stand for.

     America has had a third party for more than twenty years.
Perhaps it's time to make use of it.  Those who wish to see it
achieve power and do the things listed above (and more) must work
with those who only wish to continue living in a free country.
If both groups -- to give an illustrative example -- were to
begin putting bumper stickers on their cars that say, "NEXT TIME
I'M VOTING LIBERTARIAN", it wouldn't matter what all those bumper
sticker _stickers_ really intend.  For some it would be the
literal truth.  For others -- those who only want their own
parties to straighten up and fly right -- it would be a threat,
one that could be conveyed in letters and phone calls, as well.

     Try thinking of the Libertarian Party as a rolled-up
newspaper, useful in making the Republican puppy (I've given up
on the Democratic bitch) go where he's supposed to -- not on that
beautiful antique carpet we call the Constitution.

     BAP!  BAP!  BAP!  

     BAD Bobby, BAD Newtie!  

     BAP!  BAP!  BAP!  

     Of course to Janet Reno, such an exercise of free speech
would be terrorism.

     But then, so is the rest of the Bill of Rights.

L. Neil Smith <lneil@lever.ncdl.com>
Author:   THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE,
THE LANDO CALRISSIAN ADVENTURES, HENRY MARTYN, and PALLAS
Editor:   LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/56
Founder & International Coordinator:
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
Secretary & Legislative Director:
Weld County Fish & Wildlife Association
NRA Life Member



--- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]
--
|Internet: lneil@lever.ncdl.com
| From LEVER ACTION BBS  +1 970 493 6674 - Ft. Collins, CO
| Northern Colorado Data Link - Ft. Collins, CO (NCDL)



393.279SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CMon Apr 24 1995 14:3698
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:32:32 -0500 (CDT) Paul Watson said:
>KRLD Dallas, 1:20pm
>Just announced One suspect arrested tied to Militia of Michigan.
>A right wing group tied to White supremacist.
>Two men are held up in "Decker" Michigan in a stand off with FBI.
>This is the famous "Mark from Michigan"
>They are saying this group was very sympathic with the Raid on the Branch
>Davidian and they did this as revenge.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Watson, pwatson@utdallas.edu  Purchasing Department  "DISCLAIMER"
>The University of Texas at Dallas  ph# 214/883-2307, fax# 214/883-2348
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for posting your thoughts, Paul.

I am in Michigan at this moment.  The information relayed above
is a total fabrication, disinformation, a deliberate lie.

Loacl media reported here some time ago that the guy in Deckerville,
who is actually the Public Information Officer for that county's
militia, is not held and is not wanted.  He DID hear on the radio
that the FBI "was looking for him" earlier today, whereupon he
tunred himself in to his local Sheriff and asked what this whole thing
was about.  At that point, the FBI backed away and announced that they were
in fact NOT seeking this guy - after plastering news releases to the
contrary all over the national media all day long.  CNN persisted
in showing the sheriff collecting this gentleman after he called and
turned himself in. Late this afternoon, CNN was still replaying this
tape clip with the implication in the commentary that this person was
being taken into custody by and/or for the FBI at that moment.  As of
this writing. Mr. Nichols is neing referred to as a "possible witness".
Nothing more.

There are not, and have never been, any Michigan Militia "barraceded suspects"
in Deckerville (no such town as "Decker"). Mark Koernke, sometimes
called "Mark from Michigan" has never been mentioned in local news
telecasts. This story, like the phony one some weeks ago about
"taking over" a local NG base, was manufactured by a known wacko in
Detroit who is trying desperately to get on the fed payroll as a "paid
informant".  In the past, when this gentleman lacked facts, he has simply
made them up to fit his psychotic reality.

Donohue tried the old lie about "white supremacists" in the militias,
and had to eat his words when the commander of the Ohio militia,
who just happens to be Black, showed up for the taping. "White supie"
stories about the Michigan Militia are just as phoney; the
membership of same includes every race and sex, as well as disabled persons.
Try another flavor of lie next time.

The concept of a "revenge raid" as some nebulous "payback" for Waco
by person or persons unknown is laughable.

IF, repeat IF this was done by any terrorist group, the blame for that
lies squarely on American media. If this was a terrorist act, it
seems to clearly be a "copy cat" act inspired by the lather of news
"coverage" of the World Trade Center bombing.  The similarities are
non-trivial and not credible as "coincidence", right down to the
"Arab-looking" suspects and the "rented van". Just like the WTC.

Who stands to gain from this act the most?  Clearly, the BATF (who
already have a documented history of genocide/mass child murder).
They stand to benefit in the form of the very survival of their agency,
until recently hard-pressed in Congress to explain abuse of
innocent American civilians.  They stand to gain in the form of
power, prestige, AND MONEY, to say nothing of probably gaining
blanket and retroactive immunity from prosecution for ALL acts
of any kind as part of the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act that is
lurking in Congress. The Waco trial transcripts ($450) clearly
document BATF evidence-tampering and coverups after Waco. These guys
have NOTHING to lose by such an act, and potentially EVERYTHING
to gain.

Speaking of the anti-terrorism bill, it is truly amazing how many
newsfroids have been coming up with "ideas off the top of their heads"
during this flap which are in fact direct quotes from the pending bill,
which is intended to relieve Americans of any of those troublesome
rights they may still retain, including allowing the President to
declare any person or group as terrorists for any reason, suspending
all due process (illegally, according to the Constitution) for same.
Ask any Japanese-American what happens when (not if) the feds decide
to use public hysteria to abrogate the rights of any group.

One thing nobody has explained to me yet.  Since the bomb was claimed
to be OUTSIDE the building, it seems odd that the steel reinforcing bars
embedded in the concrete of the building walls were bent OUTWARD in the
TV photos I have seen.

If I was in a nation outside the USA right now, I would be truly worried.
If the USA turns into a Kruschev-style totalitarian state, it won't be
long before those in power start casting about for the next place to which
they can export their tyranny.  Without effective controls on such actions
from within the USA, you can look forward to joingin us in the NEW Gulag
Archipellago soon.  Very soon.


W. K. Gorman

393.280Perhaps selective reporting hides our real capabilitiesSTAR::PARKETrue Engineers Combat ObfuscationMon Apr 24 1995 14:4913
        Re: .274 - Federal Bumblers becoming super detectives

    Have you considered that the only NEWSWORTHY items about the Federal
    agencies, and their capabilities are their failures.


    Our intelligence and enforcement agencies have some (granted not all)
    extremely able people to apply to problems such as this.   These
    agencies also have or have access to technology that we might be able to
    dream about, the future is yesterday kind of technology.

    Perhaps these people never make the news just participating in catching
    every day baddies, etc.
393.281The American People will never 'buy' that the BATF hit ITSELF.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 15:0318
    We have a suspect in custody (who has been identified as renting the
    bomb-carrying truck and who was spotted at the scene of the bombing)
    yet we already have some individuals in this country claiming that 
    this bombing was a *government plot*.  (Are these the same people
    who have suggested that members of the militia engage in a 'March
    on Washington' with guns to give our Federal Government an 'ULTIMATUM',
    otherwise known as, 'Civil War II'?)
    
    Someone referred to McVeigh some notes back as being a 'pathetic
    paranoid' - and I have to ask, 'Compared to whom?'  Compared to the
    the authors of some of this material being brought here from the
    Internet, McVeigh sounds pretty normal.
    
    If the folks who agree with McVeigh's point of view had wanted to do
    the one thing that would hurt their cause more than any other single
    act they could have ever done, McVeigh has certainly made their dreams
    come true.  The rhetoric coming from the far right will never look the
    same again to the people of this country.
393.282CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 15:1416
    re: .281
    
    
    From the reports I've read, no BATF fatalities exist.  Pretty bumbled
    bombing, IMO, if revenge for Waco (as the media is now hyping) is the
    intent.
    
    Instead, children and innocents get killed.
    
    Once again, HOW CONVENIENT!
    
    This agency is not beyond ANYTHING, as they have amply proved.
    
    
    -steve (who's not saying they were behind it, but leaves that
    possibility on the table)
393.283the hazards of having a common name...CSSREG::BROWNJust Visiting This PlanetMon Apr 24 1995 15:166
    Just heard that the "leader" of the NH militia group has the same name
    as me.
     
    Arrrggghhh....
    
    
393.284MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 15:177
>    If the folks who agree with McVeigh's point of view

Assuming that he actually is guilty of this, I don't know of anyone who's
stated that they "agree with [his] point of view", since that PoV is
apparently that bombing a Federal building without regard for the lives
of innocent people is a justifiable act.

393.285BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 15:3221
    RE: .282  Steve Leech
    
    > From the reports I've read, no BATF fatalities exist.  Pretty bumbled
    > bombing, IMO, if revenge for Waco (as the media is now hyping) is the
    > intent.
    
    The BATF office was on the other side of the building.  Meanwhile,
    people in buildings across the street *were* killed, so the survival
    of *anyone* in the Federal building at all is almost a miracle.
    
    > Instead, children and innocents get killed.    
    > Once again, HOW CONVENIENT!
    
    The children of some Federal employees were killed.  If you had
    children, would you see this as 'convenient' (for your own children
    to die?)
    
    > This agency is not beyond ANYTHING, as they have amply proved.
    
    Some of those who are paranoid against them are not beyond anything,
    as they have amply proved.
393.286RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Mon Apr 24 1995 16:049
    Would bombing a federal building violate the Geneva Convention or any
    other laws regulating war?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.287TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Mon Apr 24 1995 16:1212
    
    .273, Andy:
    
    Utopian?  Maybe.  But my point is mainly this: that it is inconsistent
    of you to be worried about how many innocent Americans and constitutional
    rights will be caught in Clinton's broad net when at the same time
    being unconcerned about the lives of innocent foreigners caught in the 
    blast of a `surgical strike'.  If due process should exist for one
    crime, it should exist for the other.
    
    jc
    
393.288SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoMon Apr 24 1995 16:198
    > Would bombing a federal building violate the Geneva Convention or any
    > other laws regulating war?
    
    I'd think it would depend upon who had done it.  Such laws and
    Conventions are ordinarily set up as agreements between signatories-
    and typically only sovereign states sign them. 
    
    DougO
393.289too many nutcases for comfortSWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 16:3514
    
    re. 257
    
    These militia people cheered on hearing the news about the bombing?
    Sick bastards. Hope they use real bullets next time they play their
    silly war games together.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
393.290NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Apr 24 1995 16:497
>    The BATF office was on the other side of the building.  Meanwhile,
>    people in buildings across the street *were* killed, so the survival
>    of *anyone* in the Federal building at all is almost a miracle.

Not really.  There was a lot of concrete and steel between the bomb and the
other side of the Federal building.  There was only air between the bomb
and the buildings across the street.
393.291RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Mon Apr 24 1995 16:498
    Why did people cheer when bombs destroyed buildings and people in Iraq?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.292....SWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 17:1222
    
    re. 291
    
    I don't think the Iragi's cheered when the bombs were dropped them.
    So why would a militia group cheer, when hearing the news. Who the
    hell do they represent, the evil force they keep telling everybody
    else to fear. I would just hate to see the government these clowns
    would set up. Love it, or we blow your brains out.
    
    How long would these militia men be alive in OC if they did that
    in public? Not very long.
    
    A this to point, these militia groups are in trouble. If they 
    breed the types that did this act, they should be in trouble. And
    based on the cheering, there are a lot more of these crazies
    then is comfortable.
    
    
    
    
    
    
393.294NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Apr 24 1995 17:141
Iraqis.  NNTTM.
393.295RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Mon Apr 24 1995 17:1412
    Re .292:
    
    > I don't think the Iragi's cheered when the bombs were dropped them.
    
    People in the United States cheered when Iraqis were killed.  Why?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.296RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Mon Apr 24 1995 17:1855
From:	RUSURE::ZAHAREE "Michael W. Zaharee  24-Apr-1995 1316" 24-APR-1995 13:16:49.53
To:	EDP
CC:	ZAHAREE
Subj:	LA Times investigation and other stuff.

From:	TIS::HAMBURGER "hamburger@tis.enet.dec.com  24-Apr-1995 1210" 24-APR-1995 12:08:29.60
To:	@SWAT
CC:	
Subj:	Even the media smells a rat

Subj:	UPDATE:  More fingers pointing to BATF as OKC bombers?


The following items just in from various FAX trees:

The Los Angeles Times is reported as conducting an investigation into
whether the bombed building(s) in OKC were at full staff or had been
partially emptied;

LA Times is also reported as investigating whether or not any BATF,
FBI or other federal official had THEIR kids in the day care center when
the bomb went off;

After seismologists in OKC reported recording multiple concussions
from the blast site, investigators are now said to be reporting traces
of a military-grade explosive, not a fertilizer bomb, from the rubble:

Unconfirmed reports indicate that The house of Mark Koernke,
Mark from Michigan", was raided within the last 48 hours.
Mr. K. was not at home.  I presume the feds killed
his cat, as in the Lamplugh case, to "teach him a lesson". Why the
raid?  Best guess would be that McVey or Nichols had purchased a tape
from Mr. K. at some time in the past.  An obvious plot, right?

Most damning of all for the BATF and other feds, reports are now
surfacing from many quarters that the feds were warned weeks ago
that McVey and Nichols had been declared personna non grata by the
Michigan militia for advocating some sort of attack, possibly a bombing,
of a federal building. Allegedly, the feds sat on the warning.

Or did they?  Was this the inspiration for the
plan to bomb the building, complete with ready-made fall guys?
Or were McVey and Nichols merely fed provocateurs trying to create
an incident, as the FBI appears to have done at the World Trade Center
bombing as indicated by the recently released/telecast tape of their
agent/informant within the group that perpetrated that crime?

Same question remains:  who stands to gain the most from this act?
The answer always comes back pointing to the same rogue agency.
Let's hope all the good cops still out there will either prove
or disprove BATF complicity in this heinous outrage in OKC ASAP.


W. K. Gorman

393.297CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanMon Apr 24 1995 17:213

 Conspiracy theorists must love this one..
393.298CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 17:2135
Note 393.285 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..."      
        
>    The BATF office was on the other side of the building. 
 
    Then that brings more qustion of intent, IMO, not less. 
      
>   The children of some Federal employees were killed.  If you had
>   children, would you see this as 'convenient' (for your own children
>   to die?)
 
    I think it would be an interesting experiment to see if any bureau men 
    a) had children
    b) did not bring their child to the day care on the day of the bombing,
    when they normally do drop their kids off
    c) called in sick, or otherwise didn't show up at the office as usual
    
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not stating anything "matter of fact".  I do
    see that the only group who could possibly gain from this bombing is
    the BATF, the NWO elite, and the federal government.  I also see the
    timing as a bit more than suspicious.
    
>   Some of those who are paranoid against them are not beyond anything,
>   as they have amply proved.
    
    Then your mind is already made up by the "facts" blurted out to you
    by the media.
    
    It's good to be sceptical on these conspiracy rantings of mine.  You
    should also be equally sceptical of the media and government in
    general.  If you aren't, you will only be deceived by their propaganda,
    and will never see the match that finally ignites out founding
    document, turning it to ash.
    
    
    -steve
393.299ySWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 17:2713
    
    re. 292
    
    I don't know, and simply don't care why they cheered. That is
    their right to cheer if they want to I suppose.
    
    After Nam, I don't cheer about things resulting from war.
    
    
    
    
    
    
393.300SHRCTR::DAVISMon Apr 24 1995 17:2949
        <<< Note 393.272 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


> George contends that the BATF did no wrong (other than _possibly_ handling
> the situation a bit extremely) and that Koresh should have done battle
> in the courts rather than in the Waco compound. You're apparently of
> the same opinion. As has been mentioned multiple times by many in here,
> you are both wrong. Rather than rehashing the thing, review the Waco
> topic.

Well, I did wade through most of the Waco stuff - including the warrant, 
and yup, I agree with George, and I see nothing there to show me I'm "wrong."
There's a lot of speculation coming from both sides.

Worst case, the BATF was overzealous in its initial raid, and the FBI 
misjudged tragically in the final assualt. Apparently, according to the NRA
grapevine, the BATF stuff is not too uncommon. If true, we'd better do a
thorough review of their practices (Senate hearings? according to one entry
pulled off the Web, that supposedly happened, but I didn't see anything on
it. Did you?) and prosecute offenders and fix the problems - even dismantle
BATF, if that's appropriate. (Of course, you NRA'ers would love that. You
don't want *any* gummint involvement in arms. An incident like OC, though,
makes me glad we have legal reasons to keep an eye on gun wachos.) But
hearings wouldn't satisfy the paranoid loonies here in the 'box or anyhwere
else. 'Cause in your minds, the whole legal system is corrupt. Government
is corrupt.  Every friggin thing's corrupt except your local gun club. Even
a guilty verdict against the Koresh followers was the result of a "stacked"
jury. There's simply no way out is there? Sorta like the Davidians. 

During the 51 day seige, the lens of America was on Mt Carmel, and Koresh 
knew it. At any time during all that negotiation Koresh could have called 
it quits and come out to take his fight to court. Sure, he probably 
believed he would have gotten screwed in court, but at least none of the 
innocent kids would have died. He knew he wouldn't get shot because he knew 
he was center stage on the media. Do you really think the Feds would open 
fire on raised hands and white flags in front of CNN? But he was on a 
biblical mission, not a 2nd ammendment defense. He would no more have 
sought refuge in the legal system than Jim Jones would've told everyone to 
go home. There may be some of the blood of children on the Fed's hands, but 
it was Koresh who was up to his elbows in it. But that doesn't fit your 
agenda; that doesn't fit your government-as-evil-empire imagery. So you 
ignore it.

I suppose this makes me "a jackbooted witch of the Reno pursuasion." Well, 
I'll just have to live with that label, as inaccurate as it may be. 
I'd far, far prefer that to being a paranoid geek of the Oklahoma City 
Bomber persuasion.

Tom
393.301RUSURE::MELVINTen Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2Mon Apr 24 1995 17:4951
>Worst case, the BATF was overzealous in its initial raid, and the FBI 
>misjudged tragically in the final assualt. 

'overzealous'? 'misjudged'?  Interesting words to deflect from the fact
that children WERE killed at Waco.

>else. 'Cause in your minds, the whole legal system is corrupt. 

Well, the President and numerous other government officials have called
the legal system 'corrupt'.  Do you believe them or not?

>Government
>is corrupt.  

Well, there do seem to be more and more cases of abuse surfacing over the
last few years.

>During the 51 day seige, the lens of America was on Mt Carmel, and Koresh 
>knew it. At any time during all that negotiation Koresh could have called 
>it quits and come out to take his fight to court. Sure, he probably 
>believed he would have gotten screwed in court, but at least none of the 
>innocent kids would have died. He knew he wouldn't get shot because he knew 
>he was center stage on the media. 

Hate to tell you the obvious, but he was STILL center stage when the government
chose to attack him (and his followers) resulting in the bloodshed.  The lens
was still there when the government bulldozed just about any evidence about what
went on.  If the 'lens' did not protect the entire compound, why should Karresh
have believed it would protect him?

>Do you really think the Feds would open 
>fire on raised hands and white flags in front of CNN? 

Perhaps that is why all non tactical people were kept a number of miles away
from the site.  So they could NOT record what happened (or would happen).
Oh yes, it was for their safety... Rigghhhht.  News people were allowed in
Vietnam and Desert Stor.  Were those locations any 'safer' than Waco?

>But he was on a 
>biblical mission, not a 2nd ammendment defense.

Well, so the govenment propaganda says.

>go home. There may be some of the blood of children on the Fed's hands, but 
>it was Koresh who was up to his elbows in it. 

Sorry, but it is the govenment who is to blame for the deaths.  I do not buy
the 'well, you should have done what we told you to do' excuse for the
attack.

-Joe
393.302BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 18:0472
    RE: .298  Steve Leech
    
    >> The BATF office was on the other side of the building. 
 
    > Then that brings more qustion of intent, IMO, not less. 
    
    If all the BATF staff in the building had died, then it would have
    been proof that the BATF had planned carefully to make sure they
    would not be blamed for the bombing.  Since none were killed, then
    it seems like proof that the BATF had planned carefully to make
    sure that the 1200-1500 pounds of explosives were the exact right
    amount of blast to get only HALF the building and not ALL of it.
    
    If half the BATF staff had been killed, then it would have been
    proof that they didn't want to ALL die, but thought it would look
    suspicious if NONE of them died.  If one-fourth or three-fourths
    of the BATF staff had been killed, then it would have been proof
    that they planned to let a portion of themselves die to make it
    look good (but not all.)
    
    It could be twisted any way you like (to suit the number of BATF
    staff killed.)
    
    > I think it would be an interesting experiment to see if any bureau men 
    > a) had children
    > b) did not bring their child to the day care on the day of the bombing,
    > when they normally do drop their kids off
    > c) called in sick, or otherwise didn't show up at the office as usual
    
    If any single BATF agent was sick (or had a sick child, or a child
    absent from Daycare for any other reason whatsoever) - then it'll
    be all the proof you need, right?
    
    > Don't get me wrong, I'm not stating anything "matter of fact".  I do
    > see that the only group who could possibly gain from this bombing is
    > the BATF, the NWO elite, and the federal government.  I also see the
    > timing as a bit more than suspicious.
    
    The group who had something to gain are those who were out for REVENGE
    against the Federal Government (and the BATF in particular.)  True, it's
    a sick, perverted and disgusting thing to try to gain - but certainly
    not an implausible goal.
    
    Also, the far right has the gain (by blowing up a Federal Building)
    of possibly getting some of its members to become even MORE
    violent and extreme against the Feds by saying that the Federal
    Government conspired to blow themselves up and then BLAME some
    'poor innocent patriot' from the Michigan Militia.
    
    >> Some of those who are paranoid against them are not beyond anything,
    >> as they have amply proved.
    
    > Then your mind is already made up by the "facts" blurted out to you
    > by the media.
    
    Steve, I'm basing my observation on what the right wing is saying
    ABOUT ITSELF.  They are making their position less and less credible
    by claiming that the Federal Government bombed itself for political
    gain, especially when a certified right-winger is already in custody
    for the deed.  (Paranoia is one thing, but this is pure insanity.)
    
    > It's good to be sceptical on these conspiracy rantings of mine.  You
    > should also be equally sceptical of the media and government in
    > general. 
    
    I was way ahead of the media on the motives for this bombing.  I never
    bought the 'middle Eastern connection' for a minute (nor have I bought 
    the idea of 'white supremacists' being the force behind this bombing.)
    
    The far right's cause has been damaged, and it appears they are bound
    and determined to do themselves as much additional damage as humanly
    possible.  I don't think the American people will buy it.
393.303GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingMon Apr 24 1995 18:122
    
    Keep bleating, Suzanne......
393.304The truth is like a needle in a haystack ...BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralMon Apr 24 1995 18:1533
On OK-C bombing:

It is difficult to believe a government conspiracy when the truck used to
the explosives was rented just a short time before the blast by the person
they have in custody. 


On Waco:

>Worst case, the BATF was overzealous in its initial raid, and the FBI 
>misjudged tragically in the final assualt. 

Best case is the FBI and BATF were grossly incompetent. Worst case is they
deliberately pursued a policy of escallation (day and night bombardment
of light and sound eg: Psych warfare), used inappropriate weapons (fully
automatic high capacity weapons, aircraft, armored vehicles) on civilians
(illegal) and deliberately covered up their tracks (pushed the building
into itself so as to be totally consumed by the fire).

Regardless of why Keresh would not come out, inside he and his people
were a threat to noone. The level of force such as used in Waco is inexcuseable.
 
On the media:

I watch in amazement how the media, in pursuit of the scoop and 'first to report
the latest' have become little more than gossip channels. How these folks
can get away with spewing mis-information, define whole classes of people as
evil because of the actions of a handfull of Psychopaths, and blame the blast
on the environment put forth by a particular political leaning is quite simply
beyond me.

Doug.
393.305And another thing ...BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralMon Apr 24 1995 18:1912
On the President:

The bombing has given Clinton yet another opportunity to show just what 
an incompetent he is, turning a tragic bombing by a handfull of idiots
into a political club in which to beat the opposition and further errode
our constitutional rights while claiming otherwise ....

What respect I had for the man on the few issues he did well on is now long
gone.

Doug.
393.306BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 18:2213
    RE: .304  
    
    > It is difficult to believe a government conspiracy when the truck used to
    > the explosives was rented just a short time before the blast by the 
    > person they have in custody. 
    
    Exactly.  (This person has also been identified by eye witnesses for
    the truck rental *and* for being near the Federal building shortly
    before the blast.)
    
    It doesn't take 'blind faith' in the government (or being a 'sheep')
    to find such claims about a government conspiracy to be horribly
    discrediting for those who promote them.
393.307CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanMon Apr 24 1995 18:2212



 Well said on both counts, Mr. Fyfe.






 Jim
393.309This is AMERICA!NEMAIL::BULLOCKMon Apr 24 1995 18:2712
    
    
    
     .304
    
    
      The media "gets away" with it because of the 1st Amendment,...
      ....just like morons can have access to weapons because of
      the 2nd.
    
    
      Ed
393.310MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 18:3012
The major reason I have at this point for discarding the government
conspiracy theory is that McVeigh is apparently silent and agreeable
to the charges leveled against him. This leads me to believe that he's
either an extremely devoted government undercover agent bound to secrecy
in keeping the conspiracy invisible (which if true would support the
conspiracy and the government would be sacrificing a very valuable
agent for a bad gamble, which is unlikely in my opinion), or that he's
really a lowlife scumbag who did this for his own personal reasons. If he
were anything in between and was actually involved in a conspiracy, he'd be
singing like a canary about now in order to make a name for himself and
expose the whole mess to save his butt.

393.311MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryMon Apr 24 1995 18:3425
    RE:  <<< Note 393.306 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

    I have not heard anyone... _anyone_... claim that the government
    planted the bomb. We have a few people who are questioning the
    facts as the government and the media presents them, and because
    we generally state our mistrust of both the government and the
    media, we are appropriately stamped "looney tunes" and shuffled
    off to public opinion hell...

    The presence (or lack thereof) of BATF employees/families does not
    necessarily imply that they planted the bomb, but they may have
    had prior knowledge of the event and chose the political gains
    they will receive over the safety of civilians and other government
    workers. It is worth investigating if this occurred.

    One thing is certain, the enemies of the "right wingers" (who
    for the most part are more libertarian than right wing) are
    falling over themselves with glee, as they now have opportunity
    to do all the things we've been screaming about. And public
    opinion is now along for the ride.

    Be careful though, when they're done with our civil rights,
    the feds won't have anything left to "work on" but _yours_.

    -b
393.312...BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 18:3534
    RE: .308  
    
    > There are 2 sides to every story.  I would imagine if it is proven that
    > an American did it they were fed up with the feds and the gun goomers -
    > in their mind it is a tit-for-a-tat.  FREEDOM - is it worth fighting
    > for - even if you are fighting against your own?
    
    When bombs are set off with the idea of killing the maximum number
    of people, the bombs kill whomever happens to be around.  Anyone
    can die (including people who even AGREE with the politics of the
    bomber.)
    
    > Clinton proposes even tuffer laws to "prevent" this!  
    
    Do you think most Americans want to be killed by the next bomb
    that goes off (in case they accidently find themselves near a
    Federal building for some reason, even they just happen to be
    *walking past it*?)
    
    > Just wait for the next raid and their response.  Could this be the
    > start of a civil war? 
    
    A number of people in this country WANT to overthrow the government
    in a Civil War.  Now that we see how they aim to defend a guy who
    has been caught bombing innocent civilians (by claiming the Feds
    really did this thing), how much support do you think such extremists
    will get from the American people at large?  (Not much, I'll bet.)
    
    > How many freedoms can the government take away before everyone will
    > get fed up and join a miltia?  
    
    It's more likely that the people who can afford it will LEAVE this
    country (taking their money with them) before militia-related bombs 
    rip this country apart and put everyone left here in grave danger.  
393.314SHRCTR::DAVISMon Apr 24 1995 18:5057
  <<< Note 393.301 by RUSURE::MELVIN "Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2" >>>

> 'overzealous'? 'misjudged'?  Interesting words to deflect from the fact
> that children WERE killed at Waco.

No deflection, except in your mind.

> Well, the President and numerous other government officials have called
> the legal system 'corrupt'.  Do you believe them or not?

They don't have the same thing in mind that you do, however.

> Hate to tell you the obvious, but he was STILL center stage when the government
> chose to attack him (and his followers) resulting in the bloodshed.  The lens
> was still there when the government bulldozed just about any evidence about what
> went on.  If the 'lens' did not protect the entire compound, why should Karresh
> have believed it would protect him?

They had an excuse. Whether it was, as you surmise, a phoney one, is 
besides the point. There would be no excuse for mowing down surrendering 
people.

>Do you really think the Feds would open 
>fire on raised hands and white flags in front of CNN? 

> Perhaps that is why all non tactical people were kept a number of miles away
> from the site.  So they could NOT record what happened (or would happen).
> Oh yes, it was for their safety... Rigghhhht.  News people were allowed in
> Vietnam and Desert Stor.  Were those locations any 'safer' than Waco?

Balony. Every GD day we'd see the endless live shots of the compound. They 
may have been kept a distance away (under the very reasonable assumption 
that they could be in harm's way), but you've heard of telephoto lenses, 
haven't you?

> Well, so the govenment propaganda says. 

No. That's what Koresh said. Ah, but you've conveniently forgotten.

> Sorry, but it is the govenment who is to blame for the deaths.  I do not buy
> the 'well, you should have done what we told you to do' excuse for the
> attack.

Sorry, but that wasn't the excuse. Fear for the safety of the children was 
the stated excuse. IN any case, the fact is, these people refused to 
surrender to lawful agents of the government, which made them criminals -- 
regardless of whether they had a good case for harrassment or any other 
abuse of authority in the original raid. They could've had their chance to 
make their case in court, like any sensible criminal would've done. But 
they (or rather, mostly Koresh) decided to fight it out to the bitter end, 
because they weren't your average perps; they were nuts.

What happened to the innocent children (or any other innocents within) was 
tragic. And indeed the Feds must take some of the blame; Reno probably 
should have resigned. But by making Koresh your cause celeb, you are 
branding your cause as extremist and out of touch with reality - as it 
indeed is.
393.315BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 18:5428
    RE: .311
    
    > The presence (or lack thereof) of BATF employees/families does not
    > necessarily imply that they planted the bomb, but they may have
    > had prior knowledge of the event and chose the political gains
    > they will receive over the safety of civilians and other government
    > workers. It is worth investigating if this occurred.
    
    The political gain would have been FAR BIGGER if they had been able
    to stop the bomb (or get everyone quietly out of the building before
    the blast occurred) to show how smart they are and how formidable
    they are in the face of domestic attack.
    
    As it happens, they looked helpless at first (which is not a favorable
    image.)
    
    If not for the quick capture of McVeigh (thanks to local police) and
    the communications between the FBI and the police which kept McVeigh
    from being released on bail from his traffic arrest, there would be
    little (or NO) political gain from any of this at all (for the Feds.)
    
    They couldn't bank on being able to catch this guy - it was almost
    by accident that they got the first guy, and they're still looking
    for the other bomb suspect.
    
    The smart political move (if the BATF knew about this bombing, and
    so far I've seen ZERO evidence that they were warned in any way
    whatsoever) would have been to stop it.
393.316MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 18:5743
re: .300, Tom

>grapevine, the BATF stuff is not too uncommon. If true, we'd better do a
>thorough review of their practices (Senate hearings? according to one entry
>pulled off the Web, that supposedly happened, but I didn't see anything on
>it. Did you?) and prosecute offenders and fix the problems - even dismantle
>BATF, if that's appropriate.

Sounds like a good plan to me. And, no I didn't see anything along those
lines.

> (Of course, you NRA'ers would love that. You
>don't want *any* gummint involvement in arms.

Why should anyone want that? What's the benefit to be gained? At what
expense?

> An incident like OC, though,
>makes me glad we have legal reasons to keep an eye on gun wachos.)

Other than the weapon McVeigh had on him when apprehended, no guns were
involved, were there? You wanna have legal reasons to keep an eye on
fertilizer, too?

>hearings wouldn't satisfy the paranoid loonies here in the 'box or anyhwere
>else.

They'd satisfy me, to a degree, if they were above board.

> 'Cause in your minds, the whole legal system is corrupt. Government
>is corrupt.

It's like this. There are any number of reasons not to trust government
and very few to the contrary. I have to stop and ask, "What's government
ever done FOR me?" And, I'm left somewhat flat.

>  Every friggin thing's corrupt except your local gun club.

Sorry - I don't have one of those.

I can't help it, Tom. I just have this reflex action when I hear the
government say that they're going to "help".

393.317Americans will prefer government over more bombings like OKC.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 18:5920
    RE: .313  
    
    > Could it be that the answer to solving this spiral to civil war is 
    > that the government should follow its constitution and not deviate from 
    > it or amend its consitition legally?    Has government become too
    > powerful? 
    
    Do Americans typically respond to terrorism by vowing to give the
    terrorists what they want?
    
    If domestic terrorism becomes a big issue, Americans will empower
    the government to be even MORE powerful to stop it (just as some
    here would have wanted the American government to 'carpet bomb'
    entire cities in the middle East if they had been responsible for
    the bombing in Oklahoma City.)
    
    Terrorist bombs can kill anyone (regardless of their political
    beliefs.)  Americans would rather have a big government than
    the threat of right extremist bombs going off all over their
    own cities.  Mark my words.
393.318CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikMon Apr 24 1995 19:027
    it shou.d be pointed out that the weapon used in OKC is one frequently
    used by people in countries where gun ownership is limited by law.  I
    wonder how popular a 7-14 day waiting period on fuel-oil will be when
    next winter hits.  (Or maybe we can go for an insta-check. ala
    colorado.) 
    
    meg
393.319MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 19:0716
re: .314, Tom

> But by making Koresh your cause celeb, you are 
> branding your cause as extremist and out of touch with reality - as it 
> indeed is.

I don't think anyone is trying to make Koresh their cause celeb. To the
contrary, I think you'll find that most people opposed to what happened
at Waco fully agree that Koresh was a splinter group loonie from the word
go. But Koresh's status doesn't make what Reno and her rangers did right.
HE was a nutcase and THEY shouldn't have handled it as they did. There's
no mutual exclusivity there. I personally wouldn't likely have given
Koresh the time of day. But that sure as hell doesn't mean that I think
he got what he deserved.


393.321MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 19:108
>    The political gain would have been FAR BIGGER if they had been able
>    to stop the bomb (or get everyone quietly out of the building before
>    the blast occurred) to show how smart they are and how formidable
>    they are in the face of domestic attack.

I strongly disagree. As you yourself state in another reply, the fact
of the disaster will be a far more effective rallying force than if
no such disaster had taken place.
393.322Answer the question!MIMS::SANDERS_JMon Apr 24 1995 19:1110
    re. 319
    
    Bennett,
    
    Virtually everyone of your replies is a list of questions.  Why don't
    you try answering them.  I will give you one:
    
    Name one right, specifically spelled out in the Constitution, that the
    federal government has taken away from you?  Please specify the right
    in detail and exactly what the government did to take it away from you. 
393.324RUSURE::MELVINTen Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2Mon Apr 24 1995 19:1357
>They had an excuse. 

Oh, well that makes it alright.

>besides the point. There would be no excuse for mowing down surrendering 
>people.

IS there a reason to mow down people who are not surrendering and are not a
threat?

>Balony. Every GD day we'd see the endless live shots of the compound. They 
>may have been kept a distance away (under the very reasonable assumption 
>that they could be in harm's way), but you've heard of telephoto lenses, 
>haven't you?

So, was there a person shot and killed while trying to get INTO the compound?
Did it show up on tape?  Perhaps a clear view was not available for all angles
into the compound.  

>Sorry, but that wasn't the excuse. Fear for the safety of the children was 
>the stated excuse. 

So, we fear that you are (or might) abusing your kids so to prevent it we 
will drive this military hardware, using gas, into/onto/through/over 
everything you own (including yourselves).  APparently a new definition of
"safety".

>IN any case, the fact is, these people refused to 
>surrender to lawful agents of the government, which made them criminals -- 

And still subject to due process, wouldn't you agree?  Or should the death
penalty be invoked immediately?

>abuse of authority in the original raid. They could've had their chance to 
>make their case in court, like any sensible criminal would've done. 

Sure sounds like the 'but you should have done what we ordered you to" excuse
I mentioned.  Wouldn't you agree?

>What happened to the innocent children (or any other innocents within) was 
>tragic. And indeed the Feds must take some of the blame; 

The Feds should take MOST of the blame.  Of course, we did not hear Clinton
on TV talking about children being killed etc as he has been doing for this
bombing.

>But by making Koresh your cause celeb, you are 
>branding your cause as extremist and out of touch with reality - as it 
>indeed is.

In your opinion.  A number of children (and adults) were killed at Waco.
Government forces and equipment were used to do this.  Do you deny this?
Was the death that occurred proportionate to the supposed 'crime'?  Was the
use of the equipment and force (from the very beginning) proportionate to
the supposed 'crime'?

393.325BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 19:2023
    RE: .320 
    
    > political move and BATF in the same sentence - you don't get it do you?
    
    Oh, but I do.
    
    > Could these BATF cronies be the same zealots who will eventually 
    > violate your rights to bear arms ?
    
    The BATF looks a lot less dangerous than those who fight against them,
    though (honest to God) and I am a member of the NRA.
    
    > this shows that the government fails to understand that there is a 
    > group of people in this country feed up with voting (could they think 
    > it does no good anyway) and WOULD RATHER MAKE THERE IDEAS MADE USING 
    > OTHER METHODS?
                                                                  
    This country does NOT give in to terrorism (even when it comes from
    within.)
    
    Do you think the American Revolutionaries (in the 1700s) killed
    British babies and young children to make a point???  If they had,
    would we have the United States of America today?
393.327IF the Feds had known, the advantage would have been to stop it.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 19:2521
    RE: .321
    
    >> The political gain would have been FAR BIGGER if they had been able
    >> to stop the bomb (or get everyone quietly out of the building before
    >> the blast occurred) to show how smart they are and how formidable
    >> they are in the face of domestic attack.

    > I strongly disagree. As you yourself state in another reply, the fact
    > of the disaster will be a far more effective rallying force than if
    > no such disaster had taken place.
    
    As I stated in another reply, the Feds gained a lot of ground by
    being able to get one of those responsible in custody and arraigned
    as quickly as they did.  They couldn't COUNT on being able to do
    this.
    
    If we didn't have a person in custody right now, we'd probably still
    be looking at the middle East for suspects (which would mean NO
    political gain for the Feds and would even mean a LOSS of stature
    to the American people for not being able to protect us from terrorism
    in the first place and for not being able to catch those who did it.)
393.328BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 19:3110
    RE:  .326
    
    >> This country does NOT give in to terrorism (even when it comes from
    >> within.)
    
    > EXACTLY - it could do a better job of listening to its citizens
    > too could it? 
    
    Right wing terrorism will only make it more difficult to listen to
    the views you would most like the government to hear.
393.329MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 19:3722
>    As I stated in another reply, the Feds gained a lot of ground by
>    being able to get one of those responsible in custody and arraigned
>    as quickly as they did.  They couldn't COUNT on being able to do
>    this.
>    
>    If we didn't have a person in custody right now, we'd probably still
>    be looking at the middle East for suspects (which would mean NO
>    political gain for the Feds and would even mean a LOSS of stature
>    to the American people for not being able to protect us from terrorism
>    in the first place and for not being able to catch those who did it.)

This would presume that the Feds' stature now is higher in the eyes of the
average American than it would be if they didn't have McVeigh in custody
and were still speculating as to the perp. You can draw that conclusion
if you like, but I don't see it that way. If the American people are
incensed about what happened, then they were incensed before McVeigh's
capture (which, of course they were) and they would still be incensed
if he was at large. Stature of the Feds or lack thereof notwithstanding.
The issue around political gain has to do with the fact that the people
of the country are worked into a frenzy over this, and are thirsty for
blood of the perp at this point. A disaster prevented would not have
resulted in that same degree of fervor.
393.331WRKSYS::CAMUSOalphabitsMon Apr 24 1995 19:4442
        Blaming the "right" for the OKC bombing is equvalent to blaming the
        "left" for the Riots in Newark, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Watts,
        LA, etc.  Indeed the left was blamed for these things by the right,
        but that does not make the blame game valid.  The left was also
        identified with the Weather underground, the Symbionese Liberation
        Army, and other mad bombers, bank robbers, murderers, seditionists,
        traitors, and terrorists of the 60s and 70s.  How does the behavior
        of these terrorist loons negate the validity of the rights of the
        representatives of the left to voice their opinions?  This they
        continued to do, even to this day, without anyone muzzling them,
        though attempts at government control were certainly made.  These
        attempts were unconstitutional!  They still are!

        The crux is not left vs. right.  The crux is collectivism vs.
        individualism, totalitarianism vs. anarchy.  Our nation's founders
        struck a remarkable, even miraculous, balance between these issues
        in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I'm willing to venture
        that many of those promoting Constitutional issues today are
        exactly the same as those questioning the Constituitionality of an
        undeclared war and fighting racism in the 60s and 70s.  Because
        they have shed their collectivist leanings, they now are identified
        with the right.  They are tarred with a broad brush as racists and
	nazis.  They are blamed for cross-burnings, abortion clinic
	shootings, mad bombings, and terrorism in general.

        It is amazing how freely the press interchanges and enphrases the
        words "extremist", "separatist", "supremacist", "militia",
        "patriot", "gun rights activist".  I have observed much more hate 
        coming from the so-called liberals using these terms with great
        venom and vituperation, often compounded with "hate-monger", than I
        have ever seen from any so-called patriot group. There is every bit
        as much hate-mongering by self-proclaimed liberals as by the most
	extreme of the so-called right-wing fringe.

	Remember, it is so much easier to cede a precious right to the
	government than it is to get it back.  Guard *ALL* of the Bill of
	Rights jealously.  Do not subject such timeless jewels to the whims
	of any agency, bureaucracy, or branch of government.

	Peace,
		TonyC	

393.332White men right wing white men right wing", ten times fastDECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allMon Apr 24 1995 19:4616
    The liberal feeding frenzy going on in the government, the media,
    and even here in the box, would be hilarious if it weren't so scary.
    
    Anarchists are not necessarily "right wing", but do keep saying
    it, because it so obviously fills some of you with glee, and it's
    become entertaining for some of us.
    
    A few nights ago, when the media was showing the police sketches
    of the suspects, they made sure to say the words "white men" so
    many times that after a while it actually made me laugh.  I lost
    count...
    
    Same thing going on now, with "right wing".  I haven't seen anything
    like this since the last shark special on the Discovery channel.
    
    Chris
393.333BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 19:4728
    RE: .329
    
    > The issue around political gain has to do with the fact that the people
    > of the country are worked into a frenzy over this, and are thirsty for
    > blood of the perp at this point. A disaster prevented would not have
    > resulted in that same degree of fervor.
    
    Before the perp was announced as being in custody, people didn't know
    where to aim their anger.  Some of it went towards the middle East
    (and the Feds make NO political gains if they are attacked by the
    middle East and can't catch those responsible.)
    
    The 'political gain' is that we KNOW this attack came from an anti-
    government faction of our own country and the American people want
    the Federal government to do something about it (which goes against
    the very views that the anti-government extremists were trying to
    illuminate with the bombing.)
    
    If we still didn't know who had done this (or if we'd found out a
    few years later), the Feds would have nothing whatsoever to gain
    from this.
    
    If they'd known about it before hand, they could NOT be assured
    that they would capture one of these guys almost immediately
    (as it happens, they wouldn't have any of the bombers at all if
    not for a lucky break from the local police.)
    
    The right wing extremist bombers damaged their own cause.
393.334SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 19:483
    
    
      Please Bill!!!! Protect me from myself!!!!!
393.335MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 19:555
>    If we still didn't know who had done this (or if we'd found out a
>    few years later), the Feds would have nothing whatsoever to gain
>    from this.

I still disagree. Orwell did, too.
393.336BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 19:5720
    RE: .330
    
    > Please don't understand me, I don't believe in alot of what is going
    > on but with everything try to understand where and what is going on
    > from the inability of the government to understand to the militia 's
    > and their general discussed with government would help everyone.
    
    The militias are not helping themselves at all with the American
    people (if the notes in this topic are any indication of their
    attitudes after all this.)  If they don't have the support of the
    American people, they are just dangerous (and not a revolution.)
    
    > What may happen is a deeper void with more senseless killings and
    > more restrictions on the public.
    
    Americans prefer big government to the prospect of bombs going off
    all over our cities.  If you want to push bigger government ONTO us
    by threatening to stop our government by force (in situations where 
    Americans KNOW they *can and will* get killed with abandon), cheer 
    for more of this terrrorism and you will see it happen.
393.338Complicity was also evident ...BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralMon Apr 24 1995 19:5717
.>Balony. Every GD day we'd see the endless live shots of the compound. They 
.>may have been kept a distance away (under the very reasonable assumption 
.>that they could be in harm's way), but you've heard of telephoto lenses, 
.>haven't you?

Excuse me, but as I recall, the press was highly restricted and many of
the tapes made before the controls were put in place were confiscated by the 
BATF as evidence (of what?) and the tapes of the most important events
we were allowed to see were doctored.

If the BATF had nothing to hide, they would have allowed the unaltered 
tapes to be aired.

We did not get an accurate picture of what happened in Waco. The press wasn't
allowed to do their job.

Doug.
393.339STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityMon Apr 24 1995 20:0521
                     <<< Note 393.229 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR >>>

>    re -223? O'kelley
>   
>   	why should they? We've been crying all along that this is
>   	a FREE country right? Any nut doing any nutty thing is
>   	perfectly alright, after all we cannot be that intolerant
>   	and snoopy, right?

No one has advocated that "any nut doing any nutty thing" is OK.
Murder is still murder.  

    
>   	Maybe the JD ought to publish a list of "terrorist activities":
>       making a bomb, buying/storing a combination of chemical x,y,z,
>   	etc???

There probably already is.  Maybe for starters we need to license the 
buying, selling, and leasing of large trucks.  Rental trucks were used in 
the OKC and NYC bombings.

393.341MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryMon Apr 24 1995 20:0834
    Cheer? Who's cheering. The media told you some people in some
    nefarious militia cheered somewhere... maybe they did. Maybe
    the media has footage from the last Michigan State football
    game. Who the hell knows? No one in here is cheering, and
    in case you didn't notice there are a few who might be fall
    in the right wing/militant groups...

    You're saying exactly the things we've been warning about...
    that the government, in the name of "public good", may run
    roughshod over your civil rights and you claim most of the
    country will applaud this! You say, frankly, as if _you_
    agree with it? Which one or more of your civil rights are
    you willing to give up?

    Are you, for instance, willing to have the government track
    _every_ transaction? Are you willing to register with the
    government as you travel about the country? Are you willing
    to place transmitters in vehicles so they can keep track
    of where everyone is? Are you willing to _pay_ for all this
    additional surveillance? Because, if you're not, then stop
    sounding so damn glib about the defeat of the right wing,
    because these are exactly the types of measures that have
    and will be considered.

    The people who did this are total scum. They most certainly
    should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and
    since the death penalty is applicable, it most definitely
    should be applied. I know this may be difficult for some of
    you to grasp, but the entire right wing is not throwing a
    party and laughing as they carry dead babies out of the
    rubble.,,

    -b
393.342ICS::VERMAMon Apr 24 1995 20:0817
    
    if you seriously belive in ATF/FBI innocence, consider this.
    we have had two major terrorist bombing so far, wtc and okc.
    in the case of wtc, the blind sheikh, the force behind the
    bombing was allowed into the country by cia and state. he was
    a known terrorist and fbi moles participated in hatching the
    plot to bomb wtc and holland tunnel. that bombing was not
    stopped before it happened as there would be no trial and no 
    glory without a crime.
    
    clinton is being a big hypocrite about terrorism. just the other
    day it was revealed by no less than secretary of state that 
    Saudi arabia refused to allow US Govenment to capture a known
    Pan Am bombing terrorist in Saudi Arabia. and our government wanted 
    to sacrifice american lives to protect those feudal despots from 
    saddam hussain. go figure.
    
393.343SPEZKO::FRASERMobius Loop; see other sideMon Apr 24 1995 20:106
        Interesting.  I've just read a preliminary (UNVERIFIED!) report
        that  examination  of  debris  from  the    building  indicates
        "military grade explosive" traces, and not fertiliser/fuel oil.
        
        Andy
        
393.344Paranoid Leper!!!!SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 20:123
    
    <----------------
    
393.345BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 20:133
    So, Andy, if it turns out that Timothy McVeigh used military-grade
    explosives instead of fertilizer in his bomb, should the FBI let
    him go or what?
393.346MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryMon Apr 24 1995 20:1512
   >There probably already is.  Maybe for starters we need to license the 
   >buying, selling, and leasing of large trucks.  Rental trucks were used in 
   >the OKC and NYC bombings.
    
    'scuse me! Yeah, I want to go beg the feds for a special license
    next time I need to move some furniture or get my band's gear
    to a gid. Hey, the dems should love this. I won't be able to
    get a truck, so I'll have to go to some moving company and
    pay their grunts the inflated labor rate. Yeah, that's the
    ticket. DEMocracy in action!
    
    -b
393.347Private joke...SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 20:158
    
    
    The FBI should hunt for the truth in this matter and nothing else...
    
    
    I would be interested to see the follow-up re: what some of the news
    people are looking into...
    
393.349STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityMon Apr 24 1995 20:1612
    <<< Note 393.318 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>   it shou.d be pointed out that the weapon used in OKC is one frequently
>   used by people in countries where gun ownership is limited by law.  I
>   wonder how popular a 7-14 day waiting period on fuel-oil will be when
>   next winter hits.  (Or maybe we can go for an insta-check. ala
>   colorado.) 

On a similar note, we've now had two bombings involving rented trucks.
How about an instant check system for the buying, selling, and leasing of
"deadly assault trucks", capable of carrying hundreds of pounds of explosive
at one time!
393.350CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenMon Apr 24 1995 20:1811
    Even if it was military grade, C4, semtex, whatever it does not
    guarantee government complicity.  An embarrasingly large amount of
    munitions are "lost" every year through paperwork glitches, supply
    clerks on the take, hijackings etc.  
    
    Personally, I am of the opinion that this was not a shadowy government
    or rogue department's act.  At least I am hoping this is not the case. 
    I would not wish to trade one form of tyranny for another and certainly
    do not want to see the country violently divided. 
    
    Brian
393.352POBOX::BATTISLand shark,pool sharkMon Apr 24 1995 20:237
    
    I know I'm going to catch major grief for this, but I happen to think
    President Clinton has responded and done a very good job, regarding the
    handeling of this bombing. Also, please note I am a republican, who
    still thinks B.C. handeled this as best he could. 
    
    Mark
393.353BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 20:2546
    RE: .341
    
    > Cheer? Who's cheering. 
    
    It certainly sounds like terrorism is being 'cheered on' when some
    folks here suggest that we'll see a lot more 'senseless deaths'
    if the government doesn't start 'listening', or whatever.
    
    > No one in here is cheering, and
    > in case you didn't notice there are a few who might be fall
    > in the right wing/militant groups...
                              
    How could anyone fail to notice this?  :/
    
    > You're saying exactly the things we've been warning about...
    > that the government, in the name of "public good", may run
    > roughshod over your civil rights and you claim most of the
    > country will applaud this! 
    
    If this country has to choose between big government and bombs
    going off all over our cities, the American people will most
    likely choose big government.  Without the support of the 
    American people, the militia won't have its 'revolution'.
    
    If American Revolutionaries had blown up Americans and their
    children (not to mention British children) to start the 
    Revolutionary War, we wouldn't have had a revolution (or a 
    country later.)
    
    > You say, frankly, as if _you_
    > agree with it? Which one or more of your civil rights are
    > you willing to give up?
    
    If I ever face the prospect of living in a war torn U.S.A. 
    due to Civil War II (started by militias), ask me then.
    
    > I know this may be difficult for some of
    > you to grasp, but the entire right wing is not throwing a
    > party and laughing as they carry dead babies out of the
    > rubble.,,          
    
    Some of the right wing seems to be defending the scum who did
    it, though, by claiming a Federal government conspiracy (which
    would certainly let this guy off the hook.)
    
    Will we see more bombs on the anniversary of his execution?
393.354SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 20:2512
    
    re: .353
    
    
    >Much of the right wing seems to be defending the scum who did
    
    
    What Looney-tune cartoon are you watching???
    
    
    Sheeeeeeeeeesh!! you're just as bad a "fringe" as the other side!!!
    
393.355SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Apr 24 1995 20:265
    
    re: .353
    
    I noticed you changed the "much" to "some" real quick like....
    
393.356SPEZKO::FRASERMobius Loop; see other sideMon Apr 24 1995 20:298
        Methinks that (some) folk read too much into the mention of the
        unverified  report  that    c4/Semtex/whatever  plastique  were
        supposedly evident in intial  samples  -  what's interesting is
        the heavy emphasis on "readily available fertiliser-based bomb"
        as reported from the beginning.
        
        Andy
        
393.357It isn't 'much of the right,' but 'some of the right.'BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 20:308
    The 'some right' who are defending this McVeigh guy are not saying
    he SHOULD have done it, but rather than the 'evil government' did it
    instead (which would certainly let him off the hook, which does
    qualify as a 'defense' of McVeigh.)
    
    Meanwhile, I'd still like to know - will we have more bombs going
    off to kill innocent civilians and children in this country on the
    anniversary of McVeigh's execution?
393.358CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 20:3218
    re: .336
    
    The government cannot stop bombings, so I fail to see your point.
    
    This is a smokescreen to enact things they otherwise would have been
    unable to enact.  Whether rogue government agencies planned this or
    whether the feds are just taking advantage of a tragic bombing by a
    looney, makes no difference to the end result.
    
    My previous notes just bring up possibilities that the media will never
    voice.
    
    We've tried to stop bank robberies since the first bank opened its
    doors, and as of yet, no luck.  Why do you think that the government
    can stop terrorism of this sort?
    
    
    -steve
393.359MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 20:329
>When was the last time you heard a congressman say  " I did a pole in my
>state and

Actually, that's become more prevalent ever since they closed the House
Bank and prevented them from passing czechs.



(Sorry - I couldn't resist. :^)
393.360STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityMon Apr 24 1995 20:3347
        <<< Note 393.317 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
       -< Americans will prefer government over more bombings like OKC. >-

>   Do Americans typically respond to terrorism by vowing to give the
>   terrorists what they want?
 
Americans have very little experience with this sort of thing, so it's 
difficult to say what is "typical".

   
>   If domestic terrorism becomes a big issue, Americans will empower
>   the government to be even MORE powerful to stop it (just as some
>   here would have wanted the American government to 'carpet bomb'
>   entire cities in the middle East if they had been responsible for
>   the bombing in Oklahoma City.)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you are correct.  The majority will cry out
for their government to protect them.  Later on they will discover:

    1.  It can't be done.  Europe has police departments that have higher 
        arrest and conviction records, and they still have terrorist attacks.
        Terrorist groups are very difficult to infiltrate, so it's hard to 
        "prevent" these crimes.  And finally, you cannot stop someone who 
        is willing to die for what they believe in through a legal system.
        We have had two bombings, and I believe that we will catch the 
        people responsible for this crime as we did for the World Trade 
        Center bombing.  However, even as we put them away, there will be 
        more people to take their place.
    2.  100% security is an illusion.  We have not had terrorist attacks 
        in the past mostly because we've been lucky.  The Genie is out of 
        the bottle.  Everyone now knows that it can be done.
    3.  The cure is worse than the disease.  The amount of damage that 
        terrorists can inflict is minimal compared to what an omnipotent
        Federal government can do.  Terrorist kill hundreds; governments
        kill millions.

    
>   Terrorist bombs can kill anyone (regardless of their political
>   beliefs.)  Americans would rather have a big government than
>   the threat of right extremist bombs going off all over their
>   own cities.  Mark my words.

Yes, I'm afraid that you are probably right.  In the hysteria that follows,
Americans will run to Big Brother to protect them, and he will -- for a price.

For myself, I would much rather live in a free society and take my chances.

393.361but after all, WTFC anyhow.NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundMon Apr 24 1995 20:3538
re:332, et al

Submitted for your approval:

	I happened to be in Washington D.C./Maryland last week when, just the
week before I had reliquished my hard-earned dollars to Uncle, and wasn't
feeling too happy about it. Such are the ironies of life, eh?

	I was sitting in a coffee shop in Silver Springs the morning after the
bombing incident and couldn't help over-hearing the conversation of two elderly
men (especially since one of them almost began shouting) when it was still
believed that the perpetrators were of Middle-Eastern origin. Or as the one
pontificating sneeringly amended 'well they were dark-skinned anyway'. After
which he declared piously that the death penalty should be effected.

	(I won't even get into a little incident later on near the white house,
where I thought I'd be reenacting the civil rights marcher/dog encounter).

	This little tableau set me up for a repeat of all previous horror
scripts where the evyl black myn (to borrow and slightly modify a favorite
phrase here) would be the target from everything from police sweeps to further
justifications of policy modification extrapolating from everything from "The
Bell Curve" to the Moynihan Report.

	And Lo and Behold, this time it wasn't an "obvious" member of the 
"underclass". The suspect was a "nice looking boy".

	So, while it may seem trite and petty to you, from _my_ perspective
I think it's important for people to see that wanton viciousness comes in
all colors, and there is nothing but a persons' soul that gives them any
"advantages" as a human being.

	As to your observations of repetition, as well as some others about
being ignored/screwed in the 'rights' category...well now I guess you know
how it feels.

	One other thing about this incident that didn't escape my
attention...the bomb certainly was color-blind.
393.362SHRCTR::DAVISMon Apr 24 1995 20:3652
        <<< Note 393.316 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


>> An incident like OC, though,
>>makes me glad we have legal reasons to keep an eye on gun wachos.)

>Other than the weapon McVeigh had on him when apprehended, no guns were
>involved, were there? You wanna have legal reasons to keep an eye on
>fertilizer, too?

That's nonsense, and you know it, Jack. What he used is beside the point. 
It was the "cause" that drove his addled brain (and those of his 
co-conspirators - assumming he's guilty and he had help, of course) that
matters, and he apparently saw a conspiracy of the government to disarm all
citizens - among other evils, I suppose. It was timed to coincide with the
anniversary of the Waco debacle, after all. 

>>hearings wouldn't satisfy the paranoid loonies here in the 'box or anyhwere
>>else.

> They'd satisfy me, to a degree, if they were above board.

Glad to here it. Judging from your response, you may not qualify as a 
paranoid loony :-). Although the "if they were above board" caveat leaves a 
lot of possible doors open.

>It's like this. There are any number of reasons not to trust government
>and very few to the contrary. I have to stop and ask, "What's government
>Ever done FOR me?" And, I'm left somewhat flat.

Here's where we part in fundamental ways. I see it as just the opposite. 
Sure, there are reasons to distrust agencies and individuals in government 
to some extent, because power is always tempting for some to abuse. But I 
have not seen evidence that it's a rampant problem, and I have one very 
good reason to trust them more than I fear them: they work for me. I can 
fire them with the vote.

What have they "done" for me? Well, I get to lead a pretty free life. I can 
go pretty much as far as my ambition and energy will take me. They've kept 
us from being invaded. They've stopped God knows how many other OTCs and 
OKCs from happening.

Wherever there's power, be it political or economical, you have to keep a 
watchful eye. But there's a big difference between a healthy sceptical eye 
and staring at something 'til you start to halucinate (I did that enough in 
the 60s to know :-))

> I can't help it, Tom. I just have this reflex action when I hear the
> government say that they're going to "help".

And I can't help it, Jack. I just have this knee-jerk reaction to grand 
conspiracies.
393.364BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Mon Apr 24 1995 20:406
    
    	Is there a recent death toll, or more info as to suspects?
    
    	And was it proven that McVeigh actually planted the truck at
    	the building, or did he just rent it?
    
393.365CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 20:4417
    re: .353
    
    Once again, your choices of "big government or bombs" is ludicrous. 
    
    As far as terrorism being "cheered on" when folks suggest that more
    deaths will result if government doesn't quit running roughshod over
    our rights; you are reading your own slant into this.  No one is
    cheering, no one is laughing.  This is deadly serious.  The fact that
    when the people are pushed past a certain point, the natural reaction
    is to push back.  The looneys don't care who they hurt to make a point.
    
    And let's quit paralleling the anarchist bombers with the right wing. 
    This is a specious association at best, and a purposely slanted
    hate-tactic at worst.
    
    
    -steve               
393.366BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 20:4629
    RE: .360  Kevin
    
    The government can't stop ALL the bombings, but the American people
    will expect them to go after the 'extreme right wing' movement
    (and their rhetoric) to do something (anything they can) about the
    bombings.
    
    We'll have bigger government thanks to the activism of those who
    want anything BUT bigger government.
    
    > 3.  The cure is worse than the disease.  The amount of damage that 
    >     terrorists can inflict is minimal compared to what an omnipotent
    >     Federal government can do.  Terrorist kill hundreds; governments
    >     kill millions.
    
    You won't convince the American people that the BATF and the FBI
    are going to kill millions in this country.  The American people
    already KNOW that some folks are willing to kill hundreds of
    AMERICAN PEOPLE to get back at the BATF.  (The disease sounds a 
    LOT more dangerous than the 'cure' in this case.)
    
    > For myself, I would much rather live in a free society and take my 
    > chances.
    
    We aren't free if right wing terrorists are going to bomb and kill
    American citizens (civilians, including children) indiscriminately 
    in our cities.  We'd be in a state of war and the American people
    would want a 'world class superpower' to fight an enemy who would
    do this to us.
393.368MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 20:4714
re: .362, Tom

>And I can't help it, Jack. I just have this knee-jerk reaction to grand 
>conspiracies.

Don't get me wrong, Tom. I'm not buying the "grand conspiracy" theory
in this - I think I've as much as said so in other replies. What bothers
me more than the "grand conspiracy" theory in this is the fact that
the government is in a perfect position to grandstand, capitalize,
take advantage of, and otherwise make hay in terms of further eroding
rights as a result of this mess. And I can already see the evidence
that they/some are intent upon so doing.


393.370They'll have no 'revolution' without the American people.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 20:5213
    RE: .365  Steve Leech
    
    > Once again, your choices of "big government or bombs" is ludicrous. 
    
    Hey, I thought I'd made up the idea that some of these groups were
    calling for Civil War II, but I'd hate to tell you how many times
    I've heard people say this week that we may INDEED be looking at a
    Civil War in this country.
    
    If it comes to that, most Americans will want a world-class
    superpower on *their* side (because a big government is not
    nearly as scary as those who are currently proposing violence
    to fight big government.)
393.371I already knew how it feels, thanks anywayDECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allMon Apr 24 1995 20:5328
re: .361
    
>> 	So, while it may seem trite and petty to you, from _my_ perspective
>> I think it's important for people to see that wanton viciousness comes in
>> all colors, and there is nothing but a persons' soul that gives them any
>> "advantages" as a human being.
    
    You state the obvious.  It's obvious to me, anyway.  It was, in fact,
    obvious to me more than thirty years ago, as soon as I was old enough
    to even be aware of such things.  I don't believe I said anything to
    indicate otherwise.  If I did, feel free to point out specific
    occurrences.
    

>> 	As to your observations of repetition, as well as some others about
>> being ignored/screwed in the 'rights' category...well now I guess you know
>> how it feels.

    It's somewhat presumptuous of you to assume that I don't, in fact,
    already "know how it feels".  I do.  Regardless, what satisfaction
    is to be gained from my knowing how it feels, since I've never oppressed
    anyone to begin with?  It's not like it's payback or anything.
    
    Having the "other side" "know how it feels now" is the mentality that
    generated this tragedy in the first place.  We should endeavor to
    avoid such tempting retribution.
    
    Chris
393.373SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CMon Apr 24 1995 20:5622
    
    
>It was the "cause" that drove his addled brain (and those of his 
>co-conspirators - assumming he's guilty and he had help, of course) that
>matters, 
>and he apparently saw a conspiracy of the government to disarm all
>citizens - among other evils, I suppose. It was timed to coincide with the
>anniversary of the Waco debacle, after all. 
    
    	tried and convicted him already have you? Funny, I don't remember
    seeing this trial on after OJ.
    
    	I love how all you folk have jumped aboard the militia beating
    bandwagon. There's been no trial, they have a "suspect" in custody, all
    the militias interviewed have condemned the action (except one where a 
    couple of idjits may have cheered, I haven't seen the footage), yet all you
    righteous folks are slamming the militias. 
    
    	and you have the audacity to call gun owners reactionary!
    
    
    jim
393.374MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 20:5621
re: .366, Suzanne

>    The government can't stop ALL the bombings, but the American people
>    will expect them to go after the 'extreme right wing' movement
>    (and their rhetoric) to do something (anything they can) about the
>    bombings.

Some American people may expect that, but not all. I sure as hell don't want
to necessarily see that as a mindless be-all/end-all "solution". I don't
even think that "the majority" of the American people want to see that.
(I'm speaking specifically about an all-out surpression of the extreme
right wing, not discrete activities to thwart actual bombings.)
Of course, minor details like the desire of the majority has never tended
to stop the government in the past, as witness the Crime Bill . . . 

It's the responsibility of the American people to make it perfectly clear
to their representative in Congress what it is that they DO want the
government to do about this, as well as what they DON'T want them to do.
And then, as always, and as last November, it's their responsibility
to express the level of their satisfaction at the polls.

393.375legal stuffSWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 21:0610
    
    The defense lawyers for McVeigh are filing a motion for a change
    of venue from OC.
    
    The defense lawyers for MCVeigh are asking to be taken off the case,
    since they know too many killed or injured.
    
    
    
    
393.376The American people will want the govmt to do SOMETHING.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 21:0926
    RE: .374
    
    >> The government can't stop ALL the bombings, but the American people
    >> will expect them to go after the 'extreme right wing' movement
    >> (and their rhetoric) to do something (anything they can) about the
    >> bombings.
    
    > Some American people may expect that, but not all. I sure as hell 
    > don't want to necessarily see that as a mindless be-all/end-all 
    > "solution". I don't even think that "the majority" of the American 
    > people want to see that.  (I'm speaking specifically about an all-out 
    > surpression of the extreme right wing, not discrete activities to 
    > thwart actual bombings.)
    
    Agreed, not all people will want this.
    
    The American people will want the federal government to do SOMETHING,
    though, just as the people want the federal government to provide
    aid after hurricanes, tornados, massive forest fires and other types
    of disasters.
    
    Those who want LESS federal government should be doing everything in
    their power to REFRAIN from giving the American people the impression
    that they are prepared to wreak the havoc of another disaster on this
    land (because most Americans *will* want their own world-class
    superpower to do something about it.)
393.377CSOA1::LEECHMon Apr 24 1995 21:1430
Note 393.370 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..."    
    
       
>    Hey, I thought I'd made up the idea that some of these groups were
>    calling for Civil War II, but I'd hate to tell you how many times
>    I've heard people say this week that we may INDEED be looking at a
>    Civil War in this country.
 
    There may be groups that say it may have to come down to Civil War II,
    but I don't hear anyone CALLING for it.  
       
>    If it comes to that, most Americans will want a world-class
>    superpower on *their* side (because a big government is not
>    nearly as scary as those who are currently proposing violence
>    to fight big government.)
    
    Your use of "Americans" is confusing.  Civil War II would be Americans
    v. Americans at its root, though in effect it would be
    Consitutionalists against a federal government tyranny.  Americans
    would split on who to follow.  Those who want big government to control
    their lives will follow the feds, the rest will be labelled as traitors
    and terrorists.  
    
    FWIW, if it came down to the Constitution vs. despotic big government, I 
    chose the Constitution.  I fear tyranny far more than I do men willing
    to fight and die for their freedom.
    
    
    
    -steve
393.378STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityMon Apr 24 1995 21:1965
        <<< Note 393.366 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>   The government can't stop ALL the bombings, but the American people
>   will expect them to go after the 'extreme right wing' movement
>   (and their rhetoric) to do something (anything they can) about the
>   bombings.

RE: the right wing and their rhetoric

Hmmmmm...  This sounds like censorship.
So much for the First Amendment.  Of course, you might ask yourself:
    1.  How much censorship is going to stop the bombings?
    2.  If militias are using the Internet heavily, is this the Fed's big
        chance to control the InfoBahn?
    3.  How right wing do we go?  Do we force G. Gordon Liddy off the air?


RE: anything they can

Given our Federal government's stupidity and incompetence, "anything they
can" will be precious little at too high a price.


>   We'll have bigger government thanks to the activism of those who
>   want anything BUT bigger government.

Yes, I'm afraid you are right.  That's the irony of it.
    

>   You won't convince the American people that the BATF and the FBI
>   are going to kill millions in this country.  The American people
>   already KNOW that some folks are willing to kill hundreds of
>   AMERICAN PEOPLE to get back at the BATF.  (The disease sounds a 
>   LOT more dangerous than the 'cure' in this case.)
 
Oh, I doubt that the FBI and BATF and DEA and CIA and NSA could do that.
They're not that good.  But when Big Brother suspends Constitutional rights
in the name protecting society, they will proceed to manipulate public 
opinion.  Those in power will be able to commit terrible crimes against 
humanity without fear of retribution.

   
>   > For myself, I would much rather live in a free society and take my 
>   > chances.
>   
>   We aren't free if right wing terrorists are going to bomb and kill
>   American citizens (civilians, including children) indiscriminately 
>   in our cities.  We'd be in a state of war and the American people
>   would want a 'world class superpower' to fight an enemy who would
>   do this to us.

I disagree.  Even if terrorist bombings were much more common, our society
can remain free.  If we maintain our standards of constitutional law, we 
can remain a free society.  If we refuse to give into terrorist demands, 
they have nothing to gain.  Besides, they cannot take away what we are,
unless we let them.  Someone once said, "A country is not a rock.  A country
is what it stands for when standing for something is hard."

If these bombings continue, then innocent people will die.  All of us may be
at risk.  Isn't our personal freedom worth that risk?  How much have people
been willing to risk to get to this country?

Will we want a "world class superpower"?  No, we need a world class police
force, and that is something that the United States doesn't have.  We can
easily build a world class police state, but that won't solve the problem.
393.379"EVERYONE'S entitled to a competent defense"MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 21:207
re: .375, Dave

>    The defense lawyers for MCVeigh are asking to be taken off the case,
>    since they know too many killed or injured.

George and Patty may be interested in the case . . . 

393.380NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundMon Apr 24 1995 21:2010
re:371   

> Having the "other side" "know how it feels now" is the mentality that
>generated this tragedy in the first place.  We should endeavor to
>avoid such tempting retribution.

Now, you state the obvious.

I've never endorsed harming innocents for retribution, real or perceived.
  
393.381OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Apr 24 1995 21:212
    I doubt she's certified to practice in Oklahoma, unless there's some
    kind of reciprocity with Massachusetts (which I'm inclined to doubt).
393.382MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Mon Apr 24 1995 21:221
Yeah - you're prolly right, Chels . . .
393.383BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 21:2339
    RE: .377  Steve Leech
    
    > There may be groups that say it may have to come down to Civil War II,
    > but I don't hear anyone CALLING for it.  
    
    Well, I have (go back to the internet posting put into this topic last
    night - didn't it mention something about marching on Washington with
    guns?)  This was not a derogatory article ABOUT militias, but an
    anti-government article in favor of militias, not so?
    
    > Your use of "Americans" is confusing.  Civil War II would be Americans
    > v. Americans at its root, though in effect it would be
    > Consitutionalists against a federal government tyranny.  Americans
    > would split on who to follow.  Those who want big government to control
    > their lives will follow the feds, the rest will be labelled as traitors
    > and terrorists.  
    
    Don't kid yourself - it won't be much of a split.  Even if we have
    100,000 armed people in militias in this country (and I don't think
    it's this high, but who knows) - we have over 250,000,000 people in
    this country and I don't personally think that most of our 250 mil.
    are in the mood to see this country become Bosnia, do you??
    
    How long has it been since we've fought a lengthy Civil War in this
    country (and what was the cost of this war last time???)  Do you
    honestly think the people of this country want to stand by as
    millions of us die on our own soil (in an ideological conflict
    about the Republican party versus the Democrat party?)
    
    Do you think most people believe things are bad enough in this country
    to warrant watching their children die over a political belief?
    
    > FWIW, if it came down to the Constitution vs. despotic big government, I 
    > chose the Constitution.  I fear tyranny far more than I do men willing
    > to fight and die for their freedom.
    
    If it comes down to a group of people trying to overthrow the U.S.
    government, the American people will want the government to use their
    superpower muscle to stop it (and real fast.)
393.384...BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 21:2818
    RE: .378  Kevin
    
    > If these bombings continue, then innocent people will die.  All of us 
    > may be at risk.  Isn't our personal freedom worth that risk?  How much 
    > have people been willing to risk to get to this country?

    The American people will hand over a number of personal freedoms to
    give the government an edge over those who would threaten this
    country with more bombings.  And I know you know this (whether you
    agree with it or not!)
    
    > Will we want a "world class superpower"?  No, we need a world class 
    > police force, and that is something that the United States doesn't 
    > have.  We can easily build a world class police state, but that won't 
    > solve the problem.
    
    The extreme right could push us in that direction if they threaten
    terrorism here to get their way.
393.385RICKS::TOOHEYMon Apr 24 1995 21:2810
    
    RE: S_CONLON
    
    Just for the record, what's your position concerning the government state 
    terrorism at Waco?
    
    I myself condemn both the state terrorism and the civilian terrorism.
    
    Paul
    
393.386as long as OC pays for itSWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 21:308
    
    They should move it out here to Los Angeles.
    
    We need another trial. This Simpson thing is really dragging.
    
    Dave
    
    
393.387COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Apr 24 1995 21:4072
Someone asked what the current death toll was; here is a current article:

Stench of death hangs over Oklahoma City

Reuters

OKLAHOMA CITY (4:08 p.m.) - The smell of death from the bombed Oklahoma
City building stretches for streets around, adding to the horrific task of
workers picking through the rubble.

High winds have dispersed some of the stench of decaying corpses but it has
combined with the harrowing sights of mayhem in the wreckage to demoralise
exhausted rescuers fast losing hope of finding survivors.

Firefighters are wearing masks doused with peppermint, menthol and perfume
to combat the smell.

Many are devastated by the experience.

One rescuer, who identified himself only as "Jim" phoned a talk show host
and said: "I have been in there three days and I can't sleep, I can't eat.
All I do is cry." His voice trailed off into sobs.

Ernestine Dillard, a rescue doctor who has worked at several disaster
sites, began crying when interviewed on television.

"This has been a real bad one," she said. "The children's toys, their shoes
... there's no medical school anywhere that can prepare you for that."

At least 80 bodies have been uncovered so far but authorities said Monday
many more would be found soon. At least 150 people, including many children
from a nursery in the building, are still missing.

Within the wreckage is an area rescue workers have grimly dubbed "the pit."

It is where firefighters believe the day-care center and social security
office in the building were located, and where the majority of victims are
likely to be found.

"While they may be getting closer, they have a long way to go," said a pool
reporter who toured the wreckage Monday.

The work, hindered by the danger of falling debris, is proceeding very
slowly. Firefighters are digging much of the rubble out by hand and
removing it in chains of buckets.

Many are forced to lie on their bellies in tiny spaces to tunnel through
the wreckage.

Reporters were also taken to an area known as "the cave," a cramped space
so small firefighters had to crawl into it on their backs.

Some 18 survivors were pulled out of this space.

Early on Monday firefighters removed the body of a U.S. marine found still
sitting at his desk and completely encased in rubble.

But amidst the tragedy one story of an amazing escape emerged Monday.

Firefighters said a man who entered a lift as the bomb exploded walked away
almost unscathed after the blast sent him plunging seven floors.

"It crashed to the first floor, the doors opened, and he walked out," said
NBC television reporter Roger O'Neill, who spoke to rescue workers inside
the building as part of a news pool.

The firemen did not give the man's name, but said he was only slightly
injured.

Firefighters said the lift, which may have saved the man's life, was now
working again, but was not being used by search teams combing through the
wreckage.
393.388BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 21:4015
    RE: .385  Paul
    
    > Just for the record, what's your position concerning the government 
    > state terrorism at Waco?
    
    Whatever happened in Waco was not worth the killing of hundreds in 
    Oklahoma City over it (nor is it worth watching millions die in a 
    Civil War in this country over it, although others' mileage may vary.)
    
    > I myself condemn both the state terrorism and the civilian terrorism.
    
    If Timothy McVeigh had given the parents of the babies and young
    children at the Daycare Center 50 days to get them out (or even
    50 *minutes*) - we would not be grieving for the lives of these
    children today.
393.389with friends like these, who need enemies?SX4GTO::WANNOORMon Apr 24 1995 21:4119
    
    - to c_bennett
    
    	A while back someone asked you to illustrate ONE right that
    	the Fed had taken away from YOU. It would have been smart,
    	mature and reasonable move for you to respond instead of being
    	a smart-ass. Responding might have given you time to actually
    	THINK instead of frothing in the mouth some more!
    
    	By the way are you going to blame the Fed or any govt (for that
    	matter) also, for you not being able to spell and differentiate
        say, poll ve pole? You know, bad education and all?
    	
    	To think that this is the work of "govt conspiracy" is laughable -
    	Extreme paranoia - that's what (among others) is so scary about 
        the militia - their motto is probably "Shoot/Bomb/Maim First, then 
    	Ask" or "Our way or NO way", I reckon.
    
    
393.390???RICKS::TOOHEYMon Apr 24 1995 21:5411
    
    RE: S_CONLON
    
    I agree that Waco wasn't worth what happen at OC. And I condemned both.
    But that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you your position concerning
    the government state terrorism at Waco. 
    
    Paul
    
    
    
393.391GAVEL::JANDROWGreen-Eyed LadyMon Apr 24 1995 22:019
    
    
    i believe i heard today that a nurse/rescue worker was killed at the
    site when she was struck in the head by falling debris...
    
    
    %^<
    
    
393.392ySWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 22:1513
    
    this guy McVeigh.
    honor student in high school
    was on the track team.
    honorable discharge, went to Gulf.
    drove a bradley vehicle.
    
    if he did this, where did all the hate come from.
    
    must be like a serial killer, makes no sense at all.
    
    ?
    
393.393He probably registered to vote.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Mon Apr 24 1995 22:202
    McVeigh's hatred is part of the political landscape in our country
    right now.
393.394RICKS::TOOHEYMon Apr 24 1995 22:236
    
    Yep. When Ronald Reagan was elected he was immediately demonized by the
    left and Clinton has been demonized by the right.
    
    Paul
    
393.395two more to be indictedSWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 22:3211
    
    Those two with the last name of Nichols, (brothers?)
    
    The FBI announced they will be indicted on charges connected to
    the OC bombing. They were at first being held as witnesses.
    
    The charges are based on explosives found at their home and 
    at the OC bombing site.
    
    Dave
    
393.396RICKS::TOOHEYMon Apr 24 1995 22:406
    
    I wonder if they thought they could get away with it or if they figured
    they'd be caught but did it anyway?
    
    Paul
    
393.397more on the defense lawyersSWAM1::MEUSE_DAMon Apr 24 1995 22:587
    
    the public defenders that want off this case, now have stated they
    fear for the lives of their families if they defend these guys.
    
    smart lawyers.
    
    
393.398Scary times.SWAM1::MERCADO_ELTue Apr 25 1995 02:1314
    It is pretty scary to wake up and find out that things you feel
    strongly about like the right to own a gun,the Pro-Life movement,
    being against a Big Brother Government etc. are now associated
    with being a "wacko".  
    
    No doubt there will be those in the media and in government who
    will take the acts of a few murderous wackos and paint all 
    conservatives as lunatics for their political gain.
    
    I also find it ironic that the same people who are so outraged
    and upset by the bombing in OK. City could so easily dismiss
    what happened in Waco.  Sad.
    
    Elizabeth
393.399BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 02:1641
    RE: .390  Paul Toohey
    
    > I agree that Waco wasn't worth what happen at OC. And I condemned both.
    > But that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you your position concerning
    > the government state terrorism at Waco. 
    
    Paul, I wanted to give it some thought before answering your question.
    
    As you may (or may not) know, I'm a member of the NRA so I have strong
    feelings about US 2nd Amendment rights.
    
    I also realize (by your use of the words 'government state terrorism
    at Waco') that you honestly don't see a difference between settling
    down to work with a cup of coffee, or being a baby who has been dropped
    off to Daycare on a calm Wednesday morning, then being blown up with
    1200-1500 pounds of explosives for an issue that had NOTHING WHATEVER
    ON THIS GREEN EARTH TO DO WITH YOU *versus* an arrest-warrant-gone-
    awry-which-turned-into-a-50-day-standoff-with-the-FBI, etc.-during-
    which-the-adults-had-every-opportunity-in-the-world-to-get-the-children-
    to-safe-ground.
    
    The people in Oklahoma City were NOT the BATF or the FBI - they were
    private citizens, children, babies, and people across the street
    who worked in other businesses.  They had nothing whatever to do
    with whatever put a hair up Timothy McVeigh's hind quarters (and
    I mean, they had NOTHING TO DO WITH WACO.)
    
    I'm sorry, but I just don't see the situations as being identical.
    Not that it matters (since the bombing in OKC can never be regarded
    as justification for what happened in Waco anyway.)
    
    As much as I believe in US 2nd Amendment rights, if the police come
    to my door for my guns, I will deal with it in the courts (so the
    BATF doesn't frighten me in the least.)  I'm not interested in having
    my country set up so that cooperation with law enforcement officials
    is optional.
    
    Now, I know you disagree vehemently (to the ends of the earth) with
    everything I've said, but it still doesn't change the fact that the
    bombing in OKC stands on its own as a horrendous crime that can
    never be justified in any way.
393.400Chip in the butt snarfCSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanTue Apr 25 1995 02:2421



    
>    this guy McVeigh.
>    honor student in high school
>    was on the track team.
>    honorable discharge, went to Gulf.
>    drove a bradley vehicle.
    
 >   if he did this, where did all the hate come from.
    
  
   I believe he said that the army planted a "computer chip" in his buttock 
   (don't believe he specified which).



  Jim    

393.401BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 03:3927
    RE: .398  Elizabeth
    
    > I also find it ironic that the same people who are so outraged
    > and upset by the bombing in OK. City could so easily dismiss    
    > what happened in Waco.  Sad.
    
    'The SAME PEOPLE who are so outraged' - aren't we ALL outraged
    over this?  Or doesn't it matter if it was done for Waco?
    
    It's pretty horrifying to think that perhaps some of those still 
    mad about what happened at Waco *MAY NOT* be 'outraged and upset 
    by the bombing in OK'.  When folks here thought the bombing was
    done by terrorists from the middle East, some were actually
    suggesting that our government CARPET BOMB the terrorists'
    home cities in the middle East!  Why is this bombing suddenly
    not a big deal to some (even though the people killed had 
    nothing whatever to do with Waco)?
    
    I thought nearly everyone in this country (AT LEAST everyone in
    this notesfile) totally condemned it.
    
    This bomb could have killed anyone here (no matter how mad they
    are about Waco) or their children.
    
    The bomb against Americans on the anniversary of McVeigh's execution
    could kill any of us next time (even those who spend every day, until 
    then, enraged over what happened at Waco.)
393.402WDFFS2::SHOOKthe river is mineTue Apr 25 1995 04:1115
    
  
  > I believe he said that the army planted a "computer chip" in his buttock 
  > (don't believe he specified which).

 	he's just upset because it's not compatible with the "cow chip"
        between his ears. :-\
    
        on "nightline" tonight, a reporter quoted a source close to the
        investigation as saying that mcveigh hasn't told the authorites
        a single thing since he was taken into custody, even when
        confronted with pictures of the children who were blown up.
    
        bill 
  
393.403]JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeTue Apr 25 1995 05:0212
    I don't have time to read through all of this, so I apologize if this
    has been discussed:
    
     Rumor that FBI was warned about McVeigh and that a fax actually
     warned of the bombing itself.
    
    Anybody got more on this?
    
    
    
    
    
393.404bigger than thoughtSWAM1::MEUSE_DATue Apr 25 1995 05:4610
    Revise figure for the size of the bomb was stated on news at
    
    5000 lbs. They said the original figure of 1000 was incorrect.The
    new figure was released by the investigation team.
    
    2000 pound Diasycluster bombs in Nam were bad news. Maybe since
    this was fertilizer based it didn't have the impact of an high
    explosive based bomb.
    
    Dave
393.405BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 05:467
    Well, Nancy, you might be referring to the Republican Congressman
    who received a fax about the bombing shortly before or shortly after
    it happened - it was thrown away at first (by the Republican's staff,
    per the Congressman himself) but then it was fished out and sent 
    either to the FBI or the NRA.
    
    They are seeking the man who is believed to have sent it.
393.406......SWAM1::MEUSE_DATue Apr 25 1995 05:559
    
    my note .395 is incorrect. the news I heard about the Nichols being
    indicted, didn't appear later in the day.
    
    much like the news onthe Simpson case. Facts are screwed up.
      
    Dave
    
    
393.407COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertTue Apr 25 1995 06:057
re .404

If it was a 5000 pound bomb, it had the impact of 5000 pounds of TNT.

That's not the weight of the bomb; it's the TNT equivalence.

/john
393.408GLDOA::POMEROYTue Apr 25 1995 06:274
    The news I heard is Terry Nichols is charged after finding bomb making
    materials in his house.  His brother is to be charged today.
    
    Dennis
393.409DELNI::SHOOKFowl Play Suspected in Hen House DeathTue Apr 25 1995 07:2940
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    there is no excuse for anyone to use waco as a rallying cry for
    violence against the government or anyone else for that matter.
    terrorism is terrorism, PERIOD.  
    
    re: .260
    
    i never said that the militias were responsible for the bombing, but IF
    it turns out that they were, then they have done more to hurt their
    cause than the government could ever do, and those who are convicted,
    deserve the death penalty. as a gun owner and a member of the NRA, i am
    sure that this bombing will do more to hurt the image of law-abiding
    gun owners than ever before. to back this up, it was reported on the
    news last night that there is more opposition to repeal of the brady
    bill than there was before, and it's chances are looking very dim. 
     
    
                                   
393.410NRA clarifies news reportSUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 11:37104
April 24, 1995                         For Information Contact:
                                                                 

                                       NRA Public Affairs
                                       703-267-3820

MEDIA ADVISORY

NRA CLARIFIES ERRONEOUS NEWS REPORTS

Some recent news reports have incorrectly represented actions of
the National Rifle Association of America, in its handling of
information surrounding the tragedy in Oklahoma City.  In the
interest of providing accurate, truthful reporting of the
investigation of this callous act of terrorism, the following
describes NRA's activity related to a message that had been
earlier faxed to Congressman Steve Stockman's office from an
anonymous source.

After a preliminary internal investigation, it appears that NRA
Legal Counsel acted responsibly and may, in fact, have aided the
investigation.  If more relevant information is obtained after
further scrutiny, NRA will immediately issue an additional
statement to the media.

The following describes NRA activity from April 19 to April 21:

On the evening of Wednesday, April 19, the day of the bombing in
Oklahoma City, NRA Legal Counsel received a telephone call, at
home, from a member of Congressman Steve Stockman's staff.  The
congressional staffer expressed concern over a disturbing fax
that his office had received that day.  After the congressional
staffer described the fax, NRA Legal Counsel asked if it had been
shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The
congressional staffer said he was sure that the FBI had been
notified.  The congressional staffer explained that he was
calling to inquire if the NRA had any knowledge of who or what
"wolverine" was, as that name was printed at the top of the fax. 
NRA Legal Counsel replied that he would follow up on the
congressional inquiry and asked that a copy of the document be
faxed to his office the next day.

On April 20, at about 1:00 pm, the congressional staffer faxed
the document to NRA Legal Counsel.  In a subsequent telephone
conversation, NRA Legal Counsel asked again if the information
had been brought to the attention of the FBI.  The congressional
staffer again said that it had.  NRA Legal Counsel said he would
check to see if NRA staff had any knowledge of "wolverine." 
Later that same day, NRA Legal Counsel telephoned and left a
message for Congressman Stockman's staffer to return the call.

On April 21, the congressional staffer returned the call to NRA
Legal Counsel around midday.  NRA Legal Counsel stated that he
had no knowledge of "wolverine."  NRA Legal Counsel asked again
if the congressional staffer was absolutely certain that the
information had been forwarded to the FBI.  The staffer responded
that he thought it had been, but was not absolutely certain.  NRA
Legal Counsel asked if the congressional staffer had any
objections to NRA contacting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms about the information.  The congressional staffer
expressed no objections.  NRA Legal Counsel telephoned the office
of BATF's Legal Counsel.  After being told that the individual
was not available, NRA Legal Counsel explained the nature of the
call and was transferred to BATF's command center.  NRA Legal
Counsel described the fax to an agent at the command center and
immediately faxed the document to the agent.

Later that same afternoon, NRA Legal Counsel noted television
news reports about law enforcement activity in Michigan.  NRA
Legal Counsel then telephoned the agent at BATF's command center
to remind him of the fax and to draw his attention to the name
"wolverine" and to the telephone number identification printed at
the top of the document, a number from a Michigan area code.  The
BATF agent at command center thanked NRA Legal Counsel for the
information.

-- nra --
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Some useful URLs:  http://WWW.NRA.Org, 
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

NRA.org is maintained by Mainstream.com  mailto:info@mainstream.com

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24830; Mon, 24 Apr 95 15:22:39 -040
% Received: from n8ino.mainstream.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA22104; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 12:12:06 -070
% Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA15460; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 14:47:39 -0400
% Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 14:47:39 -0400
% Message-Id: <9504241800.AA28213@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Errors-To: listproc@Mainstream.com
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@Mainstream.com
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@mainstream.com>
% Subject: INFO: NRA Clarifies Erroneous News Reports
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: RKBA Alerts list
393.411SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 11:38112
                       NRA-ILA FAX NETWORK
                   NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
           11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Vol. 2, No. 18 - SpecialPhone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918Special 4/24/95

                 NRA CONDEMNS ACTS OF TERRORISM

     Joining with its thousands of members in Oklahoma City, the
National Rifle Association of America condemned the criminal
terrorists who were responsible for the tragic bombing in Oklahoma
City and urged swift, sure punishment -- including the death
penalty -- for all individuals found responsible.

     "The NRA has nothing but contempt for terrorists or hate
groups that attempt to disguise themselves as patriots," said NRA
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.  LaPierre praised the
efforts of law enforcement in making quick progress in
investigating the case.  "We salute the law enforcement team that
has so skillfully and professionally investigated this matter." 
LaPierre said.  "The authorities who play a role in bringing the
terrorists to justice have no stronger ally than the NRA."

     NRA CLARIFIES ERRONEOUS NEWS REPORTS.  Many members and
volunteers have called in with questions concerning recent news
reports that incorrectly represent actions of the NRA in its
handling of information surrounding the tragedy in Oklahoma City. 
In the interest of providing accurate, truthful reporting of the
investigation of this callous act of terrorism, the following
describes NRA's activity related to a message that had been earlier
faxed to Congressman Steve Stockman's (R-TX) office from an
anonymous source.  After a preliminary internal investigation, it
appears that NRA Legal Counsel acted responsibly and may, in fact,
have aided the investigation.  

     On the evening of Wednesday, April 19, the day of the bombing
in Oklahoma City, NRA Legal Counsel received a telephone call, at
home, from a member of Congressman Stockman's staff.  The
congressional staffer expressed concern over a disturbing fax that
his office had received that day.  After the congressional staffer
described the fax, NRA Legal Counsel asked if it had been shared
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  The congressional
staffer said he was sure that the FBI had been notified.  The
congressional staffer explained that he was calling to inquire if
the NRA had any knowledge of who or what "wolverine" was, as that
name was printed at the top of the fax.  NRA Legal Counsel replied
that he would follow up on the congressional inquiry and asked that
a copy of the document be faxed to his office the next day. 
[SPECIAL NOTE:  Today, the FBI acknowledged receiving a fax from
Congressman Stockman's office on 4/19/95.]

     On April 20, at about 1:00 p.m., the congressional staffer
faxed the document to NRA Legal Counsel.  In a subsequent telephone
conversation, NRA Legal Counsel asked again if the information had
been brought to the attention of the FBI.  The congressional
staffer again said that it had.  NRA Legal Counsel said he would
check to see if NRA staff had any knowledge of "wolverine."  Later
that same day, NRA Legal Counsel telephoned and left a message for
Congressman Stockman's staffer to return the call.

     On April 21, the congressional staffer returned the call to
NRA Legal Counsel around midday.  NRA Legal Counsel stated that he
had no knowledge of "wolverine."  NRA Legal Counsel asked again if
the congressional staffer was absolutely certain that the
information had been forwarded to the FBI.  The staffer responded
that he thought it had been, but was not absolutely certain.  NRA
Legal Counsel asked if the congressional staffer had any objections
to NRA contacting the BATF about the information.  The
congressional staffer expressed no objections.  NRA Legal Counsel
telephoned the office of BATF's Legal Counsel.  After being told
that the individual was not available, NRA Legal Counsel explained
the nature of the call and was transferred to BATF's command
center.  NRA Legal Counsel described the fax to an agent at the
command center and immediately faxed the document to the agent. 
Later that same afternoon, NRA Legal Counsel noted television news
reports about law enforcement activity in Michigan.  NRA Legal
Counsel then telephoned the agent at BATF's command center to
remind him of the fax and to draw his attention to the name
"wolverine" and to the telephone number identification printed at
the top of the document, a number from a Michigan area code.  The
BATF agent at command center thanked NRA Legal Counsel for the
information.  

     The thoughts and prayers of NRA's 3.5 million members are with
the victims and their families in their time of need in Oklahoma
City.
                              -End-
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Some useful URLs:  http://WWW.NRA.Org, 
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

NRA.org is maintained by Mainstream.com  mailto:info@mainstream.com

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA02082; Mon, 24 Apr 95 22:36:34 -0400
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA10979; Mon, 24 Apr 95 22:35:19 -0400
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA05691; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 19:54:44 -0400
% Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 19:54:44 -0400
% Message-Id: <9504242354.AA05691@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: FAXALERT: Special Edition, NRA Condmens Acts of Terrorism (4/24/95)
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list
393.412SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 11:38219
Subject: Re: Clinton Attacks Waco Victims]
Message-Id: <199504241839.SAA28464@netcom22.netcom.com>

More video uplinks...from the satellites 11:30 AM PST 4/24/95

Stockman reports he got a fax from Mark Koernke at
about the time of the blast. It was cryptic fax and
said that there was going to be a blast. The fax came
to his Washington office. Other congressmen were said
to have also gotten the fax, as well as the NRA. His
staff in Washington was instructed by him to turn it
over to the FBI, which was done. I have some text of
the fax, it is the form of a warning of bombing, not
knowing where or what.

I saw video of the alleged search of Koernke's house, 
there was NO SEARCH. The Sheriff said that Koernke was
not a suspect and was not involved. Apparently Koernke
was taken into protective custody by the sheriff at his 
request...but not sure. Sheriff would notsay where he was.

TV Report says that blasting caps and fuse wire was
found at the Nickles farm. Probably true, he lives
in a forest and must have had to blast a lot to get
the trees cleared. They said no explosives were found.

Feeds are going wild, with all sorts of noise.

I saw a 20 minute uplink of militia video, looked
like a bunch in cammy's at a range doing nothing.
The scare is on with the militis. They really like
to do still shots of guns, bolt guns, semis all types.
Weird stuff, unless you are trying to build a case.

The KOCO out of OKC and Channel 7 out of Detroit are
the most active uplinkers of chase video.

FBI reports they have a security camera film which shows
the Ryder truck outside the building before the blast.
It is still shots.

Some uplinkers have continuous shots of the OKC building.
Searchers have reached the day care center. So a lot of
intense speculating about the numbers of victims. Toll
is now 79 according to on the scene fire chiefs report.

Senate is back, so no the rehtoric is beginning. Schumer
said the next RKBA hearing will most assuredly be called
off. Why?

Clinton speech is saying that the talk radio guys are
to blame. Right wing hate speech. Claims the hate speech
is causing the problem in the country. ... Sure like the
Democrats on the House floor talking about school lunches?

Hillary may have been indicted last week for bank fraud
and obstruction of justice. The Vince Foster case. Also the
current gov. of Arkansas, Tucker may have been indicted
for same. Indictments are allegedly sealed, if they happened
at all. There were supposedly as many as 16 people indicted
by the Arkansas grand jury last week. ... raw data hear. Wait
for more confirmation before drawing any conclusion would be
my advice.

McViegh's lawyers have withdrawn from representing him. Lawyer
said lawyers concern was they had friends in the tradgedy. They
are looking for substitute council. They filed a motion to
transfer the trial to Denver, higher up judge as well. 10 th
circuit court is Denver, I believe.

A news type said the NRA and other groups need to answer what
there involvement in the OKC incident is...obvious isn't it?
There was no NRA involvement at all. Get ready for it.

sheezzz sat feeds are going everywhere. The noise level is
horrific folks and you gotta take in all in and count to 10
before reacting to anything. The only thing I can do is to
report what is said and try to keep people informed. But
what I put out is not necessarily fact, just current.

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.
=======================================================================

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

Subject: Re: Status update...4/24 11:30 AM PST
Message-Id: <199504242001.UAA27597@netcom2.netcom.com>

More....

Schumer held a news conference; among other things this
is part of what he said...

Schumer sent a letter to newt Gingrich requesting delay of the
hearings on RKBA.(some stretch here I might add). he went on...
We should delay or defer the next RKBA hearing and put off any
attempt at a repeal of the ban...now pay close attention ----
"...so as to not reward those who would commit violent acts."

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.
=======================================================================

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

Subject: Re: Status update...4/24 11:30 AM PST
Message-Id: <199504242130.VAA02389@netcom6.netcom.com>

To those of you and others who have asked me where I get
this information, it is from satellite TV. I am watching
the birds as the various TV stations around the country
uplink on-scene reports and information. If you have
a BUD, Big Ugly Dish, look at T2 and G6 for c-band uplinks,
look at G4-21 for CBS uplinks, Look at T1-12 for ABC
and K2 ku band for NBC uplinks. ku news feeds show up
regularly on ku birds G4 G7 T1 K2.

More video uplink info off the satellites...

Several stations are running video clips of other related 
material, for instance there was a feed of about 30 minutes
of violence and violence clips about the Vietnam war protest.
Bombings, roits, fires, you name it, it was there.
They showed what appeared to be the black panthers and some
of the video around what they supposedly did. No audio, just
video, so I couldn't tell for sure, but I reconized some of
the footage, yep...I am that old :-}.

James and Terry Nickles are being held as MATERIAL WITNESSES.
The FBI has concluded their searce of their farm. A material
witness is one who has knowledge or has testimony which no
one else has, or at the very least few, can give. In important
cases the material witness can be held against thier will. The
person would typically be an eyewitness or even a victim. Since
these people knew the man(Mcveigh) who has been charged, this
is normal proceedure.

I saw tape of Koernke's family leaving the MI. farm where he lived.
The family was packing the trunk of the car in a orderly non-hurried
fashion. They "left for parts unknown". It is assumed they went into
hiding, and it is assumed the sheriff knows where they are at.
Koernke's radio show is on T2-21 5.8 wideband audio at
5:00 PM PST so I have been told. I will check tonight. He is
quite outspoken about the gun ban and the one world government
according to the backgrounder done on by the TV station.

The media in general is connecting the gun ban and the repeal
to the bombing. We need to get a strategy together for after
the media feeding frenzy. And it is a freenzy. The gun ban
is at the center of it as far as the media is concerned. Schumer
is leading the charge(no news there is it?) One news type said
it is hard to connect guns to fertilizer, and makes no sense
to do so. How true it is. I use the same type fertilizer in my 
garden, it costs about $2 for a 20# bag. I also have a diesel
pickup with high capacity dual fuel tanks.

I saw a live press conference, the media asked to meet with him,
of Stockman defending his office's action regarding
the fax he received. The fax was apparently a status report, the
FBI got is, and acknowledged that Stockman had done everything
proper. Now the media...both did they go after him. As you
know, Stockman was the one who filed the repeal the gun ban
bill the last day before the break. They were all over him
about this. A staffer of Stockman had sent the fax on to the
NRA and had asked if the NRA could help identify the sender.
This may have been improper in hindsight, but the staffer
did not know what else to do. This was after he sent it
to the FBI and he was likely only trying to help.

	To me I think the report in the fax Stockman got was
	a 'on the scene' report from someone trying to relay 
	information about the bombing. There is still some discussion
	if the fax came before or after the blast. Stockman
	displayed a letter from the FBI, which he gave the
	media saying he acted promptly and properly. The
	media wasn't buying it though.

I saw a live interview with the Mid-East fellow who was brought
back from England. He was sure treated poorly and went over
what happened to him. They stripped him naked, wouldn't let
him even eat, and as he said, he didn't do anything. He was
only going to Jordan. Seems to me police overreacted big time.
He was really up tight about the whole affair. He was put
through the wringer and it showed.

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.
=======================================================================

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

Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950424165512.27808Z-100000@elmer.wrq.com>

I will not comment on any of this and would not want to deny or endorse 
any conclusions in it or drawn from it. HOWEVER I will say that have 
heard similar information from another source. Around 3pm PST KVI Radio 
in Seattle interviewed someone alledgedly with a group called citizens 
for a constitutional washington who had information identical to the 
information I've left below. The host of the show, Mike Seigel, read all 
of the information from a FAX he said he had recieved from them and 
concurred that on the graphic of the seismorgraph there were two blips 
of roughly the same size. 
The CCW representative claimed that they had no ties with the militia 
movement and that the FAX they had forwarded to Seigel was from the 
seismology lab of the Univ of OK. Seigel said it was a letter from the 
lab director. None of them of course pinpointed the waves as coming from 
inside or outside the building but the letter implied that it was the 
bomb blast/blasts that leveled the building
-Boyd Kneeland
(I would appreciate email from anyone with more data on the CCW group)
 On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, PAUL D QUESNELL wrote:

393.413SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 11:38136
Message-Id: <199504250036.AAA27694@netcom7.netcom.com>

Status update, 4/24/95 5:30 PM PST....

Mark Koernke, MI militia, showed up on the radio network
(T2-21 5.8 wideband audio, OMEGA RADIO network) on schedule
and live. He re-iterates he is wanted for nothing, has
talked at length to the Sheriff and the FBI on his own,
and was not involved. He says he left his house to get
away from the media, he says he was served no search warrant
(as I said on the last report) and expects none to be
served, since SAYS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE TERRORIST
ATTACK OR THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. HE CONDEMNED THE ATTACKS AS
DOES EVERY ONE ELSE AS NOT RIGHT AND SENDS HIS PRAYERS
FOR THE VICTIMS.

He apparently did send the fax to Stockman, he sent it
about one hour after the blast, and as I said before, he
sent it out as an advisory that an act had taken place, 
not before the fact as was reported. The error as he states,
was due to the fact they had forgot to set the time on
their fax when day light savings time changed over. He
said he sent the fax to advise only.

Koernke is getting alot of calls from the media and the
gun ban in the crime bill remains the center of the media
attention. He relates just about all the media types ask
about it. Funny they don't ask about fertilizer isn't it?

I saw several media types ask interview questions about the NRA
and it's envolvement in the bombing, they were definitely
trying to connect the two.

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.
=======================================================================

Message-Id: <199504250118.BAA10413@netcom21.netcom.com>

Chin straps folks...RAW DATA JUST COMING IN.

Media is saying they don't think the militia is 
envolved, but who knows right now...

Another bomb went off in Sacromento taday. It was at
an office of a group who is working to get the spotted
owl _OFF_ the endangered species list. One dead, so far.
Reports are sketchy on exactly what happened. Reporter
said a package was delivered to the offices and when 
they took it in the building, it blew up.

Apparently it was a small device and did not level
the building.

The local TV station states "Environmental terrorist"
are expected as the cause. This is the second bomb in
the area, the first was at a lumber company shed where
$50k damage was done. The lumber company was logging the
precious "old growth" trees. You may have missed the
press coverage in your national media. This happened 
two weeks ago.

.............this is just preliminary information, since
it was on the local TV station, I assume it correct, but
caution is advised.

They are also saying it might be the UNI-BOMBER who has
set off 17 small bombs nationwide. They do not think it
related to OKC, or the militia. It does not fit the
uni-bomber pattern, which has in the past used mailbombs.

From a SF radio station...US BATF spokesman says they
have had a rash of bomb threats, but this is the first real
bomb. They were alerting the public to watch out for
suspicious behavior and objects.

More later...

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.
=======================================================================

Message-Id: <199504250220.CAA24255@netcom3.netcom.com>

7:15 PM PST 4/24/95

things are hoping again...sat feeds are now saying...

Saw a sat feed of the New Hampsire militia, same story vilify
the people and their guns. Showed a guy with a 336 Marlin
lever gun and said it was a semi-auto, oh well, the usual
media accuracy. And connect the dots to the gun ban repeal.

DiFi...spokesman said...we need to stop the AW repeal effort
and not reward those extremist for violence. DiFi sent a
letter to Dole and Gingrich saying same. he went on to
label those who would repeal the gun ban extremists.
Don't know about you, but I am really getting tired of this.

New terrorist powers being requested....
FBI internal terrorist office is being asked to be set up
by Clinton. Adds wide sweeping new powers to wire tap,
surveil and have secret trials and on and on it goes. A
full blown police state. ACLU weighs in against it, but
the legislation is ON THE FAST TRACK and hearings are
scheduled to get underway next week. 

Video now coming in...7:20 PM
Sacto bomb, 2:20PM, an employee of a forestry lobby group
retrieved a shoebox size package. When attempting to open
the package it blew up, killing the person. About a 35
feet area of destruction. This group is apparently working
to get the spotted owl OFF the endangered species list.
Gov Wilson is supporting the groups effort and expressed 
outrage at whoever did this. The local TV stations are
saying "enviromental extremists" are apparently behind
this due to the nature of the target.  Second bomb in
two weeks out here. Both _APPEAR_ related to the 
environmentalist movement because of their targets.

But who knows for now. we don't want to fall in the same
trap the rest of the media is now in, so I reserve all
judgement as to who did this and why. This is now a CAPITAL
FEDERAL CRIME AS WELL. Speculation is it is not related
to the OKC bombing.

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.
=======================================================================

393.414SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 11:3943
 
BILL CLINTON ON *60 MINUTES*
 
President Clinton was interviewed on the CBS program, *60 
Minutes*, on April 23, 1995. 
 
MIKE WALLACE:
...Are we Americans going to have to give up some of our 
liberties in order better to combat terrorism? Both from overseas 
and here?
 
 
BILL CLINTON:
Mike, I don't think we have to give up our liberties, but I do 
think we have to have more discipline. And we have to be willing 
to see serious threats to our liberties properly investigated. I 
have sent a "counter-terrorism" piece of legislation to Capitol 
Hill, which I hope Congress will pass. And after consultation 
with the attorney general and the FBI director and others, I'm 
going to send some *more* legislation to Congress to ask them to 
give the FBI and others *more* power to crack these terrorist 
networks -- both domestic and foreign.
    
*{bunch of garbage deleted}* 
 
LESLIE STAHL:
But Mr. President, there are tens -- maybe more -- tens of 
thousands of men and women, dressing up on week-ends in military 
garb, going off for training, because they're upset about Waco -- 
despite what you've said. We're talking about thousands and 
thousands of people in this country who are *furious* at the 
federal government for what *you* say is irrational -- but *they* 
believe it.
 
 
BILL CLINTON:
Well they have a right to believe whatever they want. They have a 
right to say whatever they want. They have a right to keep and 
bear arms. They have a right to put on uniforms and go out on the 
weekends.
    
{ A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BILL???? NO KIDDING!!!! }
 
393.415What were they, peace loving flower people? NOTMIMS::WILBUR_DTue Apr 25 1995 12:5117
    
    .412 Subject: Re: Clinton Attacks Waco Victims]
    
    What a joke title. By their actions they were criminals and 
    murders. The governments mistake was misjudging how violent 
    they really were and not calling off the raid when the element
    of surprize was lost.
    
    I believe the recent gas posionings in Japan and this bombing
    actually vindicates the government. Showing that these people
    have to be watched because they are unstable and dangerous.
    (The fire-fight should have been enough to show they were unstable.)
    After the bomb, after the posionings, people are wondering why
    the governments didn't know the danger.
    
    These are all birds of a feather. 
     
393.416TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Tue Apr 25 1995 13:097
    
    Re: bomb size:
    
    I read that the fertilizer bomb is about 60% as powerful as TNT, so if
    the TNT equivalency is 5000 lbs, then the bomb probably weighed about
    8300 lbs.
    
393.417SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 13:1534
    
    
re:                     <<< Note 393.415 by MIMS::WILBUR_D >>>
>              -< What were they, peace loving flower people? NOT >-
    
    
    	>    What a joke title. By their actions they were criminals and 
>    murders. The governments mistake was misjudging how violent 
>    they really were and not calling off the raid when the element
>    of surprize was lost.
    
    	Ah, another blind sheep following the government supplied
    misinformation. Just watch the news and go to sleep and dream of how
    ol' Janet Reno is protecting you from the bad guys. Nighty night...
    
>    I believe the recent gas posionings in Japan and this bombing
>    actually vindicates the government. Showing that these people
>    have to be watched because they are unstable and dangerous.
>    (The fire-fight should have been enough to show they were unstable.)
>    After the bomb, after the posionings, people are wondering why
>    the governments didn't know the danger.
>    These are all birds of a feather. 
    
    	ah yes. Lump 'em all together and toss 'em to the wolves. Raid
    religious sects! More police powers! Warrantless searches! Heck, let's
    just put 'em all in concentration camps like we did with the Japanese
    after the bombing of Pearl Harbor! Ta heck with the consititution, it's
    an outdated piece of paper anyway! We need socialsm now!!!
    
    
    	 yeah, right...
    
    
    jim
393.418TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Tue Apr 25 1995 13:185
    
    Did anyone happen to catch Newt Gingrich last night on CNN, stating
    that he would support broadening the powers of the FBI to counter this
    sort of thing?
    
393.419STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 13:2035
        <<< Note 393.384 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
                                    -< ... >-

>   The American people will hand over a number of personal freedoms to
>   give the government an edge over those who would threaten this
>   country with more bombings.  And I know you know this (whether you
>   agree with it or not!)

Like I said, I do agree.  It's stupid, but they'll do it.

Let's not forget that the security at that building was not only bad 
(allowing an unattended truck to park directly in front of the building), 
but it was not as good as other Federal buildings.  We heard over the 
weekend that some Federal office buildings had increased their security 
and removed their day care facilities.  This one didn't.  Now if someone
in the great Federal behemoth figured out that Federal offices might be
targets, then why didn't they spread the word to all Federal buildings?
For Pete's sake, they can't protect themselves, how can protect the other
250 million of us?

The cries for Big Brother to come save them are like the bleating of so
many sheep.  Once again the Federal government becomes the answer to our
problems.

The Media also get revenge on their favorite enemies.  In particular, the
hysterical cries are "right-wing extremists".  They will equate "right-wing
extremists" with "baby killers".  They get to attack talk radio for fanning
the flames.  They are trying to make every possible connection between the
bombings and the NRA.

Then in 1996, they will again label Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, et. al. as 
"right-wing extremists".

Meanwhile, President Clinton's approval rating goes from 47% to 58%.

393.420SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 13:2114
    
    re: .418
    
    	yeah, Dole said the same thing.
    
    	I heard an interview on NPR this morning that was interesting...it
    was with an attorney for a group in New York that defends the
    constitution. He claims the FBI has too much power already and to
    reverse the limited powers rulings reached in the 70's would be a
    horrible mistake. I think it's too late to stop it....
    
    
    jim
       
393.421CSOA1::LEECHTue Apr 25 1995 13:2376
Note 393.383 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..."      
    
   > > There may be groups that say it may have to come down to Civil War II,
   > > but I don't hear anyone CALLING for it.  
    
>    Well, I have (go back to the internet posting put into this topic last
>    night - didn't it mention something about marching on Washington with
>    guns?)  This was not a derogatory article ABOUT militias, but an
>    anti-government article in favor of militias, not so?
 
    Yes, it mentioned a march on DC in uniform, with guns.  It didn't say
    anything about an assault on DC, though.  It never happened, though,
    did it.  The ultimatum was not delivered.
    
    In any case, the militia in question seems to be preparing *for* an
    assault on themselves, not preparing *to* assault anyone.  Big
    difference.  They believe that the Constitution will be suspended, and
    they wish to be ready if martial law is called nation-wide.  I can't
    say I blame them for wanting to be prepared for such a thing.  I am
    glad that they didn't march on DC, I think that would have been a bad
    idea.
       
>    Don't kid yourself - it won't be much of a split.  Even if we have
>    100,000 armed people in militias in this country (and I don't think
>    it's this high, but who knows) - we have over 250,000,000 people in
>    this country and I don't personally think that most of our 250 mil.
>    are in the mood to see this country become Bosnia, do you??
 
    I think you underestimate the patriots, but I think that your
    conclusion is, unfortunately, sound.  There won't be much of a split,
    as most will willingly become federal slaves rather than fight against
    an oppressive government.  Peace at any cost.  This attitude merely
    shows that we do not deserve our freedoms.
       
>    How long has it been since we've fought a lengthy Civil War in this
>    country (and what was the cost of this war last time???)  Do you
>    honestly think the people of this country want to stand by as
>    millions of us die on our own soil (in an ideological conflict
>    about the Republican party versus the Democrat party?)
 
    No one wants to see anyone die, but some things are worth fighting for. 
    Our FF certainly beleived that freedom from an oppressive government
    was worth losing everything over (check out what happened to those who
    signed the Declaration of Independence, after they signed it).
    
    I disagree that it is an ideological conflict most strenuously.  It has
    to do with the law of the land.  Both Dems and Repubs have committed
    what basically comes down to treason, by ignoring/circumventing the
    Constitution.  It has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do
    with LAW, which the federal government seems to think it is above.
      
>    Do you think most people believe things are bad enough in this country
>    to warrant watching their children die over a political belief?
 
    Once again, it is not political.  It is the most basic law of the land
    that the federal government is usurping.  And when the law goes, so do
    our rights.  It would be a battle of freedom (not too disimilar to the
    war of independence).
       
>    If it comes down to a group of people trying to overthrow the U.S.
>    government, 
    
    Not exactly overthrow, more like, put it back under Constitutional law.
    
>    the American people will want the government to use their
>    superpower muscle to stop it (and real fast.)
    
    You going to nuke freedom fighters?  Unfortunately, just as the
    propaganda machine led the people astray in 1984 (Orwell) and in the
    very real world of Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's, it will
    undeniably turn public opinion against the freedom fighters.  They
    would be called terrorists and criminals (just like those who faught
    against the  tyranny of England over 200 years ago).
    
    
    -steve
393.422SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 13:3217
    
>    Don't kid yourself - it won't be much of a split.  Even if we have
>    100,000 armed people in militias in this country (and I don't think
>    it's this high, but who knows) - we have over 250,000,000 people in
>    this country and I don't personally think that most of our 250 mil.
>    are in the mood to see this country become Bosnia, do you??
    
    
    	Only 2% of the population supported the Revolutionary War. It
    doesn't take much.
    
    	I don't support a civil war BTW. We have a long way to go before
    we're anywhere near that extreme. Things need to change at the ballot
    box.
    
    	jim
           
393.423CSOA1::LEECHTue Apr 25 1995 13:479
    re: .414
    
    In just a day or two, Clinton has a "counter terrorism" package ready to
    be sent to Congress?? (!)
    
    Does this seem at all suspicious to anyone?
    
    
    -steve
393.424RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Apr 25 1995 13:5265
    Given that there is no evidence any of the organized militias were
    involved in the bombing, and that the Michigan militia may even have
    warned the FBI about McVeigh, enacting legislation allowing the
    government to "infiltrate" these groups that most strongly want to be
    left alone is stupid.  The smart thing to do with people who want to be
    left alone is to leave them alone.
    
    Leave the people alone.

    This is not a popularity contest, folks.  It is not about voting or
    Democracy; it is about freedom.  The militias do not need to look good
    in the public eye; they do not need to sway majority public opinion. 
    They are strong because they are numerous and they will defend
    themselves.  Every bit of publicity may turn off many viewers, but each
    viewer who is attracted to the militia adds to their strength -- so
    publicity works for them.  Even if shallow public opinion goes against
    the militias now, the publicity adds to their membership.
    
    Leave the people alone.

    Some things cannot be voted on.  You cannot vote to take away freedom
    of religion.  You cannot vote to take away freedom of speech.  You
    cannot vote to take away the right to a trial.  Do these things and
    your victims WILL wage war against you.  There is no debate; there is
    no negotiation; there is no compromise.
    
    Leave the people alone.

    Should the government "crack down" on militias, they will have no
    choice.  There will be civil war in this country.  When the United
    States believed "right" was on its side, it bombed Iraq, killing
    between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians.  That is war.  War kills.  War
    kills civilians.  War kills children.  War destroys buildings in your
    home town.  Because the militia members are native, they will not fight
    a war of terrorism that foreigners might.  They will not cause the
    deaths of 100,000 to 200,000 civilians the way a heartless foreign
    president would -- but they will attack federal facilities, and there
    will be incidental civilian casualties, even children.  Is this
    heartless?  No, there will be great remorse in this country -- brother
    fighting brother, as happened last century.  But it will happen.  More
    federal buildings will go.  Is this evil?  All war is evil.  Should we
    be surprised?  No.  Your President is evil; he has ordered human death. 
    Your Attorney General is evil; she has killed children.  Your military
    is evil.  Your FBI, BATF, and DEA are evil.  Many people are evil; why
    are you surprised that Timothy McVeigh is evil?  When freedom is
    attacked, evil arises in the world.  
    
    A civil war cannot be won.  The militias are too numerous to eradicate,
    and attacking them will cause other people to join.  Unlike the reasons
    that Presidents go to war -- power, oil, money -- the militias will be
    warring for their freedom.  They will believe in the cause with a
    fervor that never dies.  History has proven over and over again that a
    government cannot suppress its people.  In the end, a bad government
    will be overturned, and the people will win their freedom.  The only
    question is how much destruction will occur before the inevitable
    victory.  The best path is clear:  The militias want to be left alone.
                  
    Leave the people alone.


    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.425?NEMAIL::BULLOCKTue Apr 25 1995 13:547
    
    
    
       How long have these militias been around??  
    
    
       Ed
393.426BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 13:5814
    RE: .423  Steve Leech
    
    / In just a day or two, Clinton has a "counter terrorism" package ready 
    / to be sent to Congress?? (!)
    
    The bombing in OKC was almost a week ago (and every President keeps
    advisers, lawyers and writers on staff to handle urgent matters.)
    
    / Does this seem at all suspicious to anyone?
    
    It must mean that Clinton rented the truck, right?  :|
    
    Dole announced this morning that the Republicans will support this
    legislation (Newt says the same thing.)
393.427Are we all speaking the same language?BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralTue Apr 25 1995 13:5914
Given the the manner in which these terms are being being thrown about it would
be interesting to see what the following terms mean to different people.

Anyone care to give their definition of ...

       Right Wing Extremist
       Anti-government
       Militia


Anyone know what the media's definitions are?

Doug.
393.428CSOA1::BROWNETue Apr 25 1995 14:047
      
    RE: .424
    
    	We all need to read and reflect carefully on what EDP has written.
    Because regardless of our individual ideals, our wishes, our
    philosophies, or our deepest sympathies; WE MUST pursue the guilty and
    leave those that can not be shown to be quilty alone!!!
393.429NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Apr 25 1995 14:055
>    	We all need to read and reflect carefully on what EDP has written.

>Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75

OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....
393.430From Gene Haag. on OKCCSSREG::BROWNJust Visiting This PlanetTue Apr 25 1995 14:06227

-- [ From: Gene Haag * EMC.Ver #2.2 ] --

What happened in Oklahoma City (OKC) last week was a deplorable and sickening
act. Those responsible should be apprehended and, when found guilty, executed
immediately. We should offer whatever assistance and moral guidance the peoples
of OKC need/desire to overcome this disaster. A compassionate leadership would
strive for quick justice, aid the people in accommodating their grief and, most
important of all, help them in putting this behind themselves and getting on
with their daily lives. That, however, is simply not going to happen.

Perhaps expecting a reasonable response to this disaster from our government
and media leadership was expecting to much. One commentary this past weekend
called for "justice, not vengeance". Justice may yet be served in the form of
prosecution of the guilty. Although I doubt we will ever fully know the truth.
Though deplorable, vengeance could be understood and, indeed probably demanded,
by many of those who consider themselves compassionate and somehow morally
right. However, what's actually happening is worse. Much worse. And totally
predictable. I am nearly as sickened by the events of this past weekend as I
was by the actual bombing.

Utilizing disasters for political opportunism had been around as long as
politicians. However, the current media and political frenzy surrounding this
disaster is unprecedented in its blatancy. We're not merely seeking justice or
even vengeance, but the revival of a political disaster and the wholesale
condemnation of peoples for nothing more than ideological beliefs that are
fully within the boundaries of current law. One could not help but see that the
media has labeled anyone who is even remotely associated with anything called a
militia, or those who dare support the RKBA, as nothing less than baby killers
and threats to society. It's especially sickening to see them make such
accusations under the guise of "reporting what the public wants to see/hear".
It's really disgusting to see the media believe that, while little credence
would have been given to such statements two weeks ago, those statements now
should be adopted as unquestioned gospel. There is no industry that is as self
serving as the media. Does anyone really think the media wishes to aid the
peoples of OKC to overcome this disaster and get on with their lives? No, that
wouldn't be in their best interest of achieving the desired ratings of market
share.

Some items I noted while watching this weekends newscasts. These statements are
NOT figments of my imagination. 

 - ABC and NBC have already committed to televising, live, the trials of those
   accused of this
   disaster.

 - CBS dedicated a show to Rep. Schumer to discuss why his proposed legislation
   on gun control now, more than ever, needs to be passed. (what the hell do
   guns have to do with the OKC bombing?).

 - ABC stated, repeatedly, that ALL militia's were training for one thing, and
   one thing only. That being an assault on the federal government.

 - NBC and CBS held specials investigating the role conservative talk shows may
   have played in shaping the mood of the country and influencing acts such as
   the OKC bombing. None of the stations expressed an interest in discussing
   why american opinion of government has soured so much in recent years. They
   were to busy discussing how well government was handling this whole issue.

 - ABC commentators stated that it is common knowledge that militia members
   were poorly educated and usually had long histories of trouble with the law.

 - ABC stated that in the interest of public safety it was acceptable to
   "compromise" some of our constitutional rights. After all, a society living
   in perpetual fear really couldn't benefit from those rights. (I really got
   angry at this statement).

 - ABC stated that anyone who actively prepares to confront the ruling
   government "had to be guilty of some crime - or at least be held
   accountable". (I about fell out of my chair on that one). They were
   dumbfounded when one commentator (George Will) merely suggested that
   with such a broad      definition they were including our founding fathers.
   That suggestion was written off with a statement that these are different,
   and more dangerous, times. The media is convienantly consistent about 
   defining things in very general terms. It's a common ploy used by media and
   politicians to avoid accountability. In this case it's a very dangerous
   practice because of its attempt to define targets for "further government
   attention". I liken it to some state opening "bird" hunting season. Anything
   that flies is a legitimate target. It dramatically reduces the chance that
   the "wrong" bird will get shot.

- NBC stated that militias should be required to register as taxable
  organizations and be forbidden from practicing with weapons - guns were OK,
  but NO weapons. (I was speechless on this one). That was followed up with a
  statement that perhaps the militias could be taxed out of existence.

 - All three major networks strongly endorse a widespread crackdown on
   militia's - yet, typically, not one single network could define what
   constituted a militia. History has taught us some clear and painful lessons
   about what happens when controlling agencies attempt to eradicate
   something they have not clearly defined and communicated to the peoples.

 - NBC stated that "informed sources" told them that ALL leaders of the militia
   movement nationwide were white, racist supremacists. (note the singular
   "movement". they are giving the impression that there is a nationwide,
   organized, growing army that is a threat to us all and must be addressed).

 - CBS and ABC reported that the militia movements around the country were
   organizing and plotting via the Internet and that that somehow needed to be
   monitored and stopped. ABC was adamant that such action would not
   constitute a violation of the 1st amendment. They had some idiot, from
   the department of commerce no less, that insinuated monitoring the email on
   the Internet might be an expensive, but certainly doable, task. I felt he
   was lobbying for a job as he seemed real pleased when congratulated how he
   obviously had this well thought out (it took my wife 45 minutes to calm
   me down). 

 - ABC and CBS had former FBI officials who claimed they could not even begin
   to look at any group until they had evidence that group had committed, or
   was planning to commit, a crime. They insisted they didn't even have the
   freedom the press has in beginning the investigation of potential threats.
   (this is either a bold face lie, or the FBI breaks this law DAILY. This is
   part of the conditioning process aimed at making it acceptable for the
   coming abuse of our rights by governmental agencies in the name of
   "national security").

 - ABC supported an idea proposed by an FBI official that those paramilitary
   organizations whose intent "appears" aimed at subverting the US government
   should be infiltrated and stopped. (this issue is so ripe for abuse it's
   ludicrous that anyone with a shred of common sense would agree to it).

 - All three networks strongly supported the presidents proposed widening of
   federal law enforcements authority in the areas of terrorism, militia's,
   and weapons violations (again, what the hell does this have to do with guns?
   I guess banning fertilizer wouldn't be acceptable. And by whose definition
   will we define "militia's"?)

- All three networks praised law enforcements quick, and decisive actions. ABC
  did interview the Jordanian arrested in London and flown back to DC for
  "questioning".  With no evidence, the feds repeatedly violated this persons
  rights in the name of national security. (we will soon see a LOT more of
  this kind of abuse).

 - The president said that anyone or any organization that refuses (not flees,
   not resists, not fights) federal investigations into their actions WILL NOT
   BE TOLERATED. He immediately followed that up with statements that no one
   had the right to plan subversive actions against the government or its
   employees. Those are incredibly dangerous statements coming from the
   president. I believe this will quickly lead to broader investigative powers
   for federal policing agencies without regard to our rights as citizens. It
   will also make those agencies immune from prosecution (they practically
   are now) for violating any of those rights "while in pursuit of national
   security matters". You will notice the very vague definitions - thereby
   legitimizing actions that violate just about any of our rights.

Which gets me back to the political aspect of this. There is no doubt that the
president will outwardly declare this the horrible, senseless disaster it is.
However, inwardly, there is equally no doubt about his sense of opportunity.
His presidency is a disaster. He needs a home run with the american people to
save that presidency in next years election. From a political perspective the
OKC murders came at just the right time. There isn't much doubt that this
administration will exploit this issue as much as possible. Not simply to
achieve justice, or even vengeance, but for political salvation. This is  
a sickening set of events for they imply that the much needed healing process
to get us by this disaster will be stretched out to the maximum - opposite of
what's needed. It's also an extremely dangerous course to chart for it will
divert much attention to areas that would remain quiet and peaceful if left
alone.

I think the federal policing agencies did an excellent job of lying about why
they didn't see the OKC disaster coming and prevent it. They sang right in tune
with the president. It's almost like they rehearsed the response. 
The message is:

 "The federal police agencies have prevented such disasters in the past.
  However, they simply don't have the freedom to detect and prevent as many
  as they would like."

It's frightening to think that many americans will actually believe this. This
administration is betting its political future that YOU will believe. Common
sense should tell you it's one big sham playing to your sense of insecurity and
fear. In some of the most rigidly controlled societies on this planet kooks
regularly commit acts of terrorism preying upon the innocent and defenseless.
Places like Israel, Turkey, India, Ireland, England, South Africa, etc.,
countries with much more regulated and policed populations than the US,  are
all prone to many more acts of terrorism than the US. If a very small band of
individuals are determined to commit such heinous crimes, they are unlikely to
be found out beforehand. The FBI, ATF, president, media, etc. all know this. So
why don't they tell you the truth? Simply because it's not in their best
political interests to do so. A very bitter and ironic twist in this whole
affair is that the FBI has stated that the alleged culprits in this mess were
very sloppy in their planning and execution of the bombing. Perhaps, but
obviously they were not sloppy enough to be detected before hand.

Since the 1992 election the governing power structure has been stung over and
over again. Many view this as their chance for re-emergence to power. In the
coming days/weeks the media will attempt to whip the country into a frenzy
clamoring for justice in the name of the OKC murders. This will be soundly
supported by a president, anxious to show leadership and portray himself as
defender of the republic, who will continually echo "i'm going to make this
right". There will be massive campaigns aimed at assaulting our rights in the
name of justice. Anyone who even questions the motives of those actions will be
classified as supportive of murderers and, worse, baby killers. That's already
playing out as shown on ABC yesterday where the leader of a MI militia answered
a question about why his men were training with guns by stating they were
exercising their constitutional rights - and was promptly asked how he could
possibly support activities that led to the death of innocent women and
children? Excuse me? What the hell does the OKC disaster have to do with guns?
Other than personal and political agendas? And since when did exercising our
constitutional rights equate to supporting murderers? Perhaps the most
incredible aspect of this is how many watching that show saw NOTHING wrong with
those accusations.

This whole episode saddens me. The loss of life is tragic - the act senseless.
Especially the all too common way the media injects their personal, unrelated
agenda's into a sorrowful situation, and in particular the current
administration's pathetic, self-serving actions to date and those too come. I
fear that the lives of many honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens are about
to be pushed - and pushed hard - all in the name of justice. That would indeed
be tragic. If we do nothing this most assuredly will happen. Perhaps it can't
be stopped. 

However, I do not intend to sit back and watch rights that, for 200+ years
millions have died to protect, trampled in the name of "justice". I intend to
write my elected officials and remind them that justice entails the capture and
prosecution of those that committed the atrocities in OKC. If they are found to
be guilty, they must be put to death quickly - without lengthy, televised
trials (only the media measures the quality of justice by the time it takes to
determine guilt or innocence).  Then we must get on with our lives and not get
tangled up in prolonged, politically motivated, endless witch hunts in which we
stand to gain little other than possible conflict, more loss of life, and a
further dividing of the peoples along overly inflamed issues.

What you do is up to you. It's your choice.


393.431Scary would be a country you design.MIMS::WILBUR_DTue Apr 25 1995 14:1115
    
    
    
    .417 Jim your going so far right your in the left, finding yourself
    with the ACLU.
    
    Come'on you already gave up most of your civil rights anyways
    with the war on drugs. 
    
    Which wasn't the point. The point was, Waco was Wakos. The only
    sleepers in this country are those that throw away the facts to
    make them fit their little paranoid revolution dreams.
                                                           
     
    
393.432MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Tue Apr 25 1995 14:236
    ZZ    Which wasn't the point. The point was, Waco was Wakos. The only
    
    You mean...because they were wackos the federal gov't. had the right to
    do what they did?
    
    
393.434HELIX::SONTAKKETue Apr 25 1995 14:256
    It is amazing to see the 180 degree turn in the attitude shown by many
    respondents in this replies once the middle eastern angle was lost. 
    The vengeful screamers are now advocating restraint when the suspect is
    one of "theirs".  Oh, what a change of heart!
    
    - Vikas
393.435SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 14:267
    
    re: .434
    
     ???????????????????
    
    Where did you glean that from????
    
393.436SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 14:2930
    
    
>    .417 Jim your going so far right your in the left, finding yourself
>    with the ACLU.
    
    	Wrong. The ACLU has gone so far right as to find itself with me.
    
>    Come'on you already gave up most of your civil rights anyways
>    with the war on drugs. 
    
    	I didn't give them up, they were forcibly taken from me. The war on
    drugs is a stupid farce to keep the DEA/BATF employed.
    
>    Which wasn't the point. The point was, Waco was Wakos. The only
>    sleepers in this country are those that throw away the facts to
>    make them fit their little paranoid revolution dreams.
    
    	Right, sure thing there wilbur. In case you haven't noticed, I
    don't want a revolution. I have a wife and two small children and the
    thought of putting them in any kind of danger just scares the bejesus
    out of me. BUT, I do look beyond the traditional narrow-minded view of
    the world that most seem to take. I look at the facts and I look at
    both sides of the issue instead of having blind faith in one side or
    the other.
    
    	You just go right on believing your government would never do
    anything unjust, and I'll go right on believing they need to be kept
    under close watch. Pleasant dreams...
    
    jim
393.437RDGE44::ALEUC8Tue Apr 25 1995 14:297
    .434
    
    tsk
    
    restraint
    
    ric
393.438SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 14:30109
ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU 
 NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE  
 
 
ACLU Denounces Clinton Administration Proposals on Terrorism; 
Urges Government Not To Sacrifice Individual Liberty and Freedom  
 
 
For IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
April 24, 1995 
 
	NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the 
"counterterrorism" proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening 
threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode constitutional 
principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our 
freedom and liberty.  
 
	The ACLU had earlier commended the Clinton Administration for its 
investigation into the Oklahoma bombing, saying that the massive effort to 
bring to justice those who caused the pain and suffering had proceeded 
without any widespread violations of civil liberties.  The ACLU also said 
that President Clinton's words of caution and restraint as the 
investigation continues were appropriate and welcome.  
 
	Late Sunday, however, the Administration sketched out a new series 
of proposals that the ACLU said would not make us any safer, but would 
inevitably violate the rights of innocent people.  The President proposed 
an extensive list of measures that would make it easier for the FBI to 
infiltrate and eavesdrop on any domestic group by lowering the threshold 
of evidence needed to justify such invasive measures.  
 
	"We must be ever vigilant to prevent criminal activity in this 
country and give our law enforcement officials the powers they need to 
investigate and thwart violent acts and to bring to justice those who 
break our laws," said Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director.  "At the same 
time, we must remain true to the constitutional principles that have 
shaped our country and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty," 
Glasser said.  "Too often, we have allowed threats -- whether perceived or 
real -- to tear at the fabric of our free society."  
 
	In past times of tragedy and fear, the government has harassed, 
investigated and arrested innocent people solely because of their race, 
religion, national origin, speech or political beliefs.  In the 1920 
Palmer raids, thousands were improperly arrested and jailed in 33 cities 
as a response to a frightening wave of bombings.  People were summarily 
deported based on their national origin and their political association.  
During World War II, the federal government committed what is now 
universally seen as an act of racism and war hysteria when it incarcerated 
Japanese-American citizens.  In the 1950s, legitimate fears of Soviet 
threats were used to convert dissent into disloyalty.  People were spied 
upon and punished on the basis of political beliefs and associations 
instead of criminal evidence.  In the turbulent 1960s, the government 
again engaged in widespread infiltration and surveillance of organizations 
opposed to the Vietnam war and those trying to win equality for 
African-Americans.  Again, normal standards of criminal evidence were 
abandoned; instead, race and political beliefs became a cause for 
suspicion.  
 
	"We must now try to avoid that same mistake.  The government should 
certainly investigate vigorously based on criminal evidence.  But no one 
should be targeted because they believe in the Second Amendment, or belong 
to far right organizations," Glasser said.  "No matter how much we may 
disagree with some of those organizations, we must not target people 
associated with them in the absence of credible evidence of criminal 
conduct."  
 
	"Just as we must take every lawful step to bring to justice those 
responsible for the heinous crime in Oklahoma, and try to prevent other 
crimes like it," Glasser concluded, "we must avoid the errors of the past 
and make sure to protect the security, freedom and rights of all innocent 
people living in the United States of America."  
 
			--end-- 
============================================================= 
ACLU Free Reading Room   | A publications and information resource of the  

gopher://aclu.org:6601   | American Civil Liberties Union National Office 
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com /aclu 
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org |  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" 
 
-- 
ACLU Free Reading Room  |  American Civil Liberties Union 
gopher://aclu.org:6601  | 132 W. 43rd Street, NY, NY 10036 
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org|    "Eternal vigilance is the 
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com  |         price of liberty" 

--

------ End of Forwarded Message


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA19919; Mon, 24 Apr 95 23:26:16 -040
% Received: from xmission.xmission.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA21265; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 20:22:09 -070
% Received: (from daemon@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17064 for roc-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:12:44 -0600
% Received: from ICSI.Net (ICSI.Net [199.1.96.100]) by xmission.xmission.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA17050 for <roc@xmission.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:12:38 -0600
% Received: from loboazul@icsi.net (loboazul.ICSI.Net) by  ICSI.Net (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04794; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 22:14:46 +060
% X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.1
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Message-Id: <9504242211.AA49930@loboazul@icsi.net>
% Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 22:11:49 -0600
% From: "The Old Blue Howler" <loboazul@ICSI.Net>
% To: roc@xmission.com
% Subject: FYI: (fwd) Proposed Counterterrorism Measures Threaten Freedom (fwd)
% Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
% Content-Disposition: Inline
% Content-Length: 4595
% Sender: owner-roc@xmission.com
% Precedence: bulk
393.439MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Tue Apr 25 1995 14:5111
    You know what is really amazing?  George McGovern and some of his
    clones in the late 60's passed legislation to make the job of the FBI
    tougher...and more difficult to check in on subversive organizations.
    
    Now the same people who decried Constitutional rights of privacy for
    the looney leftists of our college campuses in the 60's now want to 
    extend the power of the FBI.  I find this truly amazing!
    
    -Jack
    
    
393.440STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 14:5432
        <<< Note 393.426 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>   RE: .423  Steve Leech
>   
>   / In just a day or two, Clinton has a "counter terrorism" package ready 
>   / to be sent to Congress?? (!)
>   
>   The bombing in OKC was almost a week ago (and every President keeps
>   advisers, lawyers and writers on staff to handle urgent matters.)

That package had already been sent to Capitol hill before the bombing, and
I will also point out that the purpose of the legislation is to counter 
foreign terrorism.  [Gee, I wonder why that fact isn't discussed much in 
the news reports?]

From what I've read, it is a real piece of "work".  For one thing, one
report I saw stated that the legislation allows foreigners to be deported
in "special" courts based on anonymous testimony.  The accused will have no 
right to cross-examine these secret witnesses against them.

It also calls for the FBI to be given increased authority to monitor credit
card and banking transactions.  We've seen this before.  One week after the
first convictions for the World Trade Center bombing, the Clinton 
Administration floated a proposal to set up an FBI center for monitoring 
credit card and banking transactions to make us all safer.  It was shot-down
big time.  Well, it's back.  Big Brother will start small.

And who will be heading up the task for to write even stronger legislation?
Why, none other than Janet Reno?

Does everyone feel better now?

393.441looney leftist?HBAHBA::HAASYou ate my hiding place.Tue Apr 25 1995 14:543
You mean like Newt Gingrich?

TTom
393.442GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingTue Apr 25 1995 14:558
    
    
    RE: .434  Vikas, perhaps you can provide some examples of your
    allegations?
    
    
    
    Mike
393.444SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 15:079
    re: .441
    
    They're all "politicians"!!
    
    They all... repeat ALL, will do what's convenient and politically
    expediant for their personal welfare/career...
    
    
      
393.445Ho-ho!DECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allTue Apr 25 1995 15:108
    re: ACLU
    
    Now, how 'bout that?  Just when you think all is lost after the likes
    of Dole and Gingrich cave in and fall into the new order without so much
    as a peep of protest, along comes this surprise boost from a most
    unexpected source.  Truth really is stranger than fiction.
    
    Chris
393.446CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenTue Apr 25 1995 15:1426
    This affair has turned into a shameless blame fest.  The liberals are 
    blaming "right wing wacko extremist militias".  The conservs are blaming
    "liberal milk fed control mongering governmentistas".  Rush is blaming
    politicians in general for using it as a politcal club to forward their
    own agendas regardless of the side of the fence they are on but mostly
    liberals.  Funny how Mr. Sound Bite is providing such a balanced and
    unselfserving view of the situation as he pontificates who is to blame
    and proclaiming himself correct yet again?  Jesse is blaming "Angry White 
    Males" in general.  The paranoid conspiracy subscribers are blaming the
    very agencies that were blown up for pulling an inside job.  With all
    of the hot air being expended, the flames of unrest are dangerously
    close to being fanned into an inferno, IMO.  
    
    This is a very dark moment in our history as the country comes unglued in 
    the race to place the blame.  Instead of pulling together to address
    the issues regardless of what they are, the bombing is being used as a
    wedge, a club, a rallying cry for those that hold past BATF et al
    victims, martyrs.  I am very frightened, not for more erosion of
    freedoms but by the divisiveness this is causing.  Must I choose a
    side?  Will I be able to trust my neighbors?  I have never really though
    about having a weapon until now.  The problem is I don't relish the
    idea of repelling two antagonists at the same time, the government and
    those that would overthrow it through violence.  I do agree with EDP on
    one point, leave the people (me) alone.  
    
    Brian
393.448"Still being written"?DECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allTue Apr 25 1995 15:193
    I wonder what happened to EDP's .443?...
    
    Chris
393.449WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue Apr 25 1995 15:202
     Close. "Those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety
    deserve neither" Ben Franklin
393.450RDGE44::ALEUC8Tue Apr 25 1995 15:215
    .448
    
    he probably got carpet-bombed
    
    ric
393.451STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 15:2616
                    <<< Note 393.447 by CSC32::C_BENNETT >>>


    I believe that the quote is:

        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
        temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

                                                   Benjamin Franklin 

    The Clinton Administration response would (probably) be:

    1.  We aren't giving up "essential" liberties.
    2.  We will achieve more than a little "temporary" safety.

    I don't agree with this view.  We are already on the slippery slope.
393.452CSOA1::LEECHTue Apr 25 1995 15:4025
    re: .426
    
    Dole and Newt are committing political suicide along with Clinton,
    then.  People are well-informed today, and the very resurgence of
    Constitutional spirit that outsted so many incumbants in Congress will
    come back to haunt those that have gained from it.
    
    The very same people will out Dole and Newt, too, should they vote to
    increate federal powers that will inevitably overstep individual rights
    (all in the name of security, of course).
    
    Since there is NO connection between the militia and the bombing, why
    the hell is Clinton proposing legislation to crack down on them?
    
    If you don't question this rationale, question this:  how well
    thought-out can a proposal be that was hastily written inside a week,
    without any debate (to hone out a good balance)?
    
    Or has this bill been around before this bombing occurred, and the
    president was just waiting for the right opportunity to ram it through
    as quickly as possible without proper debate?  If so, this brings up
    many other questions as to the intent of said bill.
    
    
    -steve 
393.453CANON::HARTTue Apr 25 1995 15:4213
    
    
         RE: .331 by Tony Camuso
    
         This note is one of the best of the bunch. I notice that not
         one liberal has addressed it, as they continue to blather on
         about right-wing fanatics, hate-mongers, etc.... Say these
         catch phrases often enough, and pretty soon all conservatives
         are guilty by association, eh?. Reminds me of when David Duke
         was running for Republican office, and suddenly all Republicans
         were KKK'ers.
    
                                                  Bob H.
393.454STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 15:4748
    <<< Note 393.446 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Reformatted to fit your screen" >>>

>   This affair has turned into a shameless blame fest.  The liberals are 
>   blaming "right wing wacko extremist militias".  The conservs are blaming
>   "liberal milk fed control mongering governmentistas".  Rush is blaming
>   politicians in general for using it as a politcal club to forward their
>   own agendas regardless of the side of the fence they are on but mostly
>   liberals.

I think that the liberals and the Media are blaming "ring-wing extremists".
Up until a couple of weeks ago, the term "extremist" was used by Clinton 
and others to describe Conservatives or Republicans.

Conservatives are on the defensive because they can see what's coming.
If "ring-wing extremists" equals "Conservatives", and "ring-wing extremists"
equals "baby killers", then "Conservatives" equals "baby killers".

I'm not much of a Rush fan, but he is right.  This is being used to forward
the Clinton Administration agenda:

    1.  President Clinton yesterday hinted that talk radio is contributing
        to the atmosphere that led to this attack.  Clinton blames talk
        radio for many of his approval problems.  Now he gets a chance to
        put them on the defensive.
    2.  Many in the Media are trying to make any connection they can between
        the bombing and the NRA.  This will help to defeat the repeal effort
        on the assault weapons ban.
    3.  Rep. Schumer (D-NY) announced a new push for more gun control after 
        the bombing to prevent more terrorist acts.  Sounds like opportunism
        to me.  Any excuse to get what he wants.
    4.  Some of the Clinton Administration proposals to combat terrorism
        (e.g. lowering restrictions on wiretaps and monitoring credit card
        transactions) are things that the Adminsitration has tried to get
        in the past, but couldn't.
    5.  Big Government has suddenly become the answer to our problems 
        again.  As if the FBI can do anything about it.  

        By the way, did anyone else notice that the FBI had a major manhunt 
        going for that MI militia leader, but they couldn't find him?  Then 
        a member of the press corps caught up with him at one of his old 
        stomping grounds, and the guy gave a mini press conference.  It
        reminded me of the UN in Somolia trying to kill the war lord.  They
        couldn't find him, but the press got regular press conferences 
        with him.


I also agree with you statement that these are dark times.
Who knows what the results of this hysteria will be.
393.455Terrorists support terroristsTERRI::SIMONSemper in excernereTue Apr 25 1995 15:4910
The main question I believe is how to stop the funding of the
terrorists. If they don't have any funds then they can't buy
the more expensive materials they need to build bombs, and can't
buy weapons and ammunition. First stop the funding at home, then
eliminate funding from terrorist governments like IRAN etc.

Don't entertain any dialogue with terrorists until they prove
that they wish to find peaceful ways to negotiate.

Simon
393.456SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 15:52200
Oklahoma bombing plotted for months 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times 

WASHINGTON -- Less than a week after the Oklahoma City
bombing, federal investigators have pieced together a
circumstantial case against Timothy J. McVeigh based on his
identification by witnesses, forensic evidence and
correspondence in which he vented his rage at the government
over the deaths of members of a sect in Waco, Texas,
law-enforcement officials said on Monday.

McVeigh himself has refused to cooperate with investigators,
meeting their entreaties to answer questions with a rigid,
stone-faced silence, the officials said. One investigator said
that McVeigh had displayed no reaction even when he had been
shown photographs of maimed and dead children being taken
from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

Much of the evidence implicating McVeigh, who has been
charged with the bombing of the federal building, has
undergone only preliminary analysis so far, but the officials
said it strongly suggested that the bombing last Wednesday was
not an impulsive act by a McVeigh and a band of renegade
malcontents.

Instead, the officials said, they believe the attack was carefully
planned and deliberately timed for the second anniversary of
the FBI's tear gas assault on the compound of the Branch
Davidian sect in Waco on April 19, 1993, and occurred after
months of preparation involving tests of explosives and
discussion about delivery methods and possible targets.

McVeigh's motive appears to center on his extreme anger over
the deaths of more than 80 people in the fiery assault in Waco,
but some investigators are uncertain of his role within what
they believe is a small group of conspirators. Some
investigators doubt that he had the leadership capacity to have
written such a complex plot and theorize that another suspect
will prove to be the ringleader.

As the evidence against McVeigh mounted, the hunt continued
on Monday for the second suspect, a tattooed man who the
authorities say was associated with the Ryder rental truck into
which the bombers packed fertilizer and fuel oil, possibly
using blue plastic barrels. Fragments of barrels have been
found at the bomb site, officials said. Similar barrels,
investigators say, have been found at the Kansas home of Terry
Nichols, an associate of McVeigh who is being held as a
material witness.

Weldon L. Kennedy, the FBI official in charge of the
investigation in Oklahoma City, said the whereabouts of the
second suspect remained unknown. But he added that the FBI
hotline telephone had produced thousands of leads. Other
officials said that the veracity of the leads was being tested by
asking callers to describe the suspect's tattoo. Its design has
been withheld by the authorities.

Among the thousands of telephone calls to the FBI have been
reports that McVeigh and a second unidentified suspect were
observed visiting other federal buildings in other cities before
they selected Oklahoma City for reasons that are still unclear,
officials said. Those reports have not been confirmed.

The search for John Doe No. 2, as the second man was
designated by investigators, began after a rental agent
described him as the man who accompanied McVeigh to the
truck rental office in Junction City, Kan., south of Fort Riley,
the Army base where McVeigh was stationed before his
discharge in 1992.

The inquiry has also expanded to include McVeigh's younger
sister. A search warrant was issued at 7:45 p.m. on Sunday for
a house in Pensacola, Fla., where the sister, Jennifer McVeigh,
21, had been staying and for a 1995 Chevrolet pickup truck,
with a New York commercial tag registered in her name, that
was still parked in the driveway there on Monday night.
Law-enforcement officials said she was close to McVeigh,
shared his antigovernment views and had several conversations
with him in recent months.

The warrant specified that the search sought explosive devices,
bomb-making equipment, manuals related to any paramilitary
groups espousing violence against the government and any
documents showing a connection to individuals believed to be
involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Ms. McVeigh flew to Buffalo, N.Y., on Monday, officials at
Buffalo International Airport reported. Local news reports on
Monday night said that she had been taken into custody by
federal agents, but officials in Washington did not
immediately confirm those accounts.

In a March 9 letter to The Union Sun and Journal, a newspaper
in Lockport, N.Y., that serves the McVeighs' hometown of
Pendleton, Ms. McVeigh said the Constitution was threatened
by gun control and alluded to Randy Weaver, the Idaho white
supremacist who was arrested after a siege in which his wife,
son and a federal marshal were killed.

"We need not change our form of government," she wrote, "we
need only return to practicing the form of government
originally set forth by our founding fathers. If you don't think
the Constitution is being perverted, I suggest you open your
eyes and take a good look around. (Research constitutional
rights violated in Weaver, Waco. Also 'Gun Control')."

Pentagon officials on Monday confirmed that McVeigh was an
infantryman and later a gunner in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle
and was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in the Persian
Gulf conflict. Some law enforcement officials said that
McVeigh's Army service had been a catalyst in his evolution
from the adventurous teen-ager from Lockport, N.Y., to
embittered veteran outraged by the government's attempts to
restrict firearms.

If McVeigh's military experiences changed him, there was no
hint of it in the sketchy records released on Monday. He won
the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal,
National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia service
medal with two Bronze Stars, Kuwait Liberation Medal and
Combat Infantryman Badge. He completed a leadership
development course and was trained as a gunner in a Bradley
Fighting Vehicle.

The Pentagon also said that McVeigh served in the same unit in
the First Infantry Division as Terry Nichols, who turned
himself over to the authorities in Herington, Kan., last Friday
after McVeigh's arrest on bombing charges. Nichols is being
held as a material witness after a weekend search of his house
turned up the barrels and about 30 weapons, including a replica
of an Uzi machine gun. Nichols was separated from the Army
in 1989, about a year after Mr. McVeigh entered the service.

The federal authorities say they are preparing to charge
Nichols and his brother, James, who is in custody in Michigan,
with explosives and weapons charges. But investigators
strongly suspect that the brothers played a role in the bomb
plot, the officials said.

Terry Nichols' former wife has been interviewed by FBI
agents, who are conducting the inquiry in conjunction with
investigators from the federal Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms
and Alcohol. The woman, Lana Padilla, has dropped from sight
in Las Vegas, Nev., a possible sign that she is cooperating and
has been taken to a undisclosed location for security reasons.

Law enforcement officials said McVeigh left behind a large
body of writings about his ideological leanings, including
extensive tracts in letters to friends and relatives, that describe
his belief in the constitutional principles that he adamantly
maintained allowed him to carry firearms and live without any
restraints from the government. Prosecutors are likely to use
such documents to establish his motive at a trial.

But so far, officials said, they have not found any documents
that detail an operational plan for the bombing or provide
evidence of a direct threat, although McVeigh's anger over
Waco is a theme that emerges in writing samples obtained by
investigators.

The investigators are compiling a file of McVeigh's letters and
statements, some of them from acquaintances interested in a
share of the $2 million reward who contacted the FBI hotline.

The FBI is also subjecting McVeigh's known residences and
those of his associates to heavy surveillance to try to learn
more about his activities and in the event that the second
suspect contacts any of McVeigh's friends. For example,
McVeigh's mail, which is being sent to an address in a trailer
park in Kingman, Ariz., is being turned over to agents for
inspection.

Investigators have sought out people who were in or near the
Alfred Murrah Federal building at the time of the explosion.
The interviews have produced witnesses who have identified
McVeigh at a Ryder rental truck parked outside the building at
8:40 a.m. and again at 8:55 a.m. -- about seven minutes before
the explosion. Subsequent identifications came from a lineup
during the weekend and from photographs of him taken since
his arrest.

Investigators are also minutely examining McVeigh's 1977
Mercury, which he was driving without a license plate when he
was stopped within 80 minutes of the bombing by local
authorities. In addition, evidence technicians are closely
inspecting his clothing for traces of explosives.

Kennedy said on Monday that investigators were trying to
obtain images from a videotape that might yield pictures of the
bombers or the truck that carried the explosives. He said that
investigators were trying to obtain images from one such tape,
but other officials said the tape did not include pictures that
would provide defintive proof of McVeigh's involvement.


393.457STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 15:5326
                      <<< Note 393.452 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>   Dole and Newt are committing political suicide along with Clinton,
>   then.  People are well-informed today, and the very resurgence of
>   Constitutional spirit that outsted so many incumbants in Congress will
>   come back to haunt those that have gained from it.

In the short term, people will be begging (bleating) for help.
The old familiar cry will be heard once again: "We have to do SOMETHING."
Dole and Gingrich will hop on the train or get run over by it.
If they don't and if there is another bombing before the 1996 elections,
President Clinton will win in a landslide.

    
>   The very same people will out Dole and Newt, too, should they vote to
>   increate federal powers that will inevitably overstep individual rights
>   (all in the name of security, of course).

I hope you're right, but I don't think so.

   
>   Since there is NO connection between the militia and the bombing, why
>   the hell is Clinton proposing legislation to crack down on them?

They will be the scapegoats.

393.458SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 15:58116
Militant broadcaster says his group was behind fax 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times 

DEXTER, Mich. -- A custodian who broadcasts a militant
shortwave radio show said Monday that his group was behind a
cryptic fax sent to a Texas congressman the morning of the
Oklahoma City bombing.

Federal authorities visited a production company used by Mark
Koernke on Monday, his co-host said. Authorities took boxes
of files, faxes and videotapes, WJBK-TV in Southfield
reported.

Koernke said Monday that his group sent the fax. He would not
elaborate.

On Sunday, neighbors spotted Koernke and others loading
luggage and boxes from his house into vehicles, then driving
off. Hours later, he picked up a pizza at a diner.

"He was wearing his black fatigues, acting all cocky," said
Mary Motto, owner of Dexter Diner.

Koernke took a personal day and didn't report to his
maintenance job at a University of Michigan dormitory in
nearby Ann Arbor, his supervisor said.

Reporters held a 24-hour vigil across the street from
Koernke's junk-strewn yard, but he didn't return home. He
spoke with reporters in front of the grocery store in this
southeast Michigan town of 1,500 residents.

He said he had contacted the FBI each day since Saturday and
"they've had no interest in talking."

In Monday's one-hour radio program, he and co-host John
Stadtmiller denied any role in the Oklahoma City bombing.

"We do not condone what happened in Oklahoma City because
that was in fact an act of terrorism," Stadtmiller said.

Stadtmiller said during the radio show that agents were at the
offices of Wolverine Productions. He did not elaborate.

FBI spokeswoman Dawn Moritz in Detroit did not return a call
seeking comment on the reported search. Earlier in the day, she
said she could not confirm that federal authorities had dropped
all interest in Koernke.

"We're not in a position to answer that right now," she said.
"We're not giving out a list of people we're interested in
questioning."

The oblique fax sent to the office of freshman Rep. Steve
Stockman, R-Texas, appears to be a report from the scene of
the bombing: "First update. Bldg 7 to 10 floors only. Military
people on scene -- BATF-FBI. Bomb threat received last
week. Perpetrator unknown at this time. Oklahoma."

It carried a time stamp that, if accurate, would indicate it was
sent slightly more than an hour before the bombing.

Stockman's chief of staff Jeff Fisher said the congressman's
office identified the sender as Libby Molley by faxing a note
back to the number stamped on the message and asking the
sender to call.

The relationship between Molley and Koernke couldn't
immediately be determined.

Fisher said he did not believe the fax was sent before the
bombing. The time stamp on the document said 08:59 because
"the time on the fax machine has not been set for daylight
savings time," Fisher said.

Molley could not be located for comment. There is no
telephone listing in the Dexter area under her name.

Koernke, 37, warns of the threat of one-world government and
rails against gun control on the daily shortwave radio show
called "Mark from Michigan," and on a videotape called
"America in Peril."

He also holds regular militia meetings in his home.

Lynn Wilcox, a clerk at the town's hardware store, said she has
seen dozens of men in fatigues carrying guns at Koernke's
home. "We used to call it the army house," she said.

In a February profile of Koernke, the Detroit Free Press said he
preaches that gun control is a prelude to a United Nations
takeover of the U.S. government and says Los Angeles street
gangs are being recruited as part of a secret police force to
disarm Americans.

He signs off each broadcast: "God Bless the Republic, death to
the New World Order. We shall prevail."

Koernke said Monday he doesn't know the three men held so
far in the Oklahoma bombing. Timothy McVeigh is the only
suspect who has been charged; James and Terry Nichols are
being held as material witnesses.

However, South Florida militia leader Bob Johansen of Port
St. Lucie, Fla., told The Associated Press late Monday that
McVeigh and Koernke visited South Florida together about 18
months ago.

Koernke suggested that McVeigh is being framed and that the
federal government accidentally caused the blast.


393.460RICKS::TOOHEYTue Apr 25 1995 16:086
    
    I'm waiting for President Chicken to call talk radio 'nattering nabobs
    of negattivism'!
    
    Paul
    
393.461SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 16:1265
Arizona trailer park owner remembered the wrong
man 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times 

KINGMAN, Ariz. -- The man described by trailer park
residents here to investigators and news reporters as Timothy J.
McVeigh was apparently not the man arrested in the bombing
of the federal building in Oklahoma City, but another man, the
park owner said on Monday night.

Compounding the confusion, the park owner said that a Tim
McVeigh had indeed lived for a time at the trailer park some
months earlier.

Agents of the FBI arrived on Friday in Kingman, the last
known address of the bombing suspect. When they arrived at
the Canyon West trailer park, the owner, Bob Ragin, said they
told him not to bother going back through all his records but
specifically to check if he had a tenant arriving in February,
1994 who was just out of the service.

He did indeed have such a tenant, living in trailer No. 19 under
the name of his girlfriend, Ragin said. He evicted the man after
a stormy nine months in which the man played loud music, left
piles of beer cans and a wrecked car by the trailer and
belligerently refused to obey camp rules.

The agents then interviewed Ragin and trailer camp residents
about the man. Residents later told similar stories to reporters.

But on Sunday night, another Kingman resident, Dave Heiden,
called Ragin and told him that he was the man being described
in news accounts.

That sent Ragin back to his records, where he found that Tim
McVeigh -- he had been sure he remembered the name when
the FBI came calling, he said -- had rented trailer No. 11 from
June, 1993 to early September, 1993 for $250 a month.

It is not known if the Tim McVeigh who rented the trailer is
the man under arrest in Oklahoma. A spokeswoman for the FBI
in Washington declined to comment on Monday night.

Ragin and trailer tenants now described the man who lived in
trailer 11, as a nice man, quiet and neat. The trailer residents
said that people there often did not know each other by name.

"He was nothing like the other guy," a clearly embarrassed
Ragin said in his office on Monday night, displaying the rent
records handwritten on ruled green paper. The tenant named
Tim McVeigh "was a nice guy, a model tenant," he said. He
added that the man he incorrectly recalled as Tim McVeigh
"was like you would think" a suspect in a mass killing might
be. "It was like Dave should be Tim and Tim should be Dave,"
he said.

"They were the same height, the same age, they looked alike,"
Regan said, adding that those factors might have confused his
memory.


393.462PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Apr 25 1995 16:143
	.460   aaagagag.  good one.

393.464TERRI::SIMONSemper in excernereTue Apr 25 1995 16:1734
    >>Man did you miss the point.   The BATF and FBI cronies are 
    >>to overpowered.  Clinton started it when he signed the ban
    >>of weapons, he compounded the issue when they screwed up
    >>WACA and killed innocent children etc...
    
So we are back to the right to bear arms rubbish are we. This
all stems from the collinization of native America. To protect
themselves from (read kill) the indigenous population who were
only protecting thier families, food stocks, and home lands.

    >>Don't you get it - there are alot of average citizen who are really
    >>p*ssed of at the government and frankly don't give a DAM anymore.

Then change the governemnt by democratic means. Using force only 
alienates the thenselves from the populace.

    >>Either the government (as in we the people) gets its act together
    >>or people are going to start to SNAP as in get some of ammonium
    >>nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene soap and make your own 
    >>poor mans nuclear bomb and let yourself be heard!
    
To do what, what do you want the govenment to do.

    >>I am really sad that this issue has came to this but there are 
    >>some people who really believe that the government is too
    >>powerful. 

Why too powerfull. Why have a government if it isn't the most powerfull
body in the country. You don't want a government that each year meakly
asks the population if they would kindly increase thier tax payments 
would you.

Simon
393.465what's so awful about that?SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 16:1810
    
    
>You don't want a government that each year meakly
>asks the population if they would kindly increase thier tax payments 
>would you.
    
    	YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
393.466SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 16:1886
Former Army buddy remembers McVeigh 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Cox News Service

DAYTON, Ohio (9:20 a.m.) -- To Jamey Crager, Timothy
McVeigh was "the perfect soldier."

He was always punctual, always impeccably dressed, and he rose
through the ranks faster than any of the other soldiers in their Fort
Riley, Kan., Charlie Company. Crager and McVeigh served in the
company together for five years and fought in the Persian Gulf War.

On Saturday, Crager, 28, of New Burlington, awoke to the news that
his former comrade was the prime suspect in the Oklahoma City
bombing. Another of Crager's fellow soldiers, Terry Nichols, was
being held for questioning.

The familiar lanky frame, the familiar solemn face of McVeigh took
on a surreal cast on the television screen.

"I never imagined anything like this - that I could know someone
responsible for the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history," said
Crager, an assistant manager for Ziebart Tidy Car in Centerville. "I
tried calling some of my old Army buddies to see if they're having
as hard a time dealing with this as I am."

Crager couldn't find much out of the ordinary to say about McVeigh
or Nichols when interviewed Monday by an FBI agent from
Cincinnati. McVeigh "loved guns, of course, but he was a country
boy; he had to love guns."

"Terry was a really religious man. They were just super normal
people," Crager said.

He said he hadn't heard from McVeigh in the three years since he
left the service, but he speculated that his personality must have
"taken a dive" during that time.

"Whatever happened must have happened after the Gulf," he said. "I
honestly believe he was of sound mind and sound body while we
were in the service together. There had to be something that threw
his life for such a loop -- this is just not the man I knew."

Crager wasn't aware of any of his fellow soldiers belonging to any
citizens militia groups. Both McVeigh and Nichols have been linked
with such activities.

One day while still in the Army, however, McVeigh showed off a
new prize possession: a "sniper-type rifle" the length of a desk. "He
acted like it was Christmas. I thought, here was someone who was
serious about his weapons."

In the Persian Gulf War, the soldiers were part of the first ground
forces to enter Iraq, Crager recalled. "McVeigh was a gunner in one
of the fighting vehicles; he was literally the point of the spearhead,"
Crager recalled. "His was one of the only vehicles that fired a round
in combat."

It was not intense combat, Crager said. "The Iraqi soldiers were
more hungry than they were interested in fighting. More than 600
surrendered to us in the first hour."

Crager came back from the war and the Army with "a brand new set
of eyes," he recalled. "Before then I was a real pain, rebellious,
someone who just wouldn't listen."

A traumatic experience must have transformed McVeigh's character,
Crager said, but he doesn't believe it happened in the war. "He was
in the same places I was. It was not a Vietnam by any means."

Crager can't believe that the same man who once fought for his
country would be accused of making such a terrible strike against it.
"I keep waiting for someone to say, 'Ladies and gentlemen, we've
made a mistake here.' "

Crager finds it painful, too, to pass judgment on a fellow soldier, a
man to whom he once would have entrusted his life.

"But if it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty, he should
die. There's nothing they could do to him that would be enough to
make up for the loss of 250 lives."


393.467BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 16:2221
    RE: .459 
    
    / Don't you get it - there are alot of average citizen who are really
    / p*ssed of at the government and frankly don't give a DAM anymore.
    / Either the government (as in we the people) gets its act together
    / or people are going to start to SNAP as in get some of ammonium
    / nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene soap and make your own 
    / poor mans nuclear bomb and let yourself be heard!
    
    The more people start to 'snap' like this, the bigger government will
    become in response to it (at the insistence of the rest of the population
    who don't want to get killed because they went to a social security
    office or happened to be on the same street as some targeted BATF agents.)
    
    / I am really sad that this issue has came to this but there are 
    / some people who really believe that the government is too
    / powerful. 
    
    'Snapping' (in the manner you mentioned) is the one thing most likely
    to push this country in the direction that is exactly the OPPOSITE of
    where you want it to go.
393.468Gift of Life - Rebecca AndersonMROA::COVITZTue Apr 25 1995 16:2222
from the Boston Herald, 25-Apr

RESCUE WORKER WHO DIED GIVES GIFT OF LIFE

New Orleans - The heart of a resuce worker whoe died while working to save
victims of the Oklahoma bombing was transplanted into another Oklahoma
resident.

The recipient, William Wilcoxson, 55, of Duncan, Okla., was working at a
Louisiana casino when notified the heart was available.

The donor, Rebecca Anderson, died Sunday.  The 37-year-old nurse was taken to
the hospital with severe head injuries she suffered after she rushed to help
people in last week's bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

Wilcoxson was told he had two hours to get to Oklahoma City to receive the
transplant.  He requested help from the Coast Guard when he was unabgle to get
their by commercial means, officials in New Orleans said.

Wilcoxson went into surgery at 8 p.m. Sunday and was in stable condition
yesterday according to the Coast Guard.     - AP
    
393.469SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 16:2725
    
    
>    / Don't you get it - there are alot of average citizen who are really
>    / p*ssed of at the government and frankly don't give a DAM anymore.
>    / Either the government (as in we the people) gets its act together
>    / or people are going to start to SNAP as in get some of ammonium
>    / nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene soap and make your own 
>    / poor mans nuclear bomb and let yourself be heard!
>    
>    The more people start to 'snap' like this, the bigger government will
>    become in response to it (at the insistence of the rest of the population
>    who don't want to get killed because they went to a social security
>    office or happened to be on the same street as some targeted BATF agents.)
    
    	Agreed. The place to make the changes is at the ballot box. I don't
    believe the gent in the former note is suggesting any of these things
    are justified, but that we may see more of them. The circle is
    self-perpetuating....the govt gets more intrusive, folks on the edge
    snap and do something stupid (like blow up a building), the government
    gets more intrusive, more folks snap, and round and round we go....
    
    	We need to vote for change more than ever now.
    
    
    jim
393.470SWAM1::MERCADO_ELTue Apr 25 1995 16:2714
    re: .401
    
    S_CONLON:  I never once said that I was not outraged by what
    has happened in OKC.  It has occupied my thoughts and prayers
    many times over the last few days.  My point was that the children
    who died in Waco were no less innocent than those in OKC.  Somehow
    our government can make "misjudgements" and this makes them not
    responsible for their actions.  If you have gotten your "facts" only
    from the mainstream media then I see where you would feel they way
    you do about Waco.  However, the result was the same......innocent
    citizens were killed in a violent and tragic manner.  I am sickened
    by both situations more than I can find words to express.
    
    -Elizabeth
393.472MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 16:3316
    RE: .468

    The story I heard on this women -- and I say this without intent to
    demean her efforts -- was that she suffered a brain hemorrhage while
    working in the rescue effort. That's like someone having a heart
    attack; one of those things that just happens.

    Her death was not directly related to the Ok City bombing, other than
    the precipitating event occurred while she was working at the bomb
    site.

    The previous reports that her injuries were due to a fall appear
    to have been incorrect... her fall resulted from having a brain
    hemorrhage.

    -b
393.473SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue Apr 25 1995 16:3333
    .399 was a dodge.  Suzanne, Paul asked you your opinion of Waco, twice, 
    not because he "doesn't see a difference" between Waco and the OKC 
    bombings (what a rude thing to suggest of one of your peers) but
    because he wants to know if you recognize what many people see as a
    legitimate concern with police-state tactics used against American
    citizens.  Acknowledging FBI and BATF errors in that assault in Waco 
    does not require one to attempt to justify the OKC bombing.  There is
    nothing sinister in the question- just answer it.  
    
    To the larger audience-
    
    One of the most interesting aspects of the bombing that I see now is
    that the media has been forced to bring up Waco and the Weaver cases.
    They had been buried, reported on back pages at best, in recent months.
    Weaver in particular hasn't been on the front page in over a year, even
    though the report indicating possible criminal indictments was only
    handed down late last year.  It was tucked into an internal news
    summaries column in my paper- effectively buried.
    
    I think that the attempted burial of those stories is one of the
    reasons people are so polarized in the aftermath of this bombing.
    Had the newsmedia been doing their job of reporting and keeping the
    heat on for this abuse of power, and the resultant pressure forced the
    administration to curb the BATF gestapo as so many responsible people
    urged them to do, a couple of fruitcakes wouldn't have blown up their
    bomb.  There are an amazingly large number of people who think that
    officials of the US government are responsible for criminal acts in
    those cases; and just like Watergate, trying to bury the story is just
    not going to work.  I don't say this to "justify" any bombings, as some
    of the wilder accusations in this forum might suggest.  I say this to
    hopefully avoid more such incidents.
    
    DougO
393.474TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Tue Apr 25 1995 16:4125
    Note 393.459
    
    >Don't you get it - there are alot of average citizen who are really
    >p*ssed of at the government and frankly don't give a DAM anymore.
    >Either the government (as in we the people) gets its act together
    >or people are going to start to SNAP as in get some of ammonium
    >nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene soap and make your own 
    >poor mans nuclear bomb and let yourself be heard!

    I suppose the following two rewrites aren't equivalent to the above
    statement, are they?

    "Don't you get it - there are alot of Middle Eastern citizens who are 
    really p*ssed of at the U.S. government and frankly don't give a DAMN
    anymore.  Either the U.S. government gets its act together or people
    are going to start to SNAP..."

    "Don't you get it - there are alot of average citizens who are really
    p*ssed of at crime and violence and frankly don't give a DAMN about
    `rights' anymore.  Either the citizenry gets its act together or people
    are going to start to DEMAND tougher legislation..."
    
    jc
    
393.475PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Apr 25 1995 16:4210
>>      <<< Note 393.473 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
>>    Had the newsmedia been doing their job of reporting and keeping the
>>    heat on for this abuse of power, and the resultant pressure forced the
>>    administration to curb the BATF gestapo as so many responsible people
>>    urged them to do, a couple of fruitcakes wouldn't have blown up their
>>    bomb.  

    So you think these guys were of the somewhat rational fruitcake variety?


393.476SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 16:438
    
    RE: .474
    
    Nope... they're not...
    
    
    Sorry...
    
393.477TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Tue Apr 25 1995 16:463
    
    Why not, Andy?  All three sound like apologist rhetoric to me.
    
393.478...SWAM1::MEUSE_DATue Apr 25 1995 16:5016
    
    Clinton response.
    
    Would it be any different from our past,
    
    Johnson
    Nixon
    Ford
    Carter
    Regan
    Bush
    
    They all look the same to me.
    
    
    
393.479SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue Apr 25 1995 16:5313
    > So you think these guys were of the somewhat rational fruitcake
    > variety?
    
    I think that if the BATF and FBI had been curbed as a result of public
    pressure that these guys would not have blown up that building.  Does
    this mean I consider them rational?  Not really.  I think that in their
    own little worlds, their own little twisted realities that the visible
    punishment of those responsible for the murders in Waco and in  the
    Weaver case would have been adequate; they would have felt differently
    about whatever it was that compelled them to go out and attack a symbol
    on their own.  Rational isn't the word I'd use.
    
    DougO
393.480SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 16:567
    
    RE: .477
    
    They all may sound like "apologist rhetoric" to you, but that doesn't
    make them equal... 
    
      In parsing yes... in content, no...
393.443RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Apr 25 1995 16:5616
    It is amazing how the President is able to convince the public that not
    being able to investigate an organization that is apparently not
    involved in any crime is a terrible problem, and that the solution is
    passing legislation allowing the government to investigate even when
    there is no reason to.
    
    How wonderful it is that our government is taking drastic steps to
    prevent this horrible non-involvement in criminal activities from
    spreading.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.482SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 16:5851
Kansas store received requests for fertilizer 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Reuters

HERINGTON, Kan., (Reuter) - A store owner in Herington, Kan.,
said Monday he recently received two requests for large bags of
lawn fertilizer with as much nitrogen as possible -- one of the
ingredients investigators suspect might have been used in the
Oklahoma City bomb.

Jim Otte, part-owner of Sunflower Service, said an unidentified
caller or callers had placed two orders over the past two weeks for
50-pound bags of high-nitrogen fertilizer.

"No one is that particular," he said. "I thought it was a little weird at
the time."

He said he felt the request was unusual because most lawn fertilizers
are made with a mix of potash and phosphate. High nitrogen
fertilizer is usually used for commercial farming like wheat fields
and sells for between $6 and $12 a bag.

Herington resident Terry Nichols, 40, is being held in the Sedgwick
County Jail in Wichita, Kan., as a material witness in last
Wednesday's bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in
Oklahoma City.

Investigators have said the blast, which killed at least 81 people and
destroyed part of the building, was probably set from a mix of 4,000
pounds of common fertilizer and fuel oil.

Newspaper reports said police found several empty 55-gallon drums
used to hold fertilizer at Nichols' home. Police reportedly also found
weapons in the house and blasting caps and igniters used with
explosives on the property.

Otte said he did not know who the caller was, or if the same person
called both times. Asked if the call was local or from out-of-town,
Otte said: "I assumed it was a local."

Terry Nichols, whose brother James Nichols is also being
questioned, is believed to be a friend of prime suspect Timothy
McVeigh, 27, who was charged with the bombing Friday.

Otte declined comment on whether he has been questioned by
investigators in connection with the fertilizer requests.


393.483CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanTue Apr 25 1995 17:0011


 Hopefully everybody who is doing work on their lawn has bought their
 fertilzer already, else there will probably be a waiting period on such
 purchases in the near future.




 Jim
393.484PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Apr 25 1995 17:037
>>      <<< Note 393.479 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

    Well, first you were talking about curbing the BATF and FBI, and now
    you're talking about "visible punishment".  There's a difference, 
    clearly, but I still think it's a bit of a leap to make any such
    assumptions about whether or not this act of apparent retribution would
    have occurred.  
393.485SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 17:0399
Civil liberties groups warn of government overreaction 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Cox News Service 

WASHINGTON -- President Clinton's calls for more power to
probe America's paramilitary movement set off alarms Monday
among some civil liberties experts, who warned that a government
overreaction could trample civil rights.

However, Senate leaders promised quick action on a tough bill, and
White House officials insisted that any expansion of federal powers
to combat domestic terror such as the Oklahoma City bombing could
be accomplished without infringing on individual rights.

Gregory T. Nojeim, legislative counsel for the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), said the new legislation amounted to a
"Contract on the Constitution."

Even former FBI Director William Sessions warned of the hazards
of enacting new investigative powers for the agency he once headed.

"We need to approach that very cautiously, because freedom and the
American way of life are synonymous, and we believe in a very
careful approach to law enforcement and to controls that might
impair the protection given to us by the Constitution," Sessions said.

James X. Dempsey, deputy director at the Center for National
Security Studies, a private Washington group that monitors
intelligence policy, said the FBI already has "very broad authority"
to combat terrorism.

Loosening the FBI guidelines invites a repeat of the 1960s, when the
federal government tracked radical leftist groups and trampled on
constitutional freedoms without improving U.S. security, he said.

But White House counselor George Stephanopoulos said concerns
about violations of rights are "absolutely unwarranted" because the
expanded powers of the government are being sought "only in the
context of investigations and operations where there is credible
evidence."

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose Judiciary Committee plans a
Thursday hearing on ways to stop terrorism, said he and Majority
Leader Bob Dole of Kansas would press for speedy passage of an
anti-terrorism bill.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Congress should
give law enforcement agents "the necessary latitude" to combat
terrorism, but said a "delicate balance" would be "uppermost in our
minds."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, said there is "nothing inappropriate" about federal
authorities infiltrating terrorist groups or keeping them under
surveillance.

If anything, Specter said, the Justice Department has been "too
timid" in its counterterrorism directives to the FBI.

The administration is asking Congress to expand authority for:

-- Funding a Domestic Counterterrorism Center to be overseen by
the FBI and charged with infiltrating suspected terrorist groups.

-- Giving the FBI power to examine hotel and motel registers and
search phone logs, as well as credit card records.

Those proposals will be added to Clinton's Omnibus
Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which is already moving through
Congress.

That bill would let the government use evidence from secret sources
in deportation proceedings for aliens suspected of terrorist
involvement.

It would also ban fund-raising in the United States for groups the
president deems dangerous and grant the FBI broader power to
wiretap suspected terrorist groups.

James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, a policy
research group, warned that the proposed legislation, had it been law
when the bombing in Oklahoma City occurred, would have produced
"mass roundups" of Arab Americans.

The bill from Hatch and Dole would toughen penalties for acts of
domestic terrorism, add conspiracy to the list of terrorist offenses --
giving law enforcement authorities a way to stop terrorist
organizations as they emerge -- and make it illegal to provide
material support to groups identified by a presidential finding as
engaged in terrorist activities.

ACLU spokesman Phil Gutis said it was difficult to be in the tiny
minority opposing the president in the aftermath of the bombing
tragedy. "I'm just as afraid of terrorism as any American," he said.


393.486sounds like a bad video rentalSWAM1::MEUSE_DATue Apr 25 1995 17:0513
    
    the politicians in DC are creating their own fertilizer and shoveling
    it as us by the ton.
    
    can't believe the crap on tv lately.
    
    I got the right to vote-but where are the leaders to vote for?
    
    
    Dave
    
    
    
393.487SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue Apr 25 1995 17:0911
    That's why I clearly labeled it as opinion with "I think", Di.
    I'm speculating, and I freely admit it.  My understanding of the social
    climate in which this terrible crime occurred suggests to me that it
    wouldn't have, if our press was doing its job, and our public officials
    were being held properly accountable.  Feel free to disagree.
    
    Curbing the agencies visibly for those abuses would of course include
    punishing those who perpetrated the acts.  It is my understanding that
    the government snipers in the Weaver case may still face criminal charges.
    
    DougO
393.488RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Apr 25 1995 17:1124
    Re .464:
    
    > Then change the governemnt by democratic means.
    
    Revolution is democratic.
    
    
    Re .469:
    
    > The place to make the changes is at the ballot box.
    
    You CANNOT vote on whether people will be free.  No amount of voting
    will justify outlawing freedom of religion or speech.  The voting booth
    is ONE method of TRYING to preserve freedom; it was intended to allow
    people to control government.  But when the government gets out of
    control and the voting booth is insufficient to reform it, other
    methods are appropriate.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.489CSOA1::LEECHTue Apr 25 1995 17:1215
    re: .470
    
    In all honesty, the Waco incident sickens me more.  This was deliberate
    murder by GOVERNMENT officials, as well as deliberate destruction of
    evidence.  
    
    The bombing was the act of one anarchist whose sanity is questionable.
    
    Acts of crazy men, though devastating in this case, are not on the same
    level as premeditated, government sanctioned murder and cover up.  
    
    This difference in scope is staggering.  Terrorism vs. tyranny.
    
    
    -steve
393.490CSOA1::LEECHTue Apr 25 1995 17:1712
    re: .479
    
    I'm with DougO on this one.  If proper punishment had been given out
    for these travesties, the overall tone of discontent would have been
    lessened quite a bit.  It is the fact that there has been no real
    effort to effect justice that is sending those on the edge, ballistic.
    
    This does not mean they, or the act of bombing the federal building,
    was rational.
    
    
    -steve
393.491PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Apr 25 1995 17:187
<<< Note 393.487 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>>    That's why I clearly labeled it as opinion with "I think", Di.

	Not originally.  ;>  And "curbing" doesn't necessarily involve
	punishment, the way I think of it, so thanks for explaining your
	intent more clearly.  It would be nice to think you're right.
393.492MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 17:1821
    RE: Note 393.484 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B"

    I absolutely, 100% agree with Doug Olson. If the government
    response to the Waco incident had been different (more timely,
    for one thing), the OK city bombing would not have occurred.
    I do not think it is a leap of logic at all.

    However, I must also point out that the BATF was indeed under
    scrutiny by Congress and hearings were under way which might
    have led to defunding the agency. Whether the OK city bombers
    were aware of this is unknown. (Although, they probably were,
    which makes their action all the more perplexing.)

    Doug's point though is that the level of disenfranchisement
    that led to the bombing could have been prevented by more
    pro-active efforts by the media and the government, but since
    public safety is not (presently) the true agenda of either,
    they showed no interest. Best to focus on the demonization
    of their enemies.

    -b
393.493HANNAH::MODICAJourneyman NoterTue Apr 25 1995 17:2612
    
    Been busy, unable to keep up in here....
    
    However, please add my name to the growing list endorsing
    recent notes by DougO. They're right on the mark Doug, you
    cut right to the core of this issue (IMO).
    
    Other than that, this tragedy has been so horrific that I have
    had trouble following it. It just tears my heart out and as such
    I have had to step back from it all.
    
    						Hank
393.494MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue Apr 25 1995 17:304
Re: DougO's comments

Me too!

393.495SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue Apr 25 1995 17:3616
    >>>    That's why I clearly labeled it as opinion with "I think", Di.
    >
    >        Not originally.  ;> 
    
    Sure I did.  Third paragraph of .473.
    
    > It would be nice to think you're right.
    
    In that it suggests what seems to me to be a rational course for the
    government to follow, yes.  In that it seems very unlikely that the
    government will actually follow such a path...well, sometimes vision
    is a curse.
    
    Ah, well.
    
    DougO
393.496PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Apr 25 1995 17:459
    
>>    Sure I did.  Third paragraph of .473.

	You said you thought the attempted burial of stories is one
	of the reasons people are so polarized post-bombing.  Your 
	next statement, about the fruitcakes, was emphatic.  

	But anyways, I think you're right that it _could_ have made 
	a difference.  
393.497WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Apr 25 1995 17:5324
    Brian, what on earth do base such an aggressive statement like "the
    bombing wouldn't ever had occured" if some punishment on the ATF 
    had been imposed?
    
    I don't think it's that simple...
    
    I'll even take a stroll on the firing range and say blaming the death
    of the Waco children on the gov't is gross misrepresentaion. The gov't
    was stupid and irresponsible, but I don't blame them for the childrens'
    deaths.
    
    Waco was a disgrace and a travesty. What happened to the Weavers was
    a disgrace and a travesty. What happened in Oklahoma was a lunatic's(')
    action well beyond someone being p.o.'d...
    
    
    ...and to make remarks like the gov't might have conspired and that
    BC is exploiting all of this through his reactions/actions is pretty
    much a paranoid reaction (lemming-like) of all the BC bashers and some
    fringe gov't haters...
    
    Fire away...
    
    Chip
393.498SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue Apr 25 1995 17:535
    ok, so, maybe my normal habits of at most one disclaimer per paragraph
    in soapbox was a bit short in this case.  you got me - it could have
    been clearer.
    
    DougO
393.499IMPROV::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQTue Apr 25 1995 17:547
Good note by DougO in .479.

Replace "OKC bomb" with "riot"
        "Waco"     with "Rodney King"...
        
Funny, but nobody called for broad new police powers and oppressive new gun
laws back then.
393.500PCBUOA::LEFEBVREPCBU Asia/Pacific MarketingTue Apr 25 1995 17:563
    Nice note, Doug.
    
    Mark.
393.501LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Apr 25 1995 18:066
re:  .489

>The bombing was the act of one anarchist whose sanity is questionable.

Really think this cracker had the smarts to do this on his own?
I don't think so.
393.502NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Apr 25 1995 18:071
Cracker?  McVeigh's from upstate NY.  No crackers there.
393.503CSOA1::LEECHTue Apr 25 1995 18:08159
    A few comments on this report:
    
>(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

>Cox News Service 

>WASHINGTON -- President Clinton's calls for more power to
>probe America's paramilitary movement set off alarms Monday
>among some civil liberties experts, who warned that a government
>overreaction could trample civil rights.

    The alarms should be going up all over, regardless of political side
    you are on.  One thing Americans all share is the desire to be free,
    the desire to see the Constitution adhered to.
    
    The real alarm comes from Clinton himself, who seems to be making an
    unwarrented connection between the bombing incident and militias.  Why
    do they need broader powers?  They don't adhere to their current
    limitations consistently.  Why probe paramilitary groups (that's
    a somewhat slanted term used for "militia")?  They had nothing to do
    with the bombings.  I fail to see ANY logic behind this whatsoever.
    
    The only conclusion I am left with is more fearful than terrorism.
    
>However, Senate leaders promised quick action on a tough bill, and
    
    Which means the will skim over it, overlooking any dubious measures
    hidden within a large text.  They will force it through without due
    process and study, because they are opportunists who want to have the
    appearance of "doing something".  
    
>White House officials insisted that any expansion of federal powers
>to combat domestic terror such as the Oklahoma City bombing could
>be accomplished without infringing on individual rights.

    The only way to combat this form of terroris is to catch and execute
    those who commit these acts.  It would take an Orwellian "big brother"
    approach, taken to the extremes (which is somewhat redundant, I'll
    admit) to put a stop to this kind of terrorism; and then it could not
    be stomped out altogether if a group is determined enough to bomb
    something.
    
    The statement that places "expansion of federal powers" in the sentence
    with "without infringing upon individual rights" is oxymoronic at best,
    and an outright lie at worst.  History proves that the two cannot
    co-exist without the lessening of one, to some degree.
    
>Gregory T. Nojeim, legislative counsel for the American Civil
>Liberties Union (ACLU), said the new legislation amounted to a
>"Contract on the Constitution."

    He's right.  It's a strange day that I find myself in agreement with
    the ACLU.
    
>But White House counselor George Stephanopoulos said concerns
>about violations of rights are "absolutely unwarranted" because the
>expanded powers of the government are being sought "only in the
>context of investigations and operations where there is credible
>evidence."

    I wonder how he defines "unwarranted".  And while we're into
    definitions, I wonder how he defines "credible evidence"?
    
    This gives me the chills, it does.  
    
>Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose Judiciary Committee plans a
>Thursday hearing on ways to stop terrorism, said he and Majority
>Leader Bob Dole of Kansas would press for speedy passage of an
>anti-terrorism bill.

    Dole has no integrity, then.  He is campaigning for
    president already, and will push his party into passing this peice of
    filth legislation to earn political points.  It would seem integrity
    takes a back seat to politics and what is really good for the nation
    and his constituents.
    
>Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Congress should
>give law enforcement agents "the necessary latitude" to combat
>terrorism, but said a "delicate balance" would be "uppermost in our
>minds."

     I would be interested in a few definition here, as well.  We can start
    with "necessary latitude" and "terrorism", then go on from there.
    
>Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Intelligence
>Committee, said there is "nothing inappropriate" about federal
>authorities infiltrating terrorist groups or keeping them under
>surveillance.

    "terrorist groups"?  Who defines this?
    
    Open season on the politically incorrect, it seems.
    
>If anything, Specter said, the Justice Department has been "too
>timid" in its counterterrorism directives to the FBI.

    Waco, Weaver, etc.  If this is timid, I would hate to see boldness.
    
>The administration is asking Congress to expand authority for:

>-- Funding a Domestic Counterterrorism Center to be overseen by
>the FBI and charged with infiltrating suspected terrorist groups.

    You too, can be considered a terrorist if your views are unpopular,
    especially if you organize a group to discuss like views.
    
>-- Giving the FBI power to examine hotel and motel registers and
>search phone logs, as well as credit card records.

    Big Brother is looking at your receipts.  
    
    Doesn't this collide with "privacy" rights?
    
>Those proposals will be added to Clinton's Omnibus
>Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which is already moving through
>Congress.

    So, when in 1995 did Clinton decide we needed a terrorist act? 
    Certainly one bombing (WTC) is not enough to warrent such a bill.
    
>That bill would let the government use evidence from secret sources
>in deportation proceedings for aliens suspected of terrorist
>involvement.

    Anonymous tips may lead to your deportation...and you'll never meet
    yoru accuser, nor have your day in court.
    
>It would also ban fund-raising in the United States for groups the
>president deems dangerous and grant the FBI broader power to
>wiretap suspected terrorist groups.

    Dictator Clinton will not allow fund raising for politically incorrect
    activities/groups.  
    
    You too can be a "suspected" terrorist, as defined by the FBI (who will
    need no evidence to tap into your conversations).
    
>The bill from Hatch and Dole would toughen penalties for acts of
>domestic terrorism, 
    
    Whoa! Toughen penalties?  How??  Is not the death penalty enough?  Or
    are they talking about those who are somehow connected to FBI defined
    "terrorists" in any way?  Scary stuff!
    
>    add conspiracy to the list of terrorist offenses --
    
    This is rather broad.  Conspiracy?  Are they going to haul me off
    because of my views, even though I've never promoted nor condoned nor
    committed any violent act against anyone?
    
>giving law enforcement authorities a way to stop terrorist
>organizations as they emerge -- and make it illegal to provide
>material support to groups identified by a presidential finding as
>engaged in terrorist activities.

    Stop FBI defined "terrorist" groups.  This frightens me.
    
    
    -steve
393.504MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Tue Apr 25 1995 18:1010
ZZ    Replace "OKC bomb" with "riot"
ZZ            "Waco"     with "Rodney King"...
            
ZZ    Funny, but nobody called for broad new police powers and oppressive new
ZZ    gun laws back then.
    
    Yes...and the ironic thing was the Korean store owners meant business
    with their guns from that point on.  They proved the need for them!
    
    -Jack
393.505MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 18:2055
    >Brian, what on earth do base such an aggressive statement like "the
    >bombing wouldn't ever had occured" if some punishment on the ATF 
    >had been imposed?
    
    >I don't think it's that simple...
    
    What I said was "if the response had been different, the bombing
    would not have occurred." I said nothing about punishment. In
    fact, I believe if there had been extensive public hearings,
    immediately after the fact, and if the government did not
    conspire to conceal evidence (which I believe they did), then
    the facts of Waco would have become known, and the festering
    effect that Waco had on a certain disenfranchised portion of
    our population would have been ameliorated. Punishment of BATF
    and other agencies may have occurred, but I do not think it was
    a necessary conclusion.

    >I'll even take a stroll on the firing range and say blaming the death
    >of the Waco children on the gov't is gross misrepresentaion. The gov't
    >was stupid and irresponsible, but I don't blame them for the childrens'
    >deaths.
    
    Some of feel that the government was of equal blame.

    >Waco was a disgrace and a travesty. What happened to the Weavers was
    >a disgrace and a travesty. What happened in Oklahoma was a lunatic's(')
    >action well beyond someone being p.o.'d...
    
    You, and virtually everybody else, are saying the same thing.
    Who are you trying to distance yourself from? The bombing was
    a cowardly, heinous and criminal act. This mantra is becoming
    repetitive.

    >...and to make remarks like the gov't might have conspired and that
    >BC is exploiting all of this through his reactions/actions is pretty
    >much a paranoid reaction (lemming-like) of all the BC bashers and some
    >fringe gov't haters...

    There are many questions about this bombing. Some people (Steve
    Leech chief among them) have pointed out certain areas of
    inconsistency in the government/media story. Some people are
    not buying the media spin hook/line/and sinker. Some people,
    such as myself, got burned by the media spin over this incident
    when we called for military action against the middle east.
    So, we're trying to exhibit a bit of learning by not getting
    hooked/lined/and sinkered again, and thus we become lemmings
    in your eyes... talk about a no win situation!

    And BC, not to mention the entire administration, are mishandling
    this and saying some very _scary_ things. It's not our fault,
    we're not the ones talking about being "reasonable" with
    regard to our civil rights. You've gone past shooting the
    messenger to shooting the listener!

    -b
393.506Give me a minute to get in my foxholeDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue Apr 25 1995 18:4063
    Whew, out for two days; HOW did I know that by the time I got back
    to da 'box, the ATF and FBI would be blamed for OKC?
    
    I don't often agree with Suzanne, but I feel she's made valid points
    that many in here do not want to consider.
    
    What happened at Waco was horrible; I was out on STD at the time, so
    I got to watch all the hideous happenings.  However, ya'll keep
    dodging Suzanne's point about the basic difference between Waco and
    OKC......the timeframe.  During the siege leading up to that final
    day, many members of the press, government etc. repeatedly asked that
    Koresh allow anyone (adults and children) to leave if they wished to
    do so.  Many relatives and a spokesman for the Davidians claimed 
    that NO ONE was being held against their will.....
    
    I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.  The compound was surrounded; I
    would have been scared out of my mind that there was ONE wing-nut in
    either the ATF or FBI whose clock was wound a little too tight and
    that wing-nut would go off and do something stupid.  There was no
    reason for one child to have died in Waco; their deaths are on the
    hands or Koresh or any parents who chose to take their children 
    along with them in their search for matyrdom.  I'm definitely not
    saying the ATF or FBI are blameless; Waco showed them at their worst,
    OKC has balanced that out.  If the perps were looking to do one thing
    that would GUARANTEE that the government would be in their faces from
    here on out, they were highly successful.
    
    I was sitting on the fence regarding the repeal of the assult weapons
    ban; OKC made up my mind.  OK, I KNOW guns were not used here, but
    after watching news clips of some of the Schwartzkopf wannabes in the
    Michigan Militia, I think I'd rest easier at night knowing they won't
    have free access to assault weapons.  One man described as a Brigadier
    General in the MM attained the rank of Staff Sergeant in the U.S.
    Army, the MM has some real military geniuses at the helm!
    
    No one knows where the trail will ultimately lead; people who study
    terrorist groups say that Islamic terrorists typically do no use
    outsiders, but it's not unheard of.  They did use members of a radical
    Japanese group in several past instances.  On the other hand militia
    leaders are falling over themselves to distance their groups from
    McVeigh.  Right now there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any
    militia leader ordered the bombing, but IMO I think a number of them
    knew about it and did nothing.  In my mind that makes them culpable.
    
    I have no problem if a group of men want to get together on weekends,
    wear fatigues, put greasepaint on their faces and play war games
    and shoot some guns.  However, I do think they must accept some re-
    sponsibility if they preach rhetoric that can trigger violence in
    someone who may not be playing with a full deck. (I think it was de-
    termined a long time ago that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
    was not protected by one's right to free speech).  It's been specu-
    lated by groups who watch these militias that this might be a case
    of some new recruits who thought the leaders were a bunch of old
    farts unwilling to put their rhetoric into action, so they acted them-
    selves and OKC was the result.
    
    Waco was tragic; IMO the ATF and FBI did learn a valuable lesson, I
    don't see them repeating it. If 80 dead, 150 missing (presumed dead),
    plus 400+ injured is considered by many to be no different than 
    Waco, then something is very wrong.  Add up the numbers, if the 
    bomb had been just a little more successfull 700+ people could be
    dead.....does what happened at Waco REALLY justify that?
    
393.507...BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 18:4544
    RE: .470  Elizabeth

    / I never once said that I was not outraged by what has happened in OKC. 

    You made comments about 'the same people who are outraged and upset by
    the OKC bombing' as if this group did not include you.  Glad to hear
    that this isn't the case.

    / My point was that the children who died in Waco were no less innocent 
    / than those in OKC.  

    Their parents had over 50 days to move them away from the danger, though.
    The parents and Daycare providers of the children in the bombing would 
    have been happy for *50 minutes* to get the children out of harm's way.
    They would have done so quite gladly.

    / Somehow our government can make "misjudgements" and this makes them not
    / responsible for their actions.  

    They didn't roll up to a building filled with people (most of whom had
    nothing whatsoever to do with their protest!) to drop off a 5,000 pound 
    bomb and then just drive away before the blast.
    
    They tried to serve a warrant and things went horribly wrong (and yes,
    mistakes were made.)  The Branch Davidians made mistakes, too (not the
    least of which was failing to get the rest of their children to safety.)
    
    / If you have gotten your "facts" only from the mainstream media then 
    / I see where you would feel they way you do about Waco.  
    
    You don't see *anything* about how or why I feel the way I do.
    
    / However, the result was the same......innocent citizens were killed 
    / in a violent and tragic manner.  
    
    The children of Waco were indeed as innocent as the children in 
    Oklahoma City, but the adults in Waco had 50 days to consider their 
    situations (and to do what they could to remove the rest of their 
    children from the scene.)
    
    If only the 'mad about Waco' bomber had given those in Oklahoma City
    the chance to consider *their* situations.  Oklahoma is a Republican
    state, too, so isn't it ironic that most of those killed in the OKC
    bombing probably AGREED with the bomber's anger about Waco...
393.508how do you know he is a "cracker"???TIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSTue Apr 25 1995 18:5521
>                     <<< Note 393.501 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

>re:  .489

>>The bombing was the act of one anarchist whose sanity is questionable.

>Really think this cracker had the smarts to do this on his own?
>I don't think so.

I know a little about the training these guys get. since all the materials
are available at little or no cost and he was trained in building 
munitions it isn't that hard to do. 
A man that won medals in the service is not a total dolt.

BTW in many farming states dynamite and blasting caps are legally purchased
by farmers to clear land. So raiding a working farm and finding blasting caps
fertilizer and diesel fuel is not automatic guilt.
A house in the suburbs might be a different story :-}

Amos

393.509STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 18:5515
        <<< Note 393.507 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
                                    -< ... >-

>   If only the 'mad about Waco' bomber had given those in Oklahoma City
>   the chance to consider *their* situations.  Oklahoma is a Republican
>   state, too, so isn't it ironic that most of those killed in the OKC
>   bombing probably AGREED with the bomber's anger about Waco...

Minor point: If the people killed in the blast were a cross-section of 
Oklahoma, then this statement would be true.  However, most of the adults
who were killed were Federal employees -- hardly a representative sample.
I believe that public employees are more likely to call themselves 
Democrats.  At the 1992 Democratic National convention, the majority of the 
delegates on the floor were public employees or representatives of public
employee unions.
393.510GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingTue Apr 25 1995 18:553
    
    
    They went in shooting, Suzanne.
393.511NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundTue Apr 25 1995 18:5711
Among the other ironies listed here I note a couple more:

	o  People are warning against broad-brush/guilt by association.

Now where have I heard that before?

	o  the big IF (IF there is evidence to show McVeigh is responsible...
	   IF the MI militia is shown to have had any culpability) whereas all
	   evidence as of right now is circumstantial.

I've said it and I say again: there is a double standard applied in this country.
393.512BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 19:0521
    RE: .509  Kevin
    
    / Minor point: If the people killed in the blast were a cross-section of 
    / Oklahoma, then this statement would be true.  However, most of the adults
    / who were killed were Federal employees -- hardly a representative sample.
    
    The largest group of adults killed were on the first floor (in the social 
    security office), from what I've heard - and most of these people were in 
    the building as private citizens with appointments with government workers.
    
    Evidently, the office was similar to going to the Department of Motor
    Vehicles (where lots of customers go to meet with a smaller number of
    workers.)
    
    / I believe that public employees are more likely to call themselves 
    / Democrats.  At the 1992 Democratic National convention, the majority of 
    / the delegates on the floor were public employees or representatives of 
    / public employee unions.
    
    After 12 years of Republicans in the White House, a great many government
    agencies still have many Republican workers.
393.513STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 19:0931
                      <<< Note 393.503 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

Steve, I'm with you.

The report says:

    But White House counselor George Stephanopoulos said concerns
    about violations of rights are "absolutely unwarranted" because the
    expanded powers of the government are being sought "only in the
    context of investigations and operations where there is credible
    evidence."

If there is credible evidence, then the FBI can investigate now.

We've heard this before.  Wasn't it Ed Meese who suggested changes in the
rules of evidence to make it easier to get convictions in a criminal court?
I can't remember his exact words, but it was something to the effect that:
"Only criminals would be effected, because the police don't arrest innocent
people."


The report also stated:
    
    It would also ban fund-raising in the United States for groups the
    president deems dangerous and grant the FBI broader power to
    wiretap suspected terrorist groups.

Oh, boy.  So if President Clinton declares the Republican Party a terrorist
group, he can order the FBI to wiretap their offices.  Only this time, it
will be "legal".

393.514BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 19:1013
    RE: .510  Mike
    
    / They went in shooting, Suzanne.
    
    If this is true, then all the more reason to worry about the children
    (and to get them out of there at some point during the next 50 days.)
    
    The Branch Davidians knew the BATF was coming and they took up gun
    positions around the compound to lie in wait for them.
    
    They could have used the extra time to go outside with their hands up
    (and their guns down) to make sure no shots were fired with the children 
    present.
393.515MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 19:1377
    >What happened at Waco was horrible; I was out on STD at the time, so
    >I got to watch all the hideous happenings.  However, ya'll keep
    >dodging Suzanne's point about the basic difference between Waco and
    >OKC......the timeframe.  During the siege leading up to that final
    >day, many members of the press, government etc. repeatedly asked that
    >Koresh allow anyone (adults and children) to leave if they wished to
    >do so.  Many relatives and a spokesman for the Davidians claimed 
    >that NO ONE was being held against their will.....

    No one is "dodging" this point. Her point may well be valid.
    However, a counter-point has also been made that it may not
    have been as easy to get out of the building as she suggests.
    At least one person who tried to get out of the building was
    shot for doing so. Everyone keeps screaming that the people
    in that building wanted to die (they even claim Koresh said
    so), but I've never heard or seen a quote in print which suggests
    this is the truth.

    But all this is _completely_ beside the real point. The _real_
    point is that the government has done nothing (so far) to
    police itself. If the appropriate action had been taken, the
    bombing most likely would not have occurred.

    >I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.  The compound was surrounded; I
    >would have been scared out of my mind that there was ONE wing-nut in
    >either the ATF or FBI whose clock was wound a little too tight and
    >that wing-nut would go off and do something stupid. 

    This is _exactly_ why it might not have been as easy to get
    out as you (and Suzanne) would like to believe. There were
    a lot of tightly-wound clocks present, including agents whose
    badges were concealed, and which many people believe were
    deputized members of the so-called "Delta Force", the
    existence of which many people feel is unconstitutional
    (because they would be use of US military assets against
    civilians).

    Also, the use of helicopters and armored personnel carriers
    on the compound was a bit more than a simple goof. "Aw
    shucks, there we go again, making another boneheaded,
    but unintentional of course, transgression of US law..."
    Yeah right.

    >I was sitting on the fence regarding the repeal of the assault weapons
    >ban; OKC made up my mind.  OK, I KNOW guns were not used here, but
    >after watching news clips of some of the Schwartzkopf wannabes in the
    >Michigan Militia, I think I'd rest easier at night knowing they won't
    >have free access to assault weapons.  One man described as a Brigadier
    >General in the MM attained the rank of Staff Sergeant in the U.S.
    >Army, the MM has some real military geniuses at the helm!
    
    Well shucks, you think they look suspicious, they must be
    dangerous, they must be controlled, and by gosh, your
    government better do it by mucking with everyone's civil
    rights. Of course, this begs the rather obvious question
    if this type of mucking about with people's rights was
    part of the problem which led to the OK situation in the
    first place...
        
    >I have no problem if a group of men want to get together on weekends,
    >wear fatigues, put greasepaint on their faces and play war games
    >and shoot some guns.  However, I do think they must accept some re-
    >sponsibility if they preach rhetoric that can trigger violence in
    >someone who may not be playing with a full deck. (I think it was de-
    >termined a long time ago that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
    >was not protected by one's right to free speech).  It's been specu-
    >lated by groups who watch these militias that this might be a case
    >of some new recruits who thought the leaders were a bunch of old
    >farts unwilling to put their rhetoric into action, so they acted them-
    >selves and OKC was the result.

    Wow, have _you_ swallowed the spin on this or what !?!? Those
    members of the militia who do not espouse being aggressively
    violent are "old farts" and of course the bombers are "lunatics",
    but they're all a bunch of maggots either way... right?

    -b
393.516SALEM::DODAMasquerading fatherTue Apr 25 1995 19:1715
        <<< Note 393.507 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
                                    -< ... >-

   > Their parents had over 50 days to move them away from the danger, though.
      
   > The children of Waco were indeed as innocent as the children in 
   > Oklahoma City, but the adults in Waco had 50 days to consider their 
   > situations (and to do what they could to remove the rest of their 
   > children from the scene.)
    
   So it alright that these innocent children paid the price for 
   their parents stupidity? Does that translate to the welfare 
   reform topic as well?

   daryll
393.517If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue Apr 25 1995 19:188
    Brandon makes a valid point; the footage of several militias showed
    that they are indeed racists, also anti-Semitic.  They claim they
    are anti-government, but there's a heckuva lot more to it IMO.
    
    Local PBS station showed clips of Klan rallies from the 60's; the
    clothing may have changed, but much of the militia rhetoric remains
    chillingly much the same.
     
393.518GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingTue Apr 25 1995 19:233
    
    
    The klan is not a militia.
393.519STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Apr 25 1995 19:2428
        <<< Note 393.512 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>   The largest group of adults killed were on the first floor (in the social 
>   security office), from what I've heard - and most of these people were in 
>   the building as private citizens with appointments with government workers.

The "largest group" equals what percentage of the total?


>   / I believe that public employees are more likely to call themselves 
>   / Democrats.  At the 1992 Democratic National convention, the majority of 
>   / the delegates on the floor were public employees or representatives of 
>   / public employee unions.
>   
>   After 12 years of Republicans in the White House, a great many government
>   agencies still have many Republican workers.

It doesn't matter, even after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, 
the percentages at the convention were not affected (compared with years 
past), and civil service is such that the Republicans have little effect on 
the make up of office complexes in places like Oklahoma, even after twelve 
years.

When a new President comes to town he gets to pick several thousand people
to fill key political posts.  The rest rise from the civil service ranks.
One of the consequences in the November elections was that the really good
patronage jobs are now under the control of the Republicans.

393.520SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 19:2412
    
    
>    Brandon makes a valid point; the footage of several militias showed
>    that they are indeed racists, also anti-Semitic.  They claim they
>    are anti-government, but there's a heckuva lot more to it IMO.
    
    	Oh what utter crap. I guess you missed the show where the head of
    the Ohio militia was on....he's black BTW. Try pulling your head out of
    the media's butt and maybe you'll see things differently....
    
    
    
393.521SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 19:24127

								25 April 1995

	    Official Declaration of the Santa Clara County
			Liberty Brigade
	    Regarding the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bomb-murder.

    We, the members of the Unorganized Militia of the Santa Clara County,
feel it necessary and appropriate to write to the public at large, to the
media companies, and to the political leaders of this State, and of this
Country, that they may have a view of these recent, tragic events not
arising from the commercial media companies and the Politicians of our land.

    The event surrounding the bombing of the Federal Office Building in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, give us sorrow, and are a cause for grief for many.

    Publicly, we denounce the murderers of the men, women, and children who
were the targets of that bomb attack.  The bombers are guilty of multiple
murder, and are liable for the full penalty of the law.  We hope they, the
bombers, are caught, tried fairly, fairly convicted, and properly punished.

    Publicly, we denounce whatever group, if any, upholds or supports that
criminal act.

    Publicly, we denounce the grandstanding of the press, and their smear
campaign, first upon Arabic peoples, now upon the law-abiding, peaceable
American citizens who are members of legal, and patriotic, miliitia groups.
    First, there have been a few arrests, but no convictions.  Under the
American System of Jurisprudence, the accussed are innocent until proven
guilty.  No guilt has been proven, so the smear campaign by the commercial
media companies is verbal vigilantism.  To do so in the context of persuing
those allegedly guilty of violent vigilantism is hypocracy.
    Second, the central target of the smear, the Milita of Michigan, is to be
praised for having detected and denied membership to the accused, and for
having expelled them from among their ranks, which they did several months
ago, upon discovering that they, those who are now the accused, were
advocating violent, war-like acts against the United States, such as a
bombing attack like this one. Not only did the Militia of Michigan expell
those preachers of violence, they alerted the F.B.I. of their names and
conduct.  Why the F.B.I. did not pay sensible attention to this tip is
unknown.  Between the two, the press should be lambasting the F.B.I. for
a possible serious breach of duty, and leaving the Miltia of Michigan alone.
    Third, the Militia of Michigan is unconnected in any way with the other
militia groups, whether in Michigan, or in any other State, and to smear all
the militia groups with the label that the criminals have earned (and the
accused were never actual members of the Militia of Michigan) is no
different from smearing all Jews as though they were somehow responsible for
the Holocaust.  It is irresponsible to do either.  No sane mind can look
upon the guilt of the guilty, and assign that guilt to other people.
    Fourthly, the accused, (presuming guilt for one brief argument) are
employees of the Federal Government, Department of the Army.  If
guilt-by-association has any merit, we should be clamoring for the disbanding
of our Armed forces and all Federal and State enforcement agents.

    Publicly, we repudiate all public and elected officials who have been
taking advantage of this tragedy for the advancement of any personal
political agenda.  This crime is proper grounds for hunting down, finding,
trying, convicting, and punishing the guilty.  It is not proper grounds for
shreading the liberties of the other 260 Million Americans, who are not
guilty of this act.  Should it be necessary or helpful, we, the militia
organizations of the United States, would faithfully and dutifully assist
the hunt and capture of the criminals committing these, or similar, dreadful
deeds.  We are certain that nearly all Americans would dutifully and
faithfully help to bring such evil men down.

    Whatever connection was in the minds of the culprits who performed this
evil deed, between this deed and the tragedy at Waco, we denounce the
defective reasoning that excuses murder because of possible murder, burning
because of burning.  That way lays Chaos and Mobocracy, and we want none of
it!

    Another factor of this tragedy that gives us grief is the thoughtless
blather of imposing new restrictions upon all innocent, trustworthy, Americans
as a reponse to this crime.  We call for a moment of reflection:
    What restrictions, if established and enforced, starting, say, on the
first of this year (1995), would have rendered this attack impossible?  One
half ton of fertilizer, 68 pounds of diesel fuel,  a rented truck, and a
lunatic or five...  What restrictions would be adequate for catching this?
Only yearly psychological exams for all Americans, and block-by-block
car-and-truck-and-purse-and-briefcase searches every day of the year in
every city and town of this Nation, could hope to suffice.  We oppose any
suggestion that America become such a hostile and suspicious nation.  We,
as a nation, spent Trillions of dollars and 4 decades resisting the spread
of this style of suspicion and distrust in other lands.  To impose it upon
ourselves would make little sense.
    We are the Land of the Free, and facing some danger is a requirement to
enjoying some liberty.  Therefore, we denounce the tone and content of the
'reporting' on the airwaves and in the papers that amount to little more
than a terror-oriented attack on our Civil Liberties.

    Lastly, we wish to air a worry that we fervently hope is clearly and
quickly disproven: This bomb attack may have had 'inside' (meaning BATF/FBI)
 help.
    1: Watching the news and reading the papers, we note that the degree of
damage to nearby buildings sems low, considering the damage done to the
Federal building.  In particular, the building directly across the street
should have been razed by the blast that caved in the front of the Federal
building. The cars nearby should have been scattered like leaves. The front of
the building seems to have blown *out*, more than *in*. Unconfiremed reports
declare that the Oklahoma City University geology department seismograph show
*two* distinct bomb-blasts. Yes, this attack registered like an earthquake. It
seems to have registered as *two* earthquakes. We want to see a thoughtful
investigation of the matter.
    2: Looking at the damage, the building seems to have been cut with
carefully-placed demolition charges, rather than hit with one ANFO
pressure-wave.
    3: We wonder at the speed of the annunciation of the bomb being an ANFO
device (before any bomb-lab chemists were on the scene), and of the arrest of
the first suspect practically before the rubble had stopped bouncing. This
suspect has tell-tale signs of being an overly-obvious perfect suspect, and we
consider that things too good (or easy) to be true usually are not true.
Maybe Lee Harvy Oswald had no help murdering J.F.K., maybe this bomb was just
a dumb lunatic or five... we want to see a thoughtful investigation.
    4: We make no specific accusations, and we recoil from the thought that
Federal agents blew up their own building and their co-workers children with
the same revulsion we have at the thought of the FBI and/or BATF participating
in the burning of the Waco complex with the Davidian children inside. We make
no specific accusations, we call for a careful and thorough investigation.


		Signed: Brian T Brunner, press scty,

		Santa Clara County Liberty Brigade

		Lawful, Patient, Faithful, Caring.

393.522SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 19:2550
Views You Can Use - April 25, 1995 - Matt Rearwin

	The Oklahoma City tragedy has exposed an ugly, divisive, and 
un-American opinions in our nation.  At a time when the major media players
ought to be bringing our citizens together, the media seems to be rejoicing
in the blood shed, and in the subsequent recriminations of citizens concern-
ed with their nation.
	Today, ABC's Good Morning America presents us with a "cult expert" who
states that the numbers of people needed deprogramming for their political
views is vast, and nationwide.  Gosh, I thought we discredited the idea of
Soviet style political re-education.  Among the symptoms requiring treatment 
are taking views critical of the Federal Government, or thinking that there 
are conspiracies at work behind the scenes.  (My personal view is that it is 
nothing more than old fashioned greed and privilege at work.)
	But regarding the conspiracies, there are several things that need to 
be said.  It wasn't my supposed paranoia that put the President's left-handed 
lawyer, Vince Foster dead in Ft. Marcy Park with a gun he wasn't known to 
have possessed in his right hand.  It's not my lack of faith that blew up 
the President's Marine Corps guards.  My psychological profile didn't create 
Army memorandums questioning the legality of BATF actions in Waco, months 
before the attack.  And I can't see how a conservative conspiracy has made 
the liberal United States Attorney General for the Democratic Johnson 
Administration, Ramsey Clark, come forth and state that Davidians were 
murdered by Federal agents, and provide evidence to that end.
	It's not my imagination that broadcast CBS radio's Charles Osgood 
show this morning.  He had on a spokesman from Boston Political Analysis 
who stated that these militia groups treat the United States Constitution 
as a holy writ.  This spokesman went on to say that the Constitution is a 
"weird document" anyway, and that these conspiracy theorists think that the 
Constitution is in danger of being scrapped.  Yeah, well if it's so "weird", 
why do we have millions of military & law enforcement personnel as well as 
elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend it?
	The Constitution, approved in 1789, is so close to being dispensed 
with, that even NPR is reporting it.  Only two more states are needed to pass 
resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention.  That would allow 
appointees to create a new Constitution for our nation, and eliminate the 
items that they don't like in our current one.  I don't know about you, 
but I wasn't asked.  I like the Bill of Rights.
	These "Big Government" people think that the Oklahoma tragedy shows 
that we need government control of the Internet.  But it was that government 
that trained McVeigh to build improvised munitions in the Special Forces.  
It's that same government that has downsized the military, and distributed 
those Special Forces explosives manuals to the military surplus stores.  If 
anything needs to be regulated, it's  "Big Government".
	These militias, and the number of citizens holding cynical views of 
the government are not the problem.  This is merely a symptom, a reaction, to 
the fundamental problem.  The problem is a government not responsive to the 
citizenry, and badly attempting to cover up its mistakes.

393.523MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 19:279
    RE: The racist angle

    You've already been there and done that, so to speak. Horror
    of horrors when the libs were having a talk-show feeding frenzy
    on the  militias and invited the head of one to appear on the
    show... and he was African American! Oooops.

    -b
393.524SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 19:327
    
    RE: .520,.523
    
    The answer's simple really... 
    
    He's an "Uncle Tom" and not worth the newsprint...
    
393.525HANNAH::MODICAJourneyman NoterTue Apr 25 1995 19:345
    
    Re: > He's an "Uncle Tom" and not worth the newsprint...
    
    C'mon Andy, that really isn't warranted.
    
393.526SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 19:3711
    
    <-------
    
     >C'mon Andy, that really isn't warranted.
    
    
     I haven't been able to come up with a "sarcasm" face to put in when
    it's obvious...
    
      I was hoping it was obvious...
    
393.527WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue Apr 25 1995 19:389
    Takes the wind out of the "white supremacist" angle, doesn't it?
    
    So what's with this rush to demonize a group for this bombing, anyway?
    First it was "middle eastern" types. Now it's militia types, with a not
    so subtle smear of all gun owners (despite the fact that guns were not
    used here.) In the end, we'll probably find out that the guys who did
    this had been in a militia at one time, but their radical views branded
    them as outcasts, and they did this on their own. So guess what group
    will be duly demonized then?
393.528BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Tue Apr 25 1995 19:407
    
    	Well, if they didn't have bombs then they would have had to use
    	guns.
    
    	I say make bombs illegal!!  Oops, they already are!!  How come it
    	didn't prevent the bombing??
    
393.529WAGSOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasTue Apr 25 1995 19:427
    
    re: .528
    
    >How come it didn't prevent the bombing??
    
    Because it wasn't on the list of "assault-looking bombs"??
    
393.530LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Apr 25 1995 19:4220
Re:  .508

>There seems to be some synsytyvyty around the usage of the
word 'cracker'.

In an earlier note I questioned whether the ALLEGED suspect
Timothy McVeigh had the intelligence to carry out this bombing
on his own.  

When arrested he was carrying an unregistered gun, correct?
He was speeding, correct?
There were no licence plates on his car, correct?

Maybe he should have hung a sign on the back of the car:

             YUP, I'M A SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER.

I would also bet (I said bet) that ol' Tim isn't that fond
of non-white folks, Jews, or anyone else who is different
from him.  Yes, a gross assumption - but probably a good bet.
393.531BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 19:4526
    RE: .515
    
    / However, a counter-point has also been made that it may not
    / have been as easy to get out of the building as she suggests.
    
    A good number of people (including many children) *DID* make it 
    out of the building, though.
    
    All the children who were not fathered by David Koresh made it out,
    as I understand it.  His children could have gotten out, too, if
    he'd wanted them to get out.
    
    / But all this is _completely_ beside the real point. The _real_
    / point is that the government has done nothing (so far) to
    / police itself. If the appropriate action had been taken, the
    / bombing most likely would not have occurred.
    
    This is no point at all.
    
    Anyone who is violent enough to kill hundreds of people to vent his
    anger at others could have been willing to kill them for a 'self
    policing' that didn't go quite far enough, though.  For example, if
    the BATF agents hadn't been drawn and quartered with their entrails
    left to rot in the desert, it's possible that Timothy McVeigh would
    have believed that he needed to extract his own brand of 'justice'
    ANYWAY.
393.532BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Tue Apr 25 1995 19:468
    
    	So, is anyone really that stupid, or was he actually trying to
    	get himself bagged for some reason?  There could be something
    	to that, I think.
    
    	Like maybe a few pounds of fertilizer stuffed up his butt that
    	could explode at any time.  [Probably not, but you get the idea.]
    
393.533NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundTue Apr 25 1995 19:4720
re:.517,.520,.523

You miss my point.

I'm comparing what reactions I see now vs reactions in the past.

The Rodney King beating for example. I'll never forget the justifications for
that one. The Susan Smith sweeps are another. A cop kills an unarmed kid in the
ghetto and it's automatically...on paid leave while investigations are
conducted. And life goes on.

Also it is ironic to see the alarmist reactions of the measures being proposed
when, as a posted article in this string recalled they've been with us
throughout the century: surveillance and 'extended' police powers.

Now that it is finally hitting the "mainstream" everyone's "up in arms".

(Finally, skin color does not definitively define an individual).

These are the ironies to which I refer.
393.534NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundTue Apr 25 1995 19:549
>Takes the wind out of the "white supremacist" angle, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. "Uncle Tom" is a misnomer (from various articles I've read) --
Harriet Breecher Stowe did not create a stereotypical, kowtowing, dupe of a
character but an individual who rose above the constraints and pressures
of his time to care for others; as I understand it to elevate the perception of
slaves.

That is not to say those individuals do not exist.
393.535"Well Regulated"MIMS::SANDERS_JTue Apr 25 1995 20:1011
    I believe the U.S. Constitution allows for a "well regulated" militia.
    
    I do not think you can regulate a militia unless you have knowledge of
    its makeup, activities, members, etc.  It would seem to me that the
    founding fathers knew that organized, armed groups would have to be
    monitored.  That is why they spelled out "well regulated" in the
    constitution.  All the talk from the militias about infiltration,
    spying and such by the government is a lot of bull.  The militias
    complain about infringement on their rights, but the constitution
    clearly states that they are to be "REGULATED".
    
393.536MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 20:1616
    RE: .535

    You might want to refer back to a number of documents from
    the period which use the word "regulated" synonymously with
    "equipped" (or in the case of a militia, one might say
    that "equipped" is synonymous with "armed".)

    Ships logs from the period often refer to "regulated" with
    regard to rations and supplies.

    I will also remind you that in present day usage, a well-
    regulated militia could just as well be one that takes
    a dump at the same time every day. Regulation does not
    mean big brother needs to stick his ugly nose in.

    -b
393.537RICKS::TOOHEYTue Apr 25 1995 21:036
    
    In the usage of American English at the time the 2nd Ammendment was
    written, 'regulated' meant 'equipped', 'knowledgeable'.
    
    Paul
    
393.538He almost got away.BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Tue Apr 25 1995 21:1318
    RE: .532  Sean
    
    / So, is anyone really that stupid, or was he actually trying to
    / get himself bagged for some reason?  There could be something
    / to that, I think.
    
    He almost got away, though, remember - he was only 30 minutes from
    being released on bail (for the traffic stuff) when it was stopped
    so he could be questioned by the FBI.
    
    It may not have been unusual for him to drive around without plates
    (as part of his general 'protest', or whatever.)
    
    / Like maybe a few pounds of fertilizer stuffed up his butt that
    / could explode at any time.  [Probably not, but you get the idea.]
    
    Maybe he thought the computer chip in his butt would warn him (sorta
    like a radar detector.)  Who knows?
393.539RICKS::TOOHEYTue Apr 25 1995 21:188
    
    Anybody know if McVeigh is a member of the NRA?
    
    If he is, its only a matter of time before the network media starts
    another smear campaign. With the help of some politicians, of course.
    
    Paul
    
393.54042344::CBHLager LoutTue Apr 25 1995 21:225
>    Anybody know if McVeigh is a member of the NRA?
    
National Rivers Authority?

Chris.
393.541it's those last five yearsSWAM1::MEUSE_DATue Apr 25 1995 21:3012
    
    1965-1970
    1995-2000
    
    I just wonder if we are all in for another rollercoaster ride.
    If you were around back then, you know what I mean.
    Newsreels don't do it justice. It was a bad time. 
    
    Things are getting very strange again.
    
    Dave
    
393.542PCBUOA::KRATZTue Apr 25 1995 21:443
    .539
    Yeah, that was my first thought about McVeigh: one less NRA member.
    
393.543MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue Apr 25 1995 21:466
    > Yeah, that was my first thought about McVeigh: one less NRA member.
    
    Didja ever wonder how many of the victims might have been
    NRA members as well? After all, this was Oklahoma!
    
    -b
393.544Some of you are sheep swallowing militia propagandaDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue Apr 25 1995 21:5312
    I don't have my head up the media's butt; I was referring to
    films from MM meetings.  Kornke's words saying there will another
    Waco over his dead body (as he pounded the lecturn) spoke for
    itself.
    
    Most (not all) of these so-called militias spew hate for one group
    or another.  My reference to the Klan was to point out the today
    the Klan is rather powerless; men who might have gravitated toward
    the Klan in the past, now seem attracted to SOME of these militia
    groups.
    
    
393.545RICKS::TOOHEYTue Apr 25 1995 22:229
    
    RE: .544 ...Most (not all) of these so-called militias spew hate for
             one group or another...
    
    How do you know this? Is this speculation or do you have evidence
    supporting this statement?
    
    Paul
    
393.547SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue Apr 25 1995 23:3416
    
re:                     <<< Note 393.535 by MIMS::SANDERS_J >>>
>                             -< "Well Regulated" >-
>    I believe the U.S. Constitution allows for a "well regulated" militia.
    
    
    	<sigh> I do get tired of explaining this all the time.
    
    	Go to note 21. Read the replies. If'n you'd like, I'll send you
    copies of all the 2nd amendment data I have on hand. Hope you have a
    lot of disk space....:)
    
    	As was explained before, look at the definition of "well regulated"
    during the time of the writing of the bill of rights.
    
    jim
393.548The world keeps gettin' crazier...SWAM1::MERCADO_ELWed Apr 26 1995 02:4219
    I listened to some of the talk radio today here in L.A. and you
    should hear the "hate-mongering" that is being spewed forth against
    anyone who dares to question our government,owns a gun or doubts
    anything about what occured at Waco (to name a few...). The common 
    label applied to anyone who might fall into one of the categories 
    above is "mental patient" among others. 
    
    All I have to say is y'all better be real careful who you share
    your opinions with.  It doesn't take a leap of faith to see where
    someone who has a beef with you could call the Feds and next
    thing you know you're under surveillance for your "anti-government
    sentiments".  (Of course we all know that distrust of any aspect of
    government means you're a potential terrorist .... right?)
    
    I think there must be a blue moon out tonite....I agree with DougO's
    replies and the ACLU........
    
    Elizabeth
    
393.549CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanWed Apr 26 1995 02:508


 "Its a big ol' goofy world"



                          John Prine
393.550LABRYS::CONNELLYKill your televisionWed Apr 26 1995 04:1827
re: .503
    
>>However, Senate leaders promised quick action on a tough bill, and
>    
>    Which means the will skim over it, overlooking any dubious measures
>    hidden within a large text.  They will force it through without due
>    process and study, because they are opportunists who want to have the
>    appearance of "doing something".  
    
Plus they expect to be the ones benefiting from the "tougher" laws in
two years time.  The Republicans plainly think Clinton is dead meat and
that the Republican nomination will be equivalent to the next President.

One of the constant questions on 'alt.conspiracy' is "who benefits from
this?"  (With the implied answer: "not the militias!")  I think the
Republicans could be the big beneficiaries, considering as they now
appear more like the "sensible center" between the paramilitary right
(which openly lumps Dole and Gingrich in with Clinton as "traitors"
and even refers to Rush Limbaugh (!) as a "toady" of the power elite)
and Clinton and his party, which seem fast heading for permanent
minority status like the Whigs.  So they get to "act responsible" (by
rushing through Clinton's request for rights-abridging powers with
the excuse of this bombing) and THEN, two years from now, they get to
be the ones who USE these same powers as they see fit.  Now if that
isn't having your cake and eating it too, i don't know what is!

- paul
393.551MOMENT OF SILENCE IN REMEMBRANCE...TODAYSWAM1::MERCADO_ELWed Apr 26 1995 13:434
    There is a moment of silence scheduled to remember the victims
    of the OKC bombing at 9:02 CDT today.  
    
    -Elizabeth
393.552MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Apr 26 1995 14:1414
    Something just occurred to me... perhaps the "John Doe number II"
    (who's in deep number II if they ever find him), is vapor now.
    Maybe the perps didn't just park the truck and drive away in
    another vehicle. Maybe one of them pulled a Beirut (i.e., they
    were in the vehicle when it exploded).

    Bomb experts have speculated that some people, namely those
    unfortunate enough to be walking on the street when the bomb
    went off, will never be identified as victims... they're
    pretty much rain cloud fodder now. Maybe JDII was one of
    them.

    -b
393.553Anyone see Brokaw's town meeting in Decker?BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralWed Apr 26 1995 14:339
Pretty sad stuff. Militia leaders whould could not articulate any intelligent
position. Towns folk fearing the militia (what did they do to cause fear?),
and a bunch of questions from Brokaw that could have started real conversation
on real issues; an opportunity not taken advantage of.

Pretty sad commentary ...

Doug.
393.554LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 14:338
>    Something just occurred to me... perhaps the "John Doe number II"
>    (who's in deep number II if they ever find him), is vapor now.

No, John Doe II is an undercover BATF agent who was there to ensure
the success of the mission.  He scadaddled after he set McVeigh up
with the unlicensed getaway vehicle.

Patriots unite.  Don your fatigues and fight.  
393.555land of the not-so-freeICS::VERMAWed Apr 26 1995 14:3822
    Re: .548
    
    >All I have to say is y'all better be real careful who you share
    >your opinions with.  It doesn't take a leap of faith to see where
    >someone who has a beef with you could call the Feds and next
    >thing you know you're under surveillance for your "anti-government
    >sentiments".  (Of course we all know that distrust of any aspect of
    >government means you're a potential terrorist .... right?)
   
    >Elizabeth
     
     Last night Barney Frank, Clinton's point man to guide the new
     anti-terrorist legislation thru Congress was asked the very
     question on a local talk show in Boston area. Barney's response 
     was that FBI's proposed anti-terrorist unit with increased
     infiltration powers will not be able to have everyone under 
     suveillance for lack of manpower.

     There you have it. All of us should now feel assured that our 
     rights and freedoms will be safe because FBI does not have enough 
     surveillance manpower.    

393.556LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 14:481
I'm out the door to sign up with the MinutePerson Militia.
393.557MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Wed Apr 26 1995 15:112
    Oh great...let's continue to bastardize the English language.
    
393.558MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Apr 26 1995 15:145
    > I'm out the door to sign up with the MinutePerson Militia.
    
    Cool with us as long as you don't come back until you
    find them...
    
393.559LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 16:385
The only thing that troubles me is where do I find
those cool camouflage fatigues and boots that they
were?  Or are they issued to you when you join up?
And how much beer do you have to drink to get one
of those pot bellies?  
393.560SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 16:399
    
    
    	cool camo can be picked up at the army/navy store, along with the
    boots.
    
    	beer? about a 6pack of green-death and you'll fit right in. ;*)
    
    jim
    
393.562brian was on the mark it seemsSUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 16:3978
FBI says second Oklahoma bomb suspect may be dead


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Reuters

OKLAHOMA CITY (9:14 a.m.) - Federal agents are investigating
whether the second suspect in the deadly Oklahoma City blast was
killed when the two-tonne bomb went off, an official source said on
Wednesday.

"It's an active theory," a law enforcement source told Reuters.
"That is one reason why they are so closely examining pictures
from the area -- he may have got caught by the explosion."

The official death count rose early Wednesday to 93, including 14
children. An estimated 135 people are still missing.

The source said it is routine in bombings to see whether the bomber
was killed in a blast, but said in this case, "unidentifiable body parts
and heavy damage all around the area has made it more difficult to
be certain."

Only one person -- Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh -- has
been directly charged in the blast, which exploded last Wednesday,
almost demolishing a nine-floor federal building.

A surveillance camera's tape -- damaged by last Wednesday's
blast -- is being scrutinised because it may show the truck that
carried the bomb and the suspects.

The source said publicity about a second suspect has been so
intense it would be very difficult for the man to move around in
public.

Federal authorities issued a new sketch of the dark-haired,
tattooed man on Tuesday, this time showing him in a baseball cap.

"Either he doesn't know anybody or he's dead, is what some of the
guys are speculating," said the source.

McVeigh, 27, was being held in a maximum security prison on the
outskirts of Oklahoma City.

Several media reports on Wednesday said investigators found
traces of ammonium nitrate, an ingredient of fertiliser, on
McVeigh's clothing and in his car. Experts believe the bomb was
made primarily of fertiliser and fuel oil.

McVeigh was listed on Tuesday as a co-conspirator in federal
charges filed in Michigan against farming brothers James and Terry
Nichols.

The charges were not linked to the Oklahoma bomb.

James Nichols, 41, and Terry Nichols, 40, are reported to have ties
to the Michigan Militia, a paramilitary group which is part of a
pro-gun, anti-government movement operating in several states.

An FBI affidavit released with the charges alleged that McVeigh
and the Nichols brothers experimented with making bombs. It said
James Nichols held extreme, right-wing views and despised the
U.S. government.

CNN reported that McVeigh, a former soldier, was refusing to
speak to authorities, claiming he was a political prisoner. It said
McVeigh would give only his name, rank and Army serial number
-- the information a prisoner of war gives his captors.

High winds slowed the search for the missing people who may have
been trapped inside the Alfred Murrah federal building when the
bomb exploded.

Several times workers were told to clear the area because winds
were whipping loose debris from upper floors down onto people
digging through a 300-ton pile of debris on the ground in front of the
shell of the building. 
393.563"wear"...SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Apr 26 1995 16:4011
    
    
re: .559
    
        
    You can find them most anytime at any flea market or Army surplus
    store..
    
     You'll have to work on the pot belly yourself... beer won't do it
    all..
    
393.564SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 16:4698
Bombers thought militias to be too tame 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram 

They may harbor the same rabid hatred for government, but those
behind the Oklahoma City bombing might have found the militia
movement too tame and decided to take action on their own,
according to people who track extremist groups.

Terry and James Nichols, two brothers detained as material
witnesses in connection with the April 19 explosion, spoke at
Michigan Militia meetings but were removed because of their
"anarchist rhetoric," the militia's state commander, the Rev. Norm
Olson, said. The brothers were charged Tuesday in Michigan with
conspiring to make explosives.

"They may have gone to several meetings and decided the militia
wasn't radical enough or they might have been active somewhere
else," said Mark Briskman, the Dallas-based representative of the
Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith.

There have been other radical movements for years, all generally
claiming strict adherence to the Constitution. But the "unorganized"
militia movement launched with formation of the Michigan Militia in
April 1994 has spread to 20 states, said Briskman, whose
organization released an in-depth study of the militia movement in
October.

Ralph Turner, 57, the Denison-based spokesman for the Texas
Constitutional Militia, said militias of one sort or another are active
in all 50 states with "20 million people attending meetings."

The figure could not be corroborated, and outside experts said it
was highly exaggerated.

The downside of the movement's rapid growth during the past year,
Turner said, is "that you are going to have a lot of loose cannons.
The odds would suggest it."

But anyone espousing racism or violence cannot join the militias,
Turner said.

"We have barred more than one person from coming to militia
meetings, and have told them they cannot say they are a part of the
militia movement," he added. "That's not to say there aren't some
splinter groups that hold those views."

Just how radical are the militias?

John George, 59, a political scientist at the University of Central
Oklahoma at Edmund, said the movement is a relatively new
phenomenon whose followers -- unlike the Ku Klux Klan and the
white supremacist Aryan Nation -- "don't have a single set of
right-wing ideologies."

"The militias have people who don't have any ideologies at all --
people worried about having their guns taken away from them," said
George, co-author of the 1992 book, "Nazis, Communists,
Klansmen and others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in
America."

"They will have a few libertarians who don't trust anybody anyway,
a few right-wing anarchists who just want to be left alone. And
then of course, this kind of group is going to attract the right-wing
Christian nationalist, like the Aryan Nation or Aryan Resistance
types, the intense white racial nationalists."

The Oklahoma scholar said as many as one-fourth of militia
members could be considered racial nationalists.

George suggested that those responsible for the Oklahoma City
bombing might have touched base with militia units that share a
general far-right fear that federal agencies plan to seize personal
weapons and that the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidians was
"proof" of that. But they might have found the militia's defensive
posture not to their liking, he said.

A federal affidavit filed Tuesday in Milan, Mich., said Daniel
Stomber, a Michigan acquaintance of James Nichols, heard Nichols
saying " 'judges and President Clinton should be killed,' and that he
blamed the FBI and the ATF for killing the Branch Davidians in
Waco," according to The Associated Press.

The racist segment of the right-wing has shrunk since the early
1920s when the Klan attracted 2 million members out of the
nation's 100 million population, George said. Today, in a nation of
260 million, he said there are fewer than 5,000 Klansmen. Other
armed right-wing extremists number fewer than 10,000, he said.

But he warned, "It doesn't take many to set off a bomb.

"In these groups, very few people would do this act that this man
(Timothy) McVeigh is accused of doing," George said.


393.565NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Apr 26 1995 16:475
re .562:

What's the News & Observer Publishing Co.?  The article spells ton both
the British and U.S. ways.  It also uses the British spellings "scrutinised"
and "fertiliser."
393.566SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 16:507
     re: .565
    
    	don't know who they are. they have a web site at
    http://www.nando.net and post these articles....
    
    
    jim
393.567SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 17:00139
Agencies disagree on new measures to counter
terrorism 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times 

WASHINGTON -- Sharp differences between the Justice
Department and the Treasury Department are hampering the
Clinton administration's campaign for broad new powers to
investigate and monitor organizations suspected of plotting terrorist
attacks, law-enforcement officials said Tuesday.

The administration is scrambling to flesh out its proposals in time
for a Thursday hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Administration officials said Tuesday that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and its parent agency, the Justice Department,
wanted new authority to monitor, investigate and infiltrate groups
suspected of planning terrorist attacks. But they said that the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and its parent agency, the
Treasury Department, saw less need for new powers and believed
that their existing authority was adequate.

On Sunday in Oklahoma City, President Clinton condemned the
bombing of a federal office building there and said he would seek
broad new powers to combat terrorism. Although civil liberties
groups said they feared a return to government abuses like the
harassment of Vietnam War protesters in the 1960s, members of
Congress said there was widespread support for such changes on
Capitol Hill, where lawmakers appear eager to move quickly.

Clinton gave few details of his proposal, leaving law-enforcement
officials to work out specific recommendations.

Differences between the FBI and the firearms bureau have
surfaced in the last two days as officials from various federal
law-enforcement agencies have tried to develop an official position
on legislative proposals.

The rift mirrors disagreements that have often split the FBI and the
firearms bureau in the last decade.

Stephen E. Higgins, who worked at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms for 32 years and was director from 1982 to October
1993, said: "From an institutional standpoint, the bureau felt that
not much needed to be changed in the existing rules. Those rules
provide protections that innocent people needed and did not hamper
law enforcement that much."

Higgins said the firearms bureau "was not a strong proponent of
making wholesale changes in the rules for gathering intelligence or
conducting criminal investigations."

Whenever the Bush administration tried to draft a comprehensive
crime bill, he said, "there was always some difference of opinion
between the Justice Department and the Treasury Department on
how much change was necessary." The Justice Department, with
much broader law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering
responsibilities, "always wanted to go somewhat further" than the
firearms bureau, he said.

Higgins was director of the firearms bureau in February 1993 when
four of its agents were killed trying to carry out search and arrest
warrants at the compound of a religious sect, the Branch Davidians,
near Waco, Texas. The compound burned to the ground and more
than 70 of its residents died when FBI agents stormed the site after
a 51-day standoff. Higgins retired early, in part because he
disagreed with Treasury officials who said he had not adequately
supervised the February raid.

A law-enforcement official at the Treasury Department who works
closely with the firearms agency said Tuesday, "We need more
manpower and resources, but we are not seeking more authority."

That official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said
there was "a tremendous potential for abuse" in some of the recent
FBI proposals to relax the standards for investigating suspected
terrorists.

FBI officials have long expressed frustration with the current
guidelines, particularly the requirement that there be some
indication of criminal activity before the government can open an
investigation. Oliver B. Revell, a former top official of the FBI, said
this week: "That means you have to wait until you have blood on the
street before the bureau can act. You can't prevent what you don't
know about, and you can't know about a group if you can't
investigate until after they have committed an act of terrorism."

Carl Stern, the Justice Department spokesman, said Tuesday that
there was vigorous discussion among administration officials
preparing the president's counterterrorism package. But he said he
was unaware of any serious divisions between the Treasury and the
Justice Department. "If they weren't arguing, they wouldn't be
doing their job," he said.

James X. Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for National
Security Studies, a civil liberties organization, said Tuesday: "The
FBI is both an intelligence agency and a law-enforcement agency.
Sometimes the monitoring mentality of the intelligence side infects
the law-enforcement side of the house." By contrast, he said, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has "a more clearly
defined goal, to go out and arrest people violating firearms or
explosives laws."

Likewise, James O. Pasco, who worked at the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms from 1970 to January of this year, said: "The
ATF differs philosophically with the FBI. The agencies have
dramatically different personalities, approaches and missions." At
the same time, he said, they respect each other and often work
together.

Federal guidelines for investigating threats to domestic security
were adopted in 1976 by Edward H. Levi, who was then attorney
general. The rules were revised and reissued in 1983 by another
attorney general, William French Smith.

The rules say, "A domestic security/terrorism investigation may be
initiated when the facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that
two or more persons are engaged in an enterprise for the purpose of
furthering political or social goals wholly or in part through
activities that involve force or violence and a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States."

FBI officials and former officials said the guidelines had been a
source of constant frustration.

But Higgins said that he and his colleagues at the firearms bureau
had been able to live within the constraints of the attorney
general's guidelines. Violations of federal gun laws often precede
terrorist activity, they noted.

"In the Branch Davidian case," Higgins said, "we gathered a lot of
information about illegal activities, though we did not have a tap on
the phones or surveillance devices inside the compound when our
agents tried to serve warrants" on Feb. 28, 1993.


393.568LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 17:007
There's so much to learn, a whole new vernacular.
Like, what's this six pack of green-death?   Sounds
cool, but what does it mean?  

When interviewing with the militia, should one be 
very serious and intense?  And carry oneself in a 
military fashion?   
393.569SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Apr 26 1995 17:047
    
    
    Maybe the thing to do is learn more about what a true "militia" is and
    what it does, rather than approach it from ignorance... although I
    suspect there's more chain yanking to your replies than anything
    else...
    
393.570SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 17:0617
    
    
>There's so much to learn, a whole new vernacular.
>Like, what's this six pack of green-death?   Sounds
>cool, but what does it mean?  
    
    	Heffenreffer beer.....12% alcohol. a 6 pack of those and you'll see
    st. peter.
    
>When interviewing with the militia, should one be 
>very serious and intense?  And carry oneself in a 
>military fashion?   
    
    	Tell them you once worked for the BATF...that'll win you some
    friends right off the bat.
    
    
393.571LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 17:097
How do I find out what a true militia is?
Are there books on the subject?  I must 
confess, I don't know anyone who is a member.
(At least I don't _think_ I do.)

And I still don't know what a six pack of
green-death is. :-(
393.572SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Apr 26 1995 17:105
    
    >And I still don't know what a six pack of green-death is. :-(
    
    Mountain Dew???
    
393.573LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 17:121
Heffereefer...thanks!
393.574SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 17:266
    
    
    	I think I have some web-sites of militia's on the net (I'm not a
    member). I'll try and post them...
    
    
393.575SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed Apr 26 1995 17:26148
McVeigh, Nichols brothers said to use farm for
bomb-making school 


(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

New York Times 

DECKER, Mich. -- The FBI, charging James and Terry Nichols of
conspiring to make bombs, said Tuesday that the brothers and
Oklahoma bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh used the Nichols'
farm here as a test site to learn about explosives.

Although the new charges do not accuse the Nichols brothers of a
role in last Wednesday's bombing of the federal building in
Oklahoma City, FBI affidavits supporting the new accusations
place the Nichols closer to the bomb-making expertise that
McVeigh is accused of in connection with the Oklahoma City
disaster.

According to the new charges, James Nichols told FBI
investigators he had seen his brother and McVeigh make and
explode "bottle bombs" in 1992 at the family's 160-acre farm here
in the flat fertile grain-growing region known as Michigan's
"Thumb."

They used "brake fluid, gasoline and diesel fuel," according to an
FBI affidavit filed with the federal complaint.

James Nichols also said he participated with the two men in making
bottle bombs and, in 1994, that he had made "small explosive
devices using prescription vials, pyrodex, blasting caps and safety
fuse."

Daniel Stomber, who lives near the Nichols farm, told investigators
that he saw the brothers several times "mix fertilizer, peroxide and
bleach in plastic pop bottles and detonate them around the Nichols
farm," the document says.

Stomber recalled James Nichols saying, "We're getting better at
it," referring to the bombmaking.

Paul Isydorek, another neighbor, told investigators that James
Nichols often experimented with common household materials "to
determine what type of explosive value they had," and that Terry
Nichols and McVeigh also took part in the experiments.

The affidavit says investigators found 28 50-pound bags of
fertilizer containing ammonium nitrate and a 55-gallon drum
containing fuel oil at the farm. Similar substances were used to
make the Oklahoma City bomb, but such materials are also not
unusual on Midwestern farms.

The Nichols brothers were not charged with bombing the Oklahoma
City federal building last Wednesday, a crime that only McVeigh
has been accused of.

Before the new charges against them, James Nichols, 41, was
being held in Michigan as a material witness to the Oklahoma City
bombing and his brother Terry, 40, was being held in Kansas on a
similar charge.

When they weren't allegedly experimenting with explosives, the
Nichols brothers vented their hatred of the federal government in
dramatic gestures.

In 1992, for example, James renounced his U.S. citizenship. A year
later, he challenged a traffic ticket on the basis that the
Constitution guaranteed him the right to travel without a driver's
license.

Terry Nichols returned his voter registration card in August 1992,
writing to an Evergreen Township, Mich., clerk: "My status is that
of a non-resident alien, non-foreigner, stranger to the current state
of the forum."

Such renunciations have no legal effect.

While James is a familiar figure to people in this small community in
Michigan's Thumb, where grazing cows and horses share the
landscape with scattered satellite TV dishes, neighbors say Terry
is quieter and harder to get to know.

Philip Morawski, a rural Methodist chaplain whose farm is 2 1/2
miles down the road from the Nichols' farm said: "James is more or
less ... all out in front of you."

By contrast, Terry is "a very complicated person in that you
couldn't get too close to him," Morawski said.

Both men were high school athletes in Lapeer, another Thumb
community. The first marriages of both brothers ended in divorce.
Both were known by their neighbors to hold strong anti-government
views. And now, both are at the center of a national investigation.

McVeigh, 27, listed the Nichols' farm -- where a nearby road sign
warns of horse and buggy traffic -- as his home on his Michigan
driver's license. He also listed James Nichols as his next of kin
when he was arrested.

Federal authorities spent four days at the property, combing through
the two-story farmhouse, barn and silo, as well as some sheds and
fields. Agents carried boxes and packages away from the scene.

According to the affidavit, agents also discovered large quantities
of 35 percent solution of hydrogen peroxide, a 1/2 pint of aluminum
powder, and fuel tanks that appeared to contain diesel fuel.

"All of these materials can be used as ingredients in improvised
explosives," the document says.

In addition, agents found non-electric blasting caps, pyrodex -- or
black powder -- and safety fuse inside the farmhouse, and
"jagged-edged metal fragments, which appear to be shrapnel from
the detonation of explosive devices" in a field, according to the
affidavit.

While James Nichols remains in federal custody, Morawski said he
is trying to round up a group of neighbors to work on his farm.

7/8 7/8"He should be planting oats now," he said. The Nichols'
parents divorced in the 1970s and the two brothers moved here in
1975, when their mother, Joyce, bought the farm.

Nichols has been described as an organic farmer, but Morawski
called him a "transitional farmer, moving from a chemical farm to an
organic farm."

Stomber, the neighbor quoted in the FBI affidavit, previously told
the Huron Daily Tribune, the main newspaper in the Upper Thumb
area, that James did some weird things.

"The guy takes baths in peroxide. The guy has an ozone machine in
his house," Stomber said. "You walk into that house and you think,
'God, that house reeks."'

Stomber, who had a falling out with the Nichols brothers recently,
said he had heard James say that "(President) Clinton needs to be
dead."

Morawski denied that James had said that.

"It's not true that he wanted to kill the president," Morawski said.
But, he said, Nichols did tell friends that anyone who "surrenders
the sovereignty of the United States" to the United Nations,
including the president, should be killed.


393.576May I See Your Papers...CANON::HARTWed Apr 26 1995 17:2710
   RE: 393.567

 >FBI officials have long expressed frustration with the current
 >guidelines, particularly the requirement that there be some
 >indication of criminal activity before the government can open an
 >investigation.

    So, this is the mindset we are dealing with?...Incredible!

                                                Bob H.
393.577NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Apr 26 1995 17:347
>Nichols has been described as an organic farmer, but Morawski
>called him a "transitional farmer, moving from a chemical farm to an
>organic farm."

Aha!  He was just looking for a way to use up that leftover fertilizer!
I guess his supplier had a no-return policy.  Either that or he lost
his receipt.
393.578LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Apr 26 1995 17:495
Re: 575

>"The guy takes baths in peroxide.

This isn't required is it?  Can you substitute with green-death?
393.580CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenWed Apr 26 1995 17:565
    >>  Right.  The FBI tells us that maybe they can't find John Dough cause
    >>  he blew himself up.
         
    
    John Dough?  Any relation to Pillsbury Dough?
393.581MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Apr 26 1995 17:573
    
    What does John Dough use to blow himself up? Yeast?
    
393.582SHRCTR::DAVISWed Apr 26 1995 19:4880
      <<< Note 393.473 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

I hate to interrupt this love-in for DougO, but... 
 
>   .399 was a dodge.  Suzanne, Paul asked you your opinion of Waco, twice,  
>    not because he "doesn't see a difference" between Waco and the OKC  
>    bombings (what a rude thing to suggest of one of your peers) but 
>    because he wants to know if you recognize what many people see as a 
>    legitimate concern with police-state tactics used against American 
>    citizens.  Acknowledging FBI and BATF errors in that assault in Waco  
>    does not require one to attempt to justify the OKC bombing.  There is 
>    nothing sinister in the question- just answer it. 
 
Suzanne wasn't a dodging anything. And there *is* something sinister in the
question. He refered to "state terrorism" versus "civilian terrorism" which
sounds like apples-to-apples to me. It shows a disturbing lack of
proportion and a bizarre preoccupation with government conspiracy. In the
box it's relatively harmless, but when it's embraced by a sociopathic mind,
it's lethal. What Paul and others are saying (or at least implying) is
"While I deplore the act, I agree with the rationale." I (and I guess
Suzanne) have a problem with that - as do most Americans, I reckon. 
 
>    One of the most interesting aspects of the bombing that I see now is 
>    that the media has been forced to bring up Waco and the Weaver cases. 
>    They had been buried, reported on back pages at best, in recent months. 
>    Weaver in particular hasn't been on the front page in over a year, even 
>    though the report indicating possible criminal indictments was only 
>    handed down late last year.  It was tucked into an internal news 
>    summaries column in my paper- effectively buried. 
>     
>    I think that the attempted burial of those stories is one of the 
>    reasons people are so polarized in the aftermath of this bombing. 
>    Had the newsmedia been doing their job of reporting and keeping the 
>    heat on for this abuse of power, and the resultant pressure forced the 
>    administration to curb the BATF gestapo as so many responsible people 
>    urged them to do, a couple of fruitcakes wouldn't have blown up their 
>    bomb.  There are an amazingly large number of people who think that 
>    officials of the US government are responsible for criminal acts in 
>    those cases; and just like Watergate, trying to bury the story is just 
>    not going to work.  I don't say this to "justify" any bombings, as some 
>    of the wilder accusations in this forum might suggest.  I say this to 
>    hopefully avoid more such incidents. 
 
Et tu DougO? Media/government conspiracy? I expect better from you. 

Has it ever occurred to you that most folks don't view the occasional
skirmish between a government agency and those who appear to be fringe
wackos as being central to their daily lives. Only the chronically paranoid
and 2nd amendment obsessive see Waco and Weaver as cosmic symbols of a
secret war, right up there in historic importance with "the shot heard
'round the world." There is no grand conspiracy to strip us of our rights.
While evidence exists of criminal acts by individuals within ATF, there is
no evidence of an agency gone wild. "Gestapo tactics" is the kind of
transparent hyperbole that discredits what might well be some legitimate
complaints. Proportion. 
 
What gun advocates who toe the no-regulation line don't seem to grasp is
that most Americans - most people - hate guns. *Hate* them. From their
sweet oiled-metal smell, to the shockingly loud explosion when they fire,
to the violent kick they give to your hand or shoulder, to the death or
injury they can deliver before the shot is even heard, people who aren't
used to using a firearm (and that's most folk) are scared sh*tless of them.
Still, only the few nuts on the other extreme of the spectrum would want to
deprive their fellow citizens of their right to own guns for sport and self
protection. Where you loose sympathy is when you include exotic weapons of
war under the 2nd amendment banner. To most, the difference between a deer
rifle and an "assault" rifle is like the difference between sex in marriage
and an orgy. Pointing to a raid on Plato's Retreat as a threat to your
right to marital bliss is going to seem mighty paranoid. 
 
Waco and Weaver aren't Watergate. What happened in those instances is far
worse on a human scale and far less on a political scale. If Watergate
involved operatives for Senator Helms against his latest opponent, it never
would've made more than a one-shot sidebar in the national press. 
 
Of course the Feds are going to try to sweep the whole issue under the
carpet. It's an embarrassment. I'm not justifying it, I'm just pointing out
the obvious impulse of self-protection. It's far from evidence of
systematic abuse of power, let alone a collusion in that abuse by the
media. 
393.583re: .582CSOA1::LEECHWed Apr 26 1995 21:0125
    ...and you'll still be prattling this line of bull off as you are
    asking Big Brother for permission to go pee.
    
    Now, sarcasm aside for a moment, let's assume that there is no
    *conscious* plot to do away with the BoR by the government.  This still
    does not mean that the BoR is NOT being slowly dismantled for whatever
    reason.  The end result is the same.
    
    It is up to us to make sure that the government stays within its
    constitutional powers, else it is our freedoms that will be lost-
    whether said loss is intentional or accidental.
    
    To fight the ever-intrusiveness of the federal government is not being
    anti-government, it is being pro-individual rights.  A Big Brotherish
    government cannot coexist with personal freedoms.  
    
    I don't care how its spun, the BoR is under attack.  I don't care
    whether it is intentionally under attack via some government or NWO
    conspiratorial plot, or whether it is an evolution of a too-bloated
    federal government, or whether it is by accident.  The end result of
    ignoring/suspending/tampering with the Constitution is the same in any
    case.
    
    
    -steve
393.584STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityWed Apr 26 1995 21:1747
                      <<< Note 393.582 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>

> Has it ever occurred to you that most folks don't view the occasional
> skirmish between a government agency and those who appear to be fringe
> wackos as being central to their daily lives. Only the chronically paranoid
> and 2nd amendment obsessive see Waco and Weaver as cosmic symbols of a
> secret war, right up there in historic importance with "the shot heard
> 'round the world." There is no grand conspiracy to strip us of our rights.
> While evidence exists of criminal acts by individuals within ATF, there is
> no evidence of an agency gone wild. "Gestapo tactics" is the kind of
> transparent hyperbole that discredits what might well be some legitimate
> complaints. Proportion. 

I believe that those in the majority should pay more attention to the
"occasional skirmish".  When our government begins to display a reckless 
disregard for its citizens, these incidents have a way of showing up at
our door.  For example, the DEA has a history of breaking down doors hard
and fast.  For several years now we've seen terrible "mistakes" that have 
ended in innocent people being killed.

James Bovard wrote this for the Wall Street Journal (January 10, 1995):

   The Weaver case is by far the most important 
   civil-rights/civil-liberties case the Clinton administration has 
   yet resolved -- and it resolved it in favor of granting unlimited
   deadly power to federal agents.  If the new Republican congressional 
   leaders let the Justice Department and the FBI get away with what may
   have been murder, they will be accomplices to a gross travesty of justice.

You and I have very little control over the way that Federal agencies 
carry out their duties and use deadly force.  Your local and state police
departments have separate departments to look into every complaint and
every incident where an officer had to use their firearm.  Many of these
groups have ordinary citizens on the panel or as observers.  The Federal
Governement has ad-hoc investigations by the Justice Department, and in
the Weaver case, it was a whitewash.
 

> What gun advocates who toe the no-regulation line don't seem to grasp is
> that most Americans - most people - hate guns. *Hate* them. 

Really?  Where does this number come from?

The last survey I saw was by the Justice Department.  I believe it was 1991.
The results were that 47% of the households in the country had a firearm.
I find it a little that this has changed much.  If recent increases in gun
sales are any indication, the number may be up slightly.
393.585bomb,maybe right down the hall.SWAM1::MEUSE_DAWed Apr 26 1995 21:3018
    
    
    The building I work at (customer site)is the same building that 
    houses Packard Bell Hdgtrs. The president of the company received
    a package with no return address/ unmarked. Sitting in hallway.
    
    So the entire complex was evacuated.
    
    Entire complex surrounded by police. People running out the 
    entrances. Bomb squad on it's way. Three to four hours estimated
    time to resolve.
    
    so here I am at home.
    
    
    Wonder if this will become a regular thing for many.
    
    Dave
393.586STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityWed Apr 26 1995 21:3133
                      <<< Note 393.583 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
                                 -< re: .582 >-

    Steve,

    I, too, think that the Bill of Rights is under attack.

    First Amendment:
	- HUD threatens people who organize petition drives against HUD
	  projects under the Fair Housing Act.
	- Proposed EEOC guidelines concerning religious material at the 
	  workplace.
	- Janet Reno's testimony before Congress where she explains that
	  the Justice Department is considering "regulation" of TV if the
	  violence isn't toned down.
	- Civil disobedience is allowed, except at abortion clinics

    Second Amendment:
	- Assault weapons ban
	- Proposals for universal licensing

    Fourth Amendment:
	- Warrantless searches

    Tenth Amendment:
	- Brady Bill (state and local governement required to act to 
	  support a Federal program)

    What about the right to privacy?  We have the Clipper Chip proposal.
    When Clinton was running for office, he suggested "smart cards" for
    all citizens.  We've seen Justice Department proposals to make it
    easier for Federal agencies to monitor telephone communications and
    a proposal for the FBI to monitor credit card and banking transactions.
393.587MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Wed Apr 26 1995 22:557
re: .585, Dave

Hmmm. That could very well be the laptop that a friend of mine recently
got fed up with . . . 

:^)

393.588SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Apr 27 1995 00:1849
    > Suzanne wasn't a dodging anything.
    
    She never did answer the direct question, it looks dodged to me.
    
    > And there *is* something sinister in the question.
    
    Asking people what their opinion is on the matter of whether the fedgov
    was acting properly when it burnt the Waco compound to the ground is
    sinister?  Are we no longer allowed to have thoughts on the possible
    impropriety of fedgov action, or to discuss the possibility?  That was
    the question, and I refuse to see it as sinister.  
    
    > What Paul and others are saying (or at least implying) is "While I
    > deplore the act, I agree with the rationale." 
    
    Nonsense.  What they are saying is that buried fedgov sh*t still
    stinks.  It doesn't justify murder.  But the hypothesis I articulated
    and that many people here seem to have endorsed is that it apparently
    leads (some sociopaths) to commit unjustified murder all the same. 
    Deal with it, Dorothy.  Quit arguing against us as though we're saying
    that either set of murders were 'justified' - we aren't.  We're saying
    neither were.  Hold BOTH sets of murderers accountable.  Or the fringe
    elements will return what you call 'civilian terror' for what they see
    as 'state terror'.  Us informed spectators would prefer that *all* the
    villains get punished and the killings stop NOW.
    
    Those of you who'd prefer not to face the fact that the nature of
    government is to attempt to accumulate more power, who'd prefer to
    think that two hundred years of history of freedom guarantees it in
    perpetuity, who prefer to ignore the evidence of fedgov arrogance in
    the killings at Waco, would also prefer to think that the appropriate
    response to incidents of domestic terror such as this bombing is to
    cede yet more power to federal government police agencies.  You risk
    making it worse.  Unfortunately, as any engineer will tell you, if you
    haven't understood the problem, your solution won't address it.  And I
    think that you simply haven't understood the problem.
    
    I don't think it takes a conspiracy, Tom- only disbelief.  You'd prefer
    not to believe it, so would the media.  Unfortunately, I can't
    disbeleive it any more.  Maybe its living in California- DEA
    helicopters buzz rural towns around here.  INS agents raid sweatshops.
    LA cops beat speeding motorists who happen to be the wrong color.  LA
    County Sherriff's Deputies conduct phony drug raids to confiscate
    choice ranches, killing their owners.   And BATF and FBI agents are
    evidently licensed to kill with impunity.  And that's just the ones
    that we hear about.  You go ahead and disbelieve.  After all, the media
    isn't telling you any different.
    
    DougO
393.589WDFFS2::SHOOKthe river is mineThu Apr 27 1995 00:3314
    
    well, it's good to see slick back to normal, after keeping a low
    profile for months in order to get his approval up in the polls.
    he told us last year that teevee was the cause of violence
    in america; now he says talk radio is the culprit.  also, he's
    calling for broad federal powers to infiltrate groups like the
    michigan militia, even though it is clear that the bombing suspects
    were not allowed to become members, and reporters had no trouble
    whatsoever finding out everything they wanted to know about them
    just by asking around.  
    
    time to get moving on the whitewater hearings.
    
    bill
393.590"Gun Control is not Crime Control"SWAM1::MERCADO_ELThu Apr 27 1995 02:2697
Some interesting factoids for all those who think that a citizenry
    without guns will wipe out crime.
    
    -Elizabeth
    
    
 
Heritage News Forum
From Heritage Features Syndicate
Washington, D.C.

GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL
By Edwin Feulner
         
     Which is a policeman more likely to encounter as he
patrols the streets of your neighborhood: a vicious criminal
with an assault rifle or an escaped tiger from the local
zoo?  The answer may prompt you to buy some safari gear. 
     You will find it in "Guns, Crime and Freedom," an
important new book by Wayne LaPierre, head of the National
Rifle Association.  His book is full of facts gun-control
advocates don't want you to know. 
     For example, he tells of the New Jersey deputy police
chief who explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee in
1993 that "assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming
.026 of one percent of crimes in New Jersey.  This means
that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped
tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle
in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
     So why do the gun-control advocates keep telling us
that banning assault weapons will stop the crime wave that
has millions of Americans afraid to leave their homes at
night? For the same reason they want to keep law-abiding
citizens from obtaining other types of firearms.
     LaPierre shows that stopping crime is not what the
gun-control crowd in Washington is really after.  He says
the Brady bill--which required a nationwide seven-day
waiting period for firearms purchases--was just the first
step toward completely taking away your right to defend
yourself and your family--even though the Constitution
guarantees you that right.
     "Immediately after passage of the Brady bill,
gun-control proponents moved to continue their assault on
the rights of law-abiding gun owners.  Brady Bill II
contains four more steps in the march to disarm the American
people: firearms registration, licensing, gun bans and taxes
on firearms and ammunition," LaPierre notes.
     None of these newest gun-control proposals will reduce
crime.  But they will embolden criminals to commit more
assaults against innocent victims.  Instead of taking guns
away from law-abiding citizens with measures like the Brady
bill, the government ought to be protecting our right to
protect ourselves.
     The deterrent effect of gun ownership is beyond
dispute.  LaPierre cites research by nationally recognized
criminologist Gary Kleck showing as many as 2.5 million crimes
are prevented each year by armed citizens who usually don't
have to fire a shot.  Criminals fear being shot and they
avoid situations they believe might expose them to such
dangers.
     But the gun-control fanatics aren't nearly as concerned
about gun-toting rapists, robbers and murderers as they are
about people like Randy Weaver and David Koresh.  Weaver's
wife and young son were shot and killed in a 1992 assault at
Ruby Ridge, Idaho, by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (BATF) agents.  Weaver's crime: allegedly selling
two shotguns whose barrels were a quarter of an inch shorter
than allowed by federal law.
     A few months later, Koresh died with 84 Branch Davidian
followers in Waco, Texas, in one of the most disgusting
government-led debacles ever televised worldwide by the
Cable News Network.  In both cases, BATF said it was
searching for illegal weapons.
     Weaver was a white separatist, while Koresh was a cult
leader.  But even if you don't agree with their views, as I
certainly don't, you have to wonder who will be next and
why.  Wouldn't BATF be better utilized fighting drug dealers
and gangs that terrorize schools and neighborhoods?
     Meanwhile, America's crime wave surges: A murder is
committed every 21 minutes, a woman is raped every five
minutes, a citizen is robbed every 46 seconds and a home is
burglarized every five seconds.  And gun-control advocates
want to disarm the victims!

------------------------------------------------------------
     Note: Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage
Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research
institute.

March 16, 1995
                
                Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-934-2121)
                A service of the 
                National Rifle Association 
                Institute for Legislative Action
                Fairfax, VA 22030
 
393.592DELNI::SHOOKFowl Play Suspected in Hen House DeathThu Apr 27 1995 07:5513
    
    tom brokaw last night interviewed wayne lapierre of the NRA and implied
    that the NRA supports militias because they oppose the BATF. wayne
    answered it well and avoided that trap.
    
    now, the person who claims to be the una-bomber has told the new york    
    times that he is against people who are in technology or who threaten
    the environment. anyone want to place bets on the media investigating
    to see if there is a "conspiracy" involving the sierra club??
    
    don't hold your breath.
    
      
393.593WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Apr 27 1995 10:2913
    .505 then why didn't you say what you meant. gee, what a stretch for
    to define your statement "response" with punishment without you
    defining "response"... please forgive the leap, right... 
    
    there are tons of lemmings in here. countless randomly wandering
    pseudo-politicos sifting through every little thing to twist and
    mangle it into a BC or gov't bashing session. Are you so blind that
    you don't see this? 
    
    I won't even discuss the gov't conspiracy implication in this topic.
    it's just really too abstract. join the Michigan Militia...
    
    Chip 
393.594WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceThu Apr 27 1995 11:4571
    >I hate to interrupt this love-in for DougO, but...
    
     I'm getting a strong reading from my insincerity meter, captain.
    
    >Et tu DougO? Media/government conspiracy? I expect better from you.
    
     Yeah, they're all looking out for "we the peoples'" best interest.
    Ho ho! 
    
    >Only the chronically paranoid and 2nd amendment obsessive see Waco 
    >and Weaver as cosmic symbols of a secret war
    
     Only the morally obtuse, blissfully ignorant and government toadies
    fail to see the Waco and Ruby Ridge episodes as evidence of a problem.
    
    >There is no grand conspiracy to strip us of our rights.
    
     How immensely naive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
    that the government is working to make life easier on itself by
    systematically eliminating the freedoms that prevent them from
    enforcing all manner of prescribed behaviors.
    
    >While evidence exists of criminal acts by individuals within ATF, there
    >is no evidence of an agency gone wild.
    
     Cute. And you downplay the evidence that exists "it's just a few rogue
    officers" and remain silent when internal investigations absolve all of
    criminal responsibility, presumably justifying the government's
    criminal actions by the mitigation of "well they were bad people
    anyway."
    
    >What gun advocates who toe the no-regulation line don't seem to grasp
    >is that most Americans - most people - hate guns.
    
     I sense just a teensy bit of projection here. Since when were you
    appointed the spokesman for "most people"? Since more than 50% of
    households have at least one gun in them, one must wonder how you
    arrived at your conclusion.
    
    >most folk) are scared sh*tless of them.
    
     More projection. This explains your attitude, perfectly.
    
    >Where you loose sympathy is when you include exotic weapons of
    >war under the 2nd amendment banner. 
    
     That's "lose." Besides, the 2nd amendment is about weapons of war;
    read the Miller opinion (I think that's the one) where a law outlawing
    the possession of a sawed off shotgun was allowed to stand because
    nobody provided any evidence that such a weapon is used for military
    purposes. (I'm sure someone with ready access to the opinion will
    provide the full citation.)
    
    >To most, the difference between a deer
    >rifle and an "assault" rifle is like the difference between sex in
    >marriage and an orgy.
    
     In fact, it's the difference between a martial arts expert in a three
    piece suit and one in ninja black. The difference is primarily
    cosmetic. My deer rifle is a semiauto. My shotgun is a semi auto. Both
    are perfectly legitimate and perfectly legal. And extremely powerful.
    more powerful than a plurality of the "assault weapons" banned by the
    congress of cowards.
    
    >Of course the Feds are going to try to sweep the whole issue under the
    >carpet. It's an embarrassment. I'm not justifying it,
    
     Just aiding and abetting. Your downplay of these events assists the
    Feds in "sweeping the whole issue under the carpet."
    
    
393.595SHRCTR::DAVISThu Apr 27 1995 13:2787
      <<< Note 393.588 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Asking people what their opinion is on the matter of whether the fedgov
>    was acting properly when it burnt the Waco compound to the ground is
>    sinister?  Are we no longer allowed to have thoughts on the possible
>    impropriety of fedgov action, or to discuss the possibility?  That was
>    the question, and I refuse to see it as sinister.  

No one's suggesting that your are "no longer allowed to have thoughts" and 
it's absurd and dishonest to make that leap. I'm pointing out a parallel 
thought process.
    
>    Deal with it, Dorothy.  Quit arguing against us as though we're saying
>    that either set of murders were 'justified' - we aren't.  We're saying
>    neither were.  Hold BOTH sets of murderers accountable.  Or the fringe

Another grand rhetorical leap. No one that I know of in the 'box is 
sociopathic. Of course you abhore the deaths of innocent people. That 
doesn't mean that many here don't have a surreal view of the political 
landscape. And it's one they share with the McVeigh's of the world.

>    elements will return what you call 'civilian terror' for what they see
>    as 'state terror'.  Us informed spectators would prefer that *all* the
>    villains get punished and the killings stop NOW.

Those weren't my terms, they were Paul's.
    
>    Those of you who'd prefer not to face the fact that the nature of
>    government is to attempt to accumulate more power, who'd prefer to
>    think that two hundred years of history of freedom guarantees it in
>    perpetuity, who prefer to ignore the evidence of fedgov arrogance in
>    the killings at Waco, would also prefer to think that the appropriate
>    response to incidents of domestic terror such as this bombing is to
>    cede yet more power to federal government police agencies.  You risk
>    making it worse.  Unfortunately, as any engineer will tell you, if you
>    haven't understood the problem, your solution won't address it.  And I
>    think that you simply haven't understood the problem.

I disagree. It's not the nature of government to accumulate power, it's the 
nature of man- it just so happens government is one of the more popular 
vehicles. That's not as trivial a distinction as it may seem. In fact,  
because the urge to power resides in the individual, that makes 
any kind of widespread conspiracy - particularly in a complex web of 
bureaucracies operating under democratic controls, like we have - 
impossible. What we really have to fear is individuals with pathological 
hunger for power actually attaining positions of power. J Edger Hoover 
comes to mind, as does Nixon. Some in here think Clinton fills the bill (so 
to speak :-)); I don't. In any case, there is evidence of individuals 
overreaching their powers, and evidence of incompetancy and misjudgement, 
but I have yet to see *persuasive* evidence of any overarching systemic 
problems that warrant level of alarm and passion I see hear. 

I must confess I don't like what I'm seeing from Clinton and the congress. 
I don't like expanding FBI's and other agencies' investigative powers. It 
opens more doors to abuse. They already have more than enough power to deal 
with terrorism about as effectively as they can ever hope to short of a 
police state - and even that won't stop a determined terrorist. But their 
reasons for proposing such things, IMHO, have nothing to do with 
accumulating power and everything to do with politics. They *have* to look 
like they're responding to this threat somehow. And these are the tangible 
ways that can demostrate "taking control of the situation" to their 
constituencies.
 
>    I don't think it takes a conspiracy, Tom- only disbelief.  You'd prefer
>    not to believe it, so would the media.  Unfortunately, I can't
>    disbeleive it any more.  Maybe its living in California- DEA

I'm not suggesting that we suspend doubt. If we want to protect our 
freedoms and ourselves from the abuses of power by individuals within our 
system, we need to keep a watchful and sceptical eye, and use the power of 
our voice and our vote to root out the bad. It's a system that has worked 
for over 200 years, and I don't see it working any less effectively now.
YMMV.

>    helicopters buzz rural towns around here.  INS agents raid sweatshops.
>    LA cops beat speeding motorists who happen to be the wrong color.  LA
>    County Sherriff's Deputies conduct phony drug raids to confiscate
>    choice ranches, killing their owners.   And BATF and FBI agents are
>    evidently licensed to kill with impunity.  And that's just the ones
>    that we hear about.  You go ahead and disbelieve.  After all, the media
>    isn't telling you any different.

Where did you learn of these events, Doug? If not from the *Media*, than 
from what? And what, pray tell, makes that other source more credible? 

Tom

393.596SHRCTR::DAVISThu Apr 27 1995 13:5553
          <<< Note 393.594 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Yeah, they're all looking out for "we the peoples'" best interest.
>    Ho ho! 

In their own own market/vote-driven way, they are.

>     Only the morally obtuse, blissfully ignorant and government toadies
>    fail to see the Waco and Ruby Ridge episodes as evidence of a problem.

Only a paranoid or someone with a hair across their political arse 
stretches easily from "evidence of a problem" to proof of a crisis.

>     How immensely naive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
>    that the government is working to make life easier on itself by
>    systematically eliminating the freedoms that prevent them from
>    enforcing all manner of prescribed behaviors.

Nope. It takes an arrogant absolutist with right-wing myopia.
        
>    >To most, the difference between a deer
>    >rifle and an "assault" rifle is like the difference between sex in
>    >marriage and an orgy.
    
>     In fact, it's the difference between a martial arts expert in a three
>    piece suit and one in ninja black. The difference is primarily
>    cosmetic. My deer rifle is a semiauto. My shotgun is a semi auto. Both
>    are perfectly legitimate and perfectly legal. And extremely powerful.
>    more powerful than a plurality of the "assault weapons" banned by the
>    congress of cowards.

The difference to the observer between sex between strangers and sex 
between spouses is simply "cosmetic", too. It's a question of purpose. 
While in the 'box I've learned that weapons bans probably won't have any 
effect on curtailing weapons-related crimes. So I'm against most 
regulation. But what I'm telling you is that all the statistical evidence 
to refute the efficacy of assault bans are meaningless to most people. They 
want to say "we as a society are disgusted by these weapons" and they 
demonstrate it through legislation. As DougO would say, Get used to it, 
Dorthy.

>    >Of course the Feds are going to try to sweep the whole issue under the
>    >carpet. It's an embarrassment. I'm not justifying it,
    
>     Just aiding and abetting. Your downplay of these events assists the
>    Feds in "sweeping the whole issue under the carpet."

And responding to the bombings in OKC with "Hey, what about the 'state 
terrorism' in Waco" isn't aiding and abetting?

Tom    
    

393.597WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceThu Apr 27 1995 14:3840
    >In their own own market/vote-driven way, they are.
    
     So when they implemented Jim Crow laws, they were looking out for our
    best interest? When they prevented women from voting, that was in our
    best interest?
    
    >Nope. It takes an arrogant absolutist with right-wing myopia.
    
     You're the one with the ostrich problem, so I suppose that "myopia" is
    less problematic than purposely sheilding ones eyes. No matter how many
    times you close your eyes and block your ears and yell "it's not true!
    it's not true!" at the top of your lungs, the facts will not be
    changed. Reality doesn't go away because it is ignored.
    
    >They want to say "we as a society are disgusted by these weapons" and they
    >demonstrate it through legislation.
    
     Well, the "hearings" on what the people really want have been quite
    skewed for a very long time now. Perhaps a more accurate reading will
    be taken by the current congress. And let me remind you, the mob
    mentailty is not always right; the tyranny of the majority remains an
    issue which must be checked in order to preserve individual rights.
    
    >And responding to the bombings in OKC with "Hey, what about the 'state
    >terrorism' in Waco" isn't aiding and abetting?
    
     Given the fact that one of the major motivations of the bomber was the
    whitewashing of those two events, one might indeed consider the cost of
    said whitewash. I completely disagree with the tactic used to gain
    attention and feel that execution is the appropriate punishment, but
    this misdeed doesn't excuse or mitigate the crimes committed by the
    government. So to reexamine the whitewashed government crimes can
    hardly be rationally considered to be "aiding and abetting" the bomber;
    after all, we've been singing the same tune since they happened. What,
    are we supposed to shut up now that some nutcase took his beliefs to
    such an extreme?
    
     Again, we are interested in seeing ALL the perpetrators of crimes
    punished, not just the ones who don't have a government shield for
    their criminal actions.
393.598STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityThu Apr 27 1995 15:0537
> because the urge to power resides in the individual, that makes 
> any kind of widespread conspiracy - particularly in a complex web of 
> bureaucracies operating under democratic controls, like we have - 
> impossible. What we really have to fear is individuals with pathological 
> hunger for power actually attaining positions of power.

I disagree.  Man is a social animal, capable of working with others to 
achieve goals that a single person cannot achieve.  If this were not so,
then government cannot achieve anything through getting groups of people
to work together for the common good.  Therefore, unscrupulous individuals
can conspire together to achieve greater power than they can otherwise 
achieve separately.  An example is organized crime.


> I must confess I don't like what I'm seeing from Clinton and the congress. 
> I don't like expanding FBI's and other agencies' investigative powers. It 
> opens more doors to abuse. They already have more than enough power to deal 
> with terrorism about as effectively as they can ever hope to short of a 
> police state - and even that won't stop a determined terrorist. 

I agree 100%.


> But their 
> reasons for proposing such things, IMHO, have nothing to do with 
> accumulating power and everything to do with politics. They *have* to look 
> like they're responding to this threat somehow. And these are the tangible 
> ways that can demostrate "taking control of the situation" to their 
> constituencies.

Yes, the cry of "Well, we have do to SOMETHING" is a familiar one.
However, I think that the Clinton Administration in particular will be very
pleased to gain more power and control through legislation that they failed
to get before (e.g. Justice Dept. monitoring of telephone calls and banking
transactions).  But, of course, they wouldn't use this event as an excuse
to push a hidden agenda, would they?  That would be dishonest for a 
politician to do that!
393.599EST::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Apr 27 1995 16:4223
>                      <<< Note 393.582 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>
 
>What gun advocates who toe the no-regulation line don't seem to grasp is
>that most Americans - most people - hate guns. *Hate* them. From their

FWIW,

GUN OWNERS IN US.   :60-65 million,
                     30-35 million own handguns
Source: NRA FIREARMS FACT CARD 1993

Other than this lone factoid, I don't see where you could possibly have
gotten the above. I don't recall any polls asking, "Do you hate guns?" I,
before becoming involved in the subject through an interest in history and
things military, was indifferent towards them. I suspect many who haven't
been whipped into some "baby-killing assault engines of death" frenzy by the
press, are similarly indifferent.

>To most, the difference between a deer rifle and an "assault" rifle is like
>the difference between sex in marriage and an orgy.

Yes, so do you approve of their ignorance? Do you attempt to correct it? Do
you feel legislation based on it is appropriate?
393.600Not true.GAAS::BRAUCHERThu Apr 27 1995 16:4813
    
    I am afraid that whatever the other merits of DAVIS' argument,
    
    "Most people hate guns" is not a correct statement in the USA.
    
    I think this misinformation is honest, and comes about due to a
    limited circle of acquaintances.  I personally own no guns, but
    know many men and women who do, including a majority on my own
    street right here in the GMA.
    
    The statement is incorrect.
    
      bb
393.601SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Apr 27 1995 16:5681
    > No one's suggesting that your are "no longer allowed to have thoughts"
    > and it's absurd and dishonest to make that leap. I'm pointing out a
    > parallel thought process.
    
    No, you're calling the question 'sinister'.  It isn't.  I want that
    'sinister' comment explained or repudiated.
    
    > Another grand rhetorical leap.
    
    Again, this is rooted in explaining why asking the question about the
    fedgov action in Waco is not sinister.
    
    > That doesn't mean that many here don't have a surreal view of the
    > political landscape. And it's one they share with the McVeigh's of 
    > the world.
    
    Calling it surreal doesn't answer the question, either.  From the
    'surreal' place where I sit, Waco was an obviously overzealous
    enforcement mistake, a case where BATF hoped to stage a quick in-n-out
    raid to acquire a bunch of (legally obtained) 'weaponry' as the
    showpiece for Geraldo-style tv coverage.  Only they blew it.  And
    instead of backing down and accepting egg-on-the-face, they escalated.  
    And in the end a bunch of keep-to-themselves, relatively harmless nuts
    got killed, with their kids.  BATF heads should have rolled, and that
    would have been that.  But there's been a coverup, instead, and it
    simply stinks.  "surreal view...shared with the McVeigh's of the
    world"?  Now you're namecalling instead of addressing the questions at
    the root of this issue.  Why do you find it so hard to address these
    issues?  What is so "sinister" in facing the possibility of fedgov
    murder and coverup?
    
    > I disagree. It's not the nature of government to accumulate power,
    > it's the  nature of man- it just so happens government is one of the
    > more popular vehicles.
    
    You would broaden the terms of the debate, and its an interesting place
    to go - but right now I'm interested directly in the public policy
    imnplications of the situation and prudence dictates we confine the
    discussion to the governmental sphere.  Open a new topic for the nature
    of power-grabbing, if you will.  Since you recognize the premise, treat
    the current topic as a mere example or case study (of abuses.)
    
    > What we really have to fear is individuals with pathological hunger
    > for power actually attaining positions of power. J Edger Hoover comes
    > to mind, as does Nixon.
    
    Right!  And I'd prefer not to hand such a one a ready-built tool for
    oppression, such as an FBI unencumbered by civil liberties concerns or
    a BATF emboldened by years of getting away with it all...or new
    legislation dreamt up by politicians eager to look as though they have
    a clue.  That approach is dangerous, Tom; that's exactly why we're
    objecting to it.  A tool ready-fashioned for abuses, as you confess
    you recognize, draws power-seekers.  Political appearances do not
    justify these additional law enforcement and investigative powers.
    
    > I'm not suggesting that we suspend doubt. If we want to protect our
    > freedoms and ourselves from the abuses of power by individuals within
    > our system, we need to keep a watchful and sceptical eye, and use the
    > power of our voice and our vote to root out the bad.
    
    Then you're going to have to work really hard to explain what you meant
    when someone doing just that was accused by you of asking a "sinister"
    question.
    
    >> DEA...INS...LA Police...LA County Sherriffs...FBI...BATF...And that's
    >> just the ones that we hear about.  You go ahead and disbelieve. 
    >> After all, the media isn't telling you any different.
    >
    > Where did you learn of these events, Doug? If not from the *Media*,
    > than from what? 
    
    That's disingenuous, Tom.  The media reports these things in
    isolation.  The media doesn't pick out the trend, though.  Now that it
    is called to your attention, why not?  Why is there no national debate
    on growing abuses of police and national law enforcement powers?  And
    asking that question is just part of that 200 years keeping a watchful
    and sceptical eye you seem to prefer we honor more in the breech than
    in actual practise, so don't be calling it sinister or surreal, again.
    Just consider us to be living up to your rhetoric.
    
    DougO
393.603CSOA1::LEECHThu Apr 27 1995 17:433
    RE: .602
    
    Now THAT'S appropriate.  8^)
393.604Ran out of fertilizer?DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 27 1995 17:457
    Still to be verified, Today Show reported that authorities have
    McVeigh's journal/diary in their possession.  It "alleges" that
    he originally planned to have additional bombs go off in Omaha
    and Phoenix simultaneously.  Not quite sure how/why those plans
    went off-track; glad they did.
    
    
393.605SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CThu Apr 27 1995 19:2057
Topic No. 3

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 03:26:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: bglover@netcom.com (William Glover)
To: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball)
Cc: noban@Mainstream.com, texas-gun-owners@zilker.net, roc@xmission.com,
Subject: Re: Our Beloved Pres and AT
Message-ID: <199504270326.DAA23150@netcom4.netcom.com>

> I heard on Public Radio the the Pres (oh blessed be his name) is 
> asking for 1,000 more Federal Police (Mach Schnell!!) and to be able 
> to use the Military to quell the terroristic threat that the citizens 
> present to our sovereign government.  Are we seeing the advent of the 
> divine right of Big Bubba?

He is indeed doing this, I have a news article which shows what he
wants to do. It includes;
	1000 new FBI agents etc...
	new materials to be put in fertilizer to identify it
	see if fertilizer can be made less explosive
	allow court warrants for a range of new spying on citizens
	federal crime for the use of chemical weapons
	crime to posses stolen explosives
	new ten year penality for the transfer of a firearm to criminal
	(the above is a bueatiful one, can anyone think of its uses?)
	stiffer penalities for crimes against federal workers.
	And essentially repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1894(I think).
	
The amazing thing is would then value federal workers more than you
and I. Cute, I feel real good about this in the country where all people
are to be treated as equal.

> Can anyone explain the issue of posse comitatus to me?  This indeed is
> becoming scary.
Posse Comitatus refers to the use of force in any country or the entire
population of a country above the age of fifteen, which the sheriff may
summon to his assistance in certain cases, as to aid him in keeping
the peace, in ou persuing and arresting felons etc...

Now, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1894 prevented the use of the military
in internal affairs, social criminal or whatever. Repealing it would
in effect make the US armed forces the new police force of the federal
government.

Think long and hard about his one before signing on to it. 
Kind of wish they taught real history in civics classes these days. 
They used to. :-}...

Bill .... bglover@netcom.com
=======================================================================
Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights,
we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities.

As we move deeper into the age of the sound bite --- We often say a
picture is worth a thousand words, we now KNOW that a picture often
needs a thousand words to explain it.
=======================================================================
393.606DPDMAI::SODERSTROMBring on the CompetitionThu Apr 27 1995 19:406
    As of noon today, CDT;
    
    110 confirmed dead
     97 still missing
    
    
393.607MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Apr 27 1995 19:4410
    As sad as the 110 confirmed dead are, I think the 97 missing
    is sadder still. Can you imagine having your spouse of loved
    one missing since the day of the bombing and the endless
    wait for that telephone call to confirm them dead or alive?

    I feel so bad for those people words are completely inadequate
    to describe my feelings... :-( :-(

    -b
393.608CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanThu Apr 27 1995 19:514


 :-(
393.609BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Thu Apr 27 1995 19:524
    
    	Unfortunately, I think it's a reasonable assumption as to the
    	well-being of anyone who was in that building when it fell.
    
393.610DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 27 1995 19:5212
    Brian,
    
    What's really sad is one man (explaining confirmed dead) indicating
    that at the morgue set up they had body parts; my take on what he
    left unsaid was that some people will probably never able to claim
    the bodies of their loved ones because there isn't enough left
    intact to identify.  How will these people ever be able to get
    closure?  What does the morgue do with those UNidentifiable parts?
    The prospects are too ghastly to imagine :-(
    
    I don't think we've ever had to do mass burials......
    
393.611POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club Butt TinkeringThu Apr 27 1995 19:551
    Not since the civil war I guess.
393.612NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Apr 27 1995 20:061
Unidentifiable body parts happen in plane crashes and the like.
393.614WRKSYS::CAMUSOalphabitsThu Apr 27 1995 20:107
RE: mass burials

	I expect that the procedures would be the same as for a plane
	crash.  :-(  

	TonyC

393.615PATE::CLAPPThu Apr 27 1995 20:1123
    re: 393.604
    
    >Still to be verified, Today Show reported that authorities have
    >McVeigh's journal/diary in their possession.  It "alleges" that
    >he originally planned to have additional bombs go off in Omaha
    >and Phoenix simultaneously.  Not quite sure how/why those plans
    >went off-track; glad they did.
    
    Heard at lunch the FBI denies this story.
    
    Seems to be a large number of "incorrect" reports.  Ever hear the 
    term piling on in football?
    
    For example -
    The head of the Michigan Militia was supposedly wanted by the FBI
    turned out he wasn't.
    McVeigh reportedly had been shooting off rounds in Arizona turned out 
    it was someone else.
    etc.
    
    Maybe I should put this in the conspiracies note. 
    
    
393.616OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Thu Apr 27 1995 20:206
    Re: .616
    
    >Maybe I should put this in the conspiracies note. 
    
    I hear lots of erroneous rumors at work.  I've never considered them
    part of a conspiracy.  Obviously, I'm not paranoid enough.
393.617Tabloid journalism is everywhere :-(DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 27 1995 20:495
    I was just repeating what was reported.  This IS getting tiresome
    though; whatever happened to the old concept that newpeople
    VERIFIED information before they printed/broadcast the darn stuff!!
    
    
393.618PATE::CLAPPThu Apr 27 1995 20:5312
    
    Re .616
    
    was just kidding about conspiracy  ....  should have added a smiley,
    to let you know.                  
    
    There's a big difference between a work rumor and something broadcast
    over the airwaves to millions of people.   At least in theory there 
    should be.  Unfortunately they seem to be so busy attacking things they
    aren't too concerned with accuracy. 
    
    
393.619VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu Apr 27 1995 21:1444
    Christ, I can't keep up with anything anymore, but I'm holding
    back on uttering "what rush's book title is".
    
    What we need to do is THINK at the moment.  Not knee jerk, not
    panic, not pass a whole bunch of touchy-feely laws.
    
    We need to THINK.  What are the politicians saying?  Why are they
    saying it?  What does it mean.
    
    This event didn't have to happen.  I think it might not be the
    last one of its type either.  UNLESS we figure out what the
    real problems in this country are.  And the problem isn't rush,
    Liddy, or the militia.
    
    I tried not to interject any "liberal, democratic, did not, did too"
    trash in here.  Just, whatever the hell you are, step back and
    think about what's going on.  Educate yourself as to the supreme
    law of the land.  There are already sufficient laws on the books
    to counter "terrorism".  The police aren't "handcuffed", they just
    want more POWER.  Simple.  
    
    I heard leon pinetta mention last night as an example that
    the fbi can obtain long distance phone records, but not local
    phone records.  Now, that might sound ludicrous, but figure it
    out.  The feds don't have any JURISDICTION in local issues.  If/when
    you "cross state lines" (via the telephone... long distance) the
    feds are entitled to step in if necessary.  See... education.
    Why?  There's a reason, not because it's stupid, or because we're
    limiting the polices effectivness, we've got clearly defined roles
    in law enforcement, and the fed wants to grab the whole ball of
    wax.
    
    If you think this is fine, whatever floats your boat.  Just make sure
    you amend the constitution to grant jurisdiction to the fed and
    junk your states sovereignty.
    
    Carefull what you ask for, cause you might get it.  It may be
    illegal, and/or it may be unconstitutional, but tell that to
    vicki weaver.
    
    This loosely defined, or NON-DEFINABLE crap is too broad in scope.
    What is "an assault weapon".  What is a "terrorist group".  Who 
    defines these?  Today?  and tomorrow?  Jeesus this should scare
    anyone hearing what the feds are proposing.
393.620SHRCTR::DAVISThu Apr 27 1995 21:2030
          <<< Note 393.597 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

    
>     So when they implemented Jim Crow laws, they were looking out for our
>    best interest? When they prevented women from voting, that was in our
>    best interest?

Whoa! A conservative holding up placards of progressivism? We've evolved as 
a society, and our laws reflect it. And we'll continue to evolve - thank 
God.
    
>     Well, the "hearings" on what the people really want have been quite
>    skewed for a very long time now. Perhaps a more accurate reading will
>    be taken by the current congress. And let me remind you, the mob
>    mentailty is not always right; the tyranny of the majority remains an
>    issue which must be checked in order to preserve individual rights.

Indeed, you're right on the latter, but I'm not so sure about the former. 
The problem isn't depriving some of rights held by others (Tyranny of the 
majority a la your examples) but one of deciding as a society that certain 
rights may cost more than they're worth. You and I may not agree with that 
conclusion, but it's not an example of tyranny.
    
>     Again, we are interested in seeing ALL the perpetrators of crimes
>    punished, not just the ones who don't have a government shield for
>    their criminal actions.

So am I. But to rant about "state terrorism" only clouds what might be 
legitimate issues and strips the speaker of any credibility. Just like 
blaming the very existance of militias for the OKC bombings.
393.622Media opportunismDECWET::LOWEBruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910Thu Apr 27 1995 22:3335
re: conspiracy - 
Well, JD II is dead, eh?
So what happens when we find out that McVeigh has hanged himself in his cell,
or shot by someone (with terminal cancer) under mysterious circumstances?

<set sarcasm off>

What seriously concerns me is what I read several (hundred) replies ago, where
numerous quotes from McVeigh and his sister were reported in some news story.
Things like:

- The federal government is out of control.

- Weaver and Waco were atrocities committed against civilians by abusive
  federal law enforcement.

- Gun control is an deliberate effort to render the population helpless against 
  further erosion of the BoR.

	.
	.
	.

- ... many such other statements which have been discussed in many notes in 
  this forum.

Many of the things which the media attribute as quotes from the McVeighs
ARE TRUE! Some of them could as well have been quotes from Jefferson himself.
These viewpoints are ideas that the media seldom allow air time. Now, by 
putting the truth in the mouth of this evil character, they discredit the 
truth. No coincidence I'm sure.

(re: "evil character": no assumption is made here that the on-air trial and
conviction of McVeigh has any merit).
393.623DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Apr 27 1995 22:367
    I wouldn't mind leaving a sample either Joe, but I think you're
    correct in assuming a LOT would resist it BIG TIME!
    
    When you hear statements that even dental records won't be able to
    help, you know it's very bad.
    
    
393.62424 hour watchSWAM1::MEUSE_DAThu Apr 27 1995 22:398
    
    re 622
    
    McVeigh is being kept in a glass cell, so he can be watched.
    Suppose it's like the one in Silence of the Lambs where Lector was
    kept.
    
    
393.626COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Apr 28 1995 00:0237
Oklahoma City Disaster -- a week later

Still dazed and numb, the staff at the diocesan house in Oklahoma City feel
nonetheless "wrapped up in the arms of the whole world" according to Emily
Shirley, the bishop's administrative assistant.

The Episcopal Cathedral of St. Paul is only two blocks from the bomb site
and the diocesan offices four blocks away. From her window, Shirley
describes the scene: "There are the army trucks of the National Guard and a
feeding station all around us. We cannot escape the realization." Five
Episcopalians are among the known dead and many priests are involved in
counseling and pastoral care.  An interfaith group has been organized, but
the diocese has not yet formulated its long-term efforts towards
rehabilitation, she added.

The Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief sent an emergency grant of
$25,000 to the bishop of Oklahoma, and is receiving designated gifts for
the victims of the blast. Bishop Robert Moody writes that "prayers and
assistance are needed for the victims and their families. There are many
people who will need help with their medical bills. There are others whose
apartments and homes have been condemned and will need help relocating.
There are people with physical and emotional injuries that will require
professional help over a long perild of time."

In the warm drawl of the Oklahoma native, Emily Shirley expressed her own
and the staff's appreciation for the care they have received, "It is
absolutely marvelous to belong to the Anglican Communion," she said.

Bishop Moody concluded his report with these words: "My heart aches over
the death and misery caused by this outlaw act of terrorism. That human
beings could knowingly cause such destruction is beyond my ability to
understand. Such anger and hate must not be allowed to prevail. Kyrie
eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison!"

If you want to help, you may designate your checks, for "Oklahoma victims"
and send to The Presiding Bishop's Fund, 815 Second Ave., New York, NY
10017.  Thank you.
393.627PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 10:276
    
    Why is the word terrorism being used?  McVeigh hasn't even 
    said why he did it yet (assuming he did it), so what makes this
    act constitute terrorism, as opposed to say mass murder?
                     
    
393.628MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Fri Apr 28 1995 10:514
"Mass Murder" wouldn't provide enough emotion to allow
Slick to get away with pretending it's necessary to
remove our rights for our own good.

393.629WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 28 1995 10:527
    for now it's probably accurate. many acquaintances have said that
    McV had a hatred for the U.S. government. 
    
    also heard last night that he was one hell of a soldier. when he
    couldn't get into special forces he quit and was p.o.'d...
    
    Chip
393.630MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Fri Apr 28 1995 10:536
Sarcasm aside, I assume that "terrorism" is typically
applied to situations which are politically motivated.
While McVeigh may not have stated so yet, I believe
the supposition exists that he did this for political
reasons.

393.631PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 11:5625
    
    re: 393.629
    
    >for now it's probably accurate. many acquaintances have said that
    >McV had a hatred for the U.S. government.
        
    Don't think hatred is a fair way of assessing terrorism. If it were
    many domestic violence cases would classify as terrorism.
    
    It seems to me that the use of the word terrorism is somewhat paranoid
    (not directed at you - WMOIS::GIROUARD_C).  To imply there is this
    right wing terrorism that is going to sweep the nation, and we have to
    spend billions and give the FBI more power etc etc, is every bit
    as paranoid as is some of the fears spouted by the right wingers
    themselves, which are being freely ridiculed. 
    
    al
    
    Sounds like a standoff of parnoids.  
    
     
    
    
    
    
393.632TOOK::GASKELLFri Apr 28 1995 12:4513
    .627
    
    American Heritage Dictionary:  Terrorism; the political use of terror
    and intimidation
    	
    	It was a government building, not a 7-11 or a DEC plant.  It was
    	planned and deliberate, which indicates a reason behind it other
    	than getting out of bed on the wrong side that morning.
    
    Terrorize; to fill with terror; terrify.  To coere by intimidation.
    
    	Well it sure has me terrified and keeping away from government 
    	buildings for the time being.
393.633PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 12:507
    
    .632
    
    Haven't heard what this guys political aim is yet, we're kind of
    jumping to conclusions aren't we?  
    
    
393.634PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Apr 28 1995 13:026
    it doesn't _have_ to be politically motivated to be terrorism, according to
    my dictionary.  dare say this was, but anyways...

    

393.635PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 13:1816
    
    Reason I'm being so pedantic, is that I'm afraid we are going to wind
    reacting to this incident in the wrong way.
    
    So far all we know is that we have a single incident of a bombing,
    horrific as it may have been.  There are just to many unanswered
    questions so far.  We should get a grip on ourselves, until more facts
    are known (not rumored).  I get the feeling our country is turning 
    into a bunch of lemmings.  
    
    
    
          
    
    
     
393.636WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 28 1995 13:524
    -1 Al, i know that you realize terrorism does not have to come in a
    six-pack. one act qualifies.
    
     Chip
393.637PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 14:048
    
    I agree with you Chip, although a single act of terrorism is 
    sort of a strange idea when you think about it.  I'm just concerned
    we're being whipped into a frenzy (too strong a word perhaps) and 
    are going to enact legislation we may regret later on.  
    
    al
    
393.638PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 14:1837
    
    Pardon me for being so wordy, but....
    
    It makes a lot of sense to be very careful how the word terrorism is
    used. Particularly since some of the proposed legislation gives wider
    powers to the government in combatting terrorism.
    
    If we go by the definition in .632:
    
    >Terrorize; to fill with terror; terrify.  To coere by intimidation.
     
    There is an awful lot of acts that fit under this use of the word 
     
    Also:    
    
    >American Heritage Dictionary:  Terrorism; the political use of
    >terror and intimidation
       
    My point is if we are very loose in using the term terrorism we 
    give the Feds more power, since they can simply use the term to
    apply to more and more crimes.  Is any act that causes political 
    intimidation to be called terrorism?  (Talk show host beware)
    
    It may be a case of an idea born in good intent getting turned 
    around over time.
    
    An example of this child abuse.  While it child abuse legislation is 
    "good", we have seen several cases of the same laws being (ab)used to
    prosecute parents for spanking their kids in public.  People can use a
    good law for bad purposes.   
    
    So while legislation to combat terrorism may be desireable, we should
    be sure it doesn't become twisted by someone with other motivations.
    
    
    
     
393.639politically speakingICS::VERMAFri Apr 28 1995 14:266
    
    Re: .630 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    in that case, one person's "terrorist" is another
    person's "revolutionary". McVeigh seems to believe
    that. 
393.640SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 14:2925
                     <<< Note 393.600 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                                 -< Not true. >-
and several others...

I know it wasn't MUAF Friday, but I couldn't resist jumping the gun.:-)

>    I think this misinformation is honest, and comes about due to a
>    limited circle of acquaintances.  

You're probably right. Most people I know don't own guns, and even those 
that do, most have no great fondness for exotic weaponry and don't see the 
prohibition of same as inevitably leading to the loss of their guns.

What I was trying to argue was that the reason most folks favor some gun 
regulation (and while I may be making this up, too, I'd bet the ranch I'm
right) is visceral, not logical. Carte blanche to arm yourself to the teeth 
just doesn't *feel* like the policy of a sane society. Most(?) fear people
who getall hot and bothered about nifty guns with great stopping power
*and* talk about government, NWO, jewish bankers, etc. conspiracies to
strip them of their constitutional right to aforesaid means of orgasm more
than they fear the government. 

And I agree.

Tom
393.641STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityFri Apr 28 1995 14:4835
                      <<< Note 393.640 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>

> What I was trying to argue was that the reason most folks favor some gun 
> regulation (and while I may be making this up, too, I'd bet the ranch I'm
> right) is visceral, not logical. 

Yes, I think this is true, too.  It is also true of many other issues as 
well.  People need to think about things more.  After the bombing, we are 
going to see more and more people justifying their favorite pet bills to
"discipline" the population (to borrow one of President Clinton's words).
And the justification is, "Well, we have to do SOMETHING."  Even if it is
the wrong thing, even if it won't work, we'll still do it.


> Carte blanche to arm yourself to the teeth just doesn't *feel* like the 
> policy of a sane society. Most(?) fear people who getall hot and bothered 
> about nifty guns with great stopping power *and* talk about government, 
> NWO, jewish bankers, etc. conspiracies to strip them of their 
> constitutional right to aforesaid means of orgasm more than they fear 
> the government. 

The assault weapons ban is written to ban firearms based on appearance, 
not on stopping power.  For example, the Colt AR-15, which President Clinton
held up at his press conference, is banned.  Colt has now reintroduced the 
same gun with minor cosmetic changes.  It will take the same cartridges and 
magazines as the old model.  There are similar firearms that were not banned
that have the same "stopping power".

Banning something because it looks scary is not, IMHO, the policy of a sane
society, either.

By the way, hunting rifles and shotguns are designed to kill; military 
weapons are designed to wound.  Taking about "stopping power" of the guns 
banned by the Violent Crime Control Act of 1993 is silly.  If you want to
kill someone, don't use an AR-15 or an AK 47, use a shotgun.
393.642Just my opinion...GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Apr 28 1995 15:0030
    
    Tom, when I was a kid (yep, I was), we had "rifle range" at summer
    camp.  Practically everybody's dad or grandad was a veteran of a
    world war, and elementary rifle training was near universal.  I
    never thought much of it, and soon learned I lacked the eyesight
    and the hand steadiness to be really any good at it.  We had working
    guns at home - war trophies, never used.  After that, I didn't shoot
    till I went in the army.  In RVN, it was apparent my commo skills
    were a lot more useful than any shooting.  My weapon of choice would
    be a radio, for calling in air strikes.  I did wear a .45 automatic
    after I made seargent, mostly for swagger.
    
      As a single vet, I owned an old under-over shotgun for a while,
    which I used with a friend, for missing birds and skeet.  My wife
    didn't object to this either before or after we wed, but when our
    first was born, she expressed a mild preference that I sell it, for
    fear of an accident, and my friend bought it.  Perhaps I'll get
    another someday - I like shotguns, but fear I wouldn't understand
    the new 5-shot automatics.
    
      My preferred defense to crime is poverty.  This works, and Digital
    co-operates with this strategy.  I don't see guns as central to my life
    or to what I fear will be a disastrous future for my country.  But as
    a conservative, I instinctively resist changing our way of life.  I
    think much of the change I have seen in my life is for the worse.  So
    I am very suspicious of claims that gun control will solve our crime
    problems.  I think the government is floundering around and is jumping
    on this because they are really clueless as to why kids go bad.
    
      bb
393.643SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 15:0713
  <<< Note 393.641 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE Security" >>>

> By the way, hunting rifles and shotguns are designed to kill; military 
> weapons are designed to wound.  Taking about "stopping power" of the guns 
> banned by the Violent Crime Control Act of 1993 is silly.  If you want to
> kill someone, don't use an AR-15 or an AK 47, use a shotgun.

I confess, I don't know squat about military weapons, but that design 
philosophy makes no sense to me. But then, there's a lot the military does 
that makes no sense to me...Can we at least agree that they are designed to 
do the maximum human damage in the least amount of time? Can we agree that 
they were *not* designed to hunt cute, furry little critters or for earning
boy scout merit badges in marksmanship?
393.644COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Apr 28 1995 15:095
The reason military weapons are designed to wound is that killing someone
takes one person out of action; wounding someone takes at least three out,
counting those who rescue and care for the wounded.

/john
393.645SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 15:1214
                     <<< Note 393.642 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                            -< Just my opinion... >-

>      My preferred defense to crime is poverty.  This works, and Digital
>    co-operates with this strategy.  I don't see guns as central to my life

This works well for me, too.

As usual of late, although I'm prolly about the symmetrical opposite of you 
on the political spectrum, you make an eloquent case that I find little 
to disagree with.

Scary, isn't it?
Tom
393.646EST::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQFri Apr 28 1995 15:139
>                      <<< Note 393.643 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>
>Can we agree that 
>they were *not* designed to hunt cute, furry little critters or for earning
>boy scout merit badges in marksmanship?

Wanna take a guess what two of the primary civilian uses of accurate, high
speed, small-caliber rifles are?

(hint: "varmint" shooting is popular on farms and ranches)
393.647WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Apr 28 1995 15:157
    Al, i absolutely agree with and your concerns. this gov't, present and 
    past and present administrations are great "knee-jerk" artists. crisis
    by management and get to the ends and damn the means.
    
    i'm concerned just as you are...
    
    Chip
393.648SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 15:169
             <<< Note 393.644 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>The reason military weapons are designed to wound is that killing someone
>takes one person out of action; wounding someone takes at least three out,
>counting those who rescue and care for the wounded.

Good point, and not that you metion it, I realize I've heard it before. 
Still, at least one of those three will be an unarmed medic. And given the 
indiscriminate nature of war and the weapons, maybe all three.
393.649SX4GTO::WANNOORFri Apr 28 1995 15:1930
    .633 clapp?
    
         yes, you are being pedantic :-); clearly the bombing was politically
    	 motivated. For me anyway, the motivation and what/who the perp
    	 is help define whether the act is 'mass murder' vs terrorism.
    
    	 The Jones-Guyana cool-aid atrocity was clearly a mass-murder;
    	 the downing of PANAM 103 in Lockerbee was a terrorist act.
    
    	 Waco was a mass-murder committed by Koresh & his henchmen;
    	 OKC bombing is an act of terrorism.
    
    	 re okelley...
    	 Really?? since when do military weaponry are designed to wound and
    	 not kill??? while we're at it, why would a hunter require a
         shotgun or an AK47 to kill Bambi???	 
    
    	 re Others
    	 WHY would one NEED a gun for PROTECTION which  seems to be the
         general cry here? WHY need a GUN/FIREARM of any kind in the first
    	 place? This overused and  old excuse that it is "MY
    	 INDIV RIGHT" to have one is ludicrous; are we still in the wild,
    	 wild west? Are you really being threatened in your comfortable
    	 suburban homes. Have you really, actually been put at risk where
    	 owning a firearm actually had helped you. Simply to howl about
    	 "it's my right, and therefore I'll have one" at this age sounds
         childish and churlish (you know. I want my toy and i want it
    	 now -- stomp your feet here!!).
    
     
393.650EST::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQFri Apr 28 1995 15:2214
>                    <<< Note 393.647 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    this gov't, present and 
>    past and present administrations are great "knee-jerk" artists.

Yup.
We (and Washington) really have to get over the notion that every bad thing
that ever happens has to be "solved" by passing new laws.

We hit law saturation a long time ago. There's plenty of laws to apply to any
situation already on the books.

I think Congress-critter could be a part-time job if we could get them to act
on the above.
393.651GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 28 1995 15:247
    
    
    RE: .648  Unless the medic is tending to someone else at the time, Tom. 
    And after the medic is done, they need someone to carry the wounded to
    a somewhat safer area or stay with him until the hueys show up.
    
    Mike
393.652BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Fri Apr 28 1995 15:267
    
    >	 The Jones-Guyana cool-aid atrocity was clearly a mass-murder;
    > 	 the downing of PANAM 103 in Lockerbee was a terrorist act.
    
    	If they knew what they were drinking then it wasn't a mass
    	murder.
    
393.653VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri Apr 28 1995 15:2729
    re: Note 393.648 by SHRCTR::DAVIS
    
    I think the point is:
    
    Military assault style firearms are demonized.  
    
    In reality the most devastating firearm is a shotgun.  If you're
    educated in firearms, you'll know the reason for why so many types
    are available is because they are like any other tool.  You don't
    drive a screw with a wrench, and you don't tighten a bolt with a
    hammer.  Military style firearms, especially the AR-15 are very
    accurate over a long range.  Differnet guns/calibers are for
    bullet trajectory.  If you hunt antelope, you need a long range
    round with enough power to drop the target when the bullet arrives.
    If you need concealment, there are handguns.  If you want to toss
    a lot of lead over a general area there's the shotgun.
    
    The moral of the story is military style firearms are common, generally
    available, accurate, used to be cheap, and are used for many many
    organized target matches.  My M-14 (which isn't banned) is no where
    near as accurate as an AR-15, and never could be made to be as
    accurate.  
    
    The whole issue is emotional, not logical.  Who cares what type of
    gun people have.  Care when a specific person misuses the firearm,
    irregardless of what type it it, or if it's banned or not.  We
    already have laws dealing with people who harm others.
    
    MadMike
393.654STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityFri Apr 28 1995 15:2725
                      <<< Note 393.643 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>

> I confess, I don't know squat about military weapons, but that design 
> philosophy makes no sense to me. But then, there's a lot the military does 
> that makes no sense to me...

John Covert in .644 explains it very well.


> Can we at least agree that they are designed to 
> do the maximum human damage in the least amount of time? Can we agree that 
> they were *not* designed to hunt cute, furry little critters or for earning
> boy scout merit badges in marksmanship?

Media hype.  "Maximum damage" would kill, and that's not the idea at all.

Think about this for a minute: what do you suppose "buck shot" is for?  
Answer: it is designed to inflict "maximum damage" on fairly large mammals 
(deer).  Since many states only allow male deers to be hunted this way, 
hunters use these rounds to kill bucks.  Of course, it can be used to kill 
other animals as well.  [Disclaimer: I'm not a hunter.]

The guy who killed the doctor and the person who was with him at the 
abortion clinic in Florida used a shotgun, but he used "slugs" instead 
of shot.  Both victims were pronounced dead at the scene.
393.655GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 28 1995 15:2914
    
    
    RE: .649  It's hard to tell whether your disdain or ignorance need to
    be addressed in this note.  The wounded/killing question has already
    been addressed.  As for why do we need guns, there are several reasons.
    1) enjoyment, 2) hunting (ever hear of people hunting with shotguns? 
    waterfowl, turkey, rabbit, etc, etc also they do make slug barrels for
    shotguns which some folks use for hunting deer) 3) protection of self,
    family and property, and 4) to prevent tierny by the government.  I
    know it can't happen here.  That's what the Germans thought when they
    were disarmed "for their own good and safety".
    
    
    Mike 
393.656PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 15:3019
    re: .649
    
    >yes, you are being pedantic :-); clearly the bombing was politically
    >motivated. For me anyway, the motivation and what/who the perp
    >is help define whether the act is 'mass murder' vs terrorism.
             
    Based on what "facts".  Has the accused said anything?  Has there been
    any courtroom evidence?  What written documents?  What testimony have
    you heard that I haven't?  We are nation of laws, it's one of the
    things that keeps us "civilized", and not follow "mob" rule. 
    
    By the way, most would not use an AK47 for shooting Bambi, and as to
    using a shotgun, it's required by law in many eastern states, since a
    rifled slug won't travel too far and hit something else.
    
    
    
    
    
393.657SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 15:3921
    
    re: .649
    
>    	 WHY would one NEED a gun for PROTECTION which  seems to be the
>         general cry here? WHY need a GUN/FIREARM of any kind in the first
>    	 place? 
    
    	I suppose I could tell you the story of a couple of my female
    friends who were brutally raped. Or the gent who warded off a carload
    of teen punks armed with baseball bats, or the people in LA who
    defeneded their homes and businesses with "Assault weapons". 
    But, I don't suppose that would matter to someone like you. You have
    obviously been lucky enough to have never been a victim of a violent
    crime and think no one else has either. Try crawling out of your fuzzy
    little hole and taking a look around at the real world. I'm not going
    to waste my time talking to you about statistics and studies that prove
    the pro-gun point of view...I doubt you'd pay much attention to them.
    You obviously haven't been paying attention thus far....
    
    
    jim
393.658SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 15:4017
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jdulaney@crl.com (John Dulaney)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: GALLUP POLL SHOCKER!
Date: 27 Apr 1995 16:45:44 GMT

GALLUP POLL:

	42% of Democrats polled fear the power of the Fed. Gov't poses a 
threat to the rights and freedoms of the American public.
	39% of Republicans fear the same.

	When asked if Republicans in Congress, talk show hosts or 
conservatives encouraged the bomber of Oklahoma City 88% said there was 
no link.

-------
393.659ref .601SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoFri Apr 28 1995 15:463
    Tom, I'm still waiting to hear why asking such questions is sinister.
    
    DougO
393.660VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri Apr 28 1995 15:5259
re:  Note 393.649 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR
    
>    	 Waco was a mass-murder committed by Koresh & his henchmen;
I disagree.

>    	 OKC bombing is an act of terrorism.
I agree. 
  
>    	 Really?? since when do military weaponry are designed to wound and
>    	 not kill??? while we're at it, why would a hunter require a
>         shotgun or an AK47 to kill Bambi???	 
    
This has been pointed out time and again.  Dead people are dead.  Wounded
people take other combatants out of action while they help the wounded person. 
You want to clean out large areas, that's why the military has area weapons
and civilians don't (with some exceptions).   P.S.  The firearm you mention 
is an SKS, not an AK47.  People don't hunt bambi's with M-16's either.

>    	 WHY would one NEED a gun for PROTECTION which  seems to be the
>         general cry here? WHY need a GUN/FIREARM of any kind in the first
>    	 place? This overused and  old excuse that it is "MY
>      	 INDIV RIGHT" 
	
Who said I own firearms for protection?  Its nice to have additional means
of protection, but I like to shoot, and test, and work on firearms.
Any moron can pull the trigger, but not everyone can be accurate or
proficient with a firearm.  "Overused excuse?"  Maybe someone should
yank your 1st Amendment right... you've said enough, thank you.

>	to have one is ludicrous; are we still in the wild,
>    	 wild west? Are you really being threatened in your comfortable
>    	 suburban homes. Have you really, actually been put at risk where
>        owning a firearm actually had helped you. 

That's your opinion, and your entitled to it.  Where you cross the line
is when you try and tell ME how I should live.  Seriously, I only
feel threated by one entity at the moment, and I can't defend myself
against them and honestly, I'm not really worried about that "threat".
I sleep with my doors & windows open usually.  My garage doors are
usually open.  I have a dog.

>	Simply to howl about
>    	 "it's my right, and therefore I'll have one" at this age sounds
>         childish and churlish (you know. I want my toy and i want it
>    	 now -- stomp your feet here!!).
 
Who said this?        
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taking the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.

What I do, and what I want is my business.  I'm a big boy.  And it's
none of your business what I'm doing UNTIL I infringe on someone else.
Like I said, the only threat I percieve, and a secondary reason why
I own firearms is for the *exact* reason why the 2nd amendment was
specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

MadMike
393.661TROOA::COLLINSJust add beer...Fri Apr 28 1995 16:115
    
    What is government `tierny'?
    
    :^)
    
393.662POLAR::RICHARDSONSpecial Fan Club Butt TinkeringFri Apr 28 1995 16:231
    More expensive than private sector `tierny'.
393.663PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 16:4929
    
    re: 393.649
    
    I can apprecaite why gun owners are afraid of loosing the right to bear
    arms.  I suspect you'd be very happy to have them loose that right.
    You even scare me little bit.
    
    Would you like to trade your first ammendment right for my second?
    
    By the way, I'm not a gun owner, I'm a vet who doesn't like loud noises
    anymore.  But I will do everything I can to help maintain the BOR,
    including the 2nd.  I do that, not because I want/need guns, but because
    my grandchildren might, or their grandchildren.  
    
    It's interesting to contemplate what our country might be like if we had
    lost the right to bear arms say a hundred years ago. I suspect we'd be
    quite a bit different.  Perhaps I wouldn't be able to ask that question
    in public.  Perhaps you wouldn't have been able to raise your
    objections in public. 
    
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
393.664:')GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 28 1995 16:553
    
    
    RE: Tyrrany......touche. 
393.665GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 28 1995 16:553
    
    
    I know, tyranny :')
393.666EST::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQFri Apr 28 1995 17:073
>                     <<< Note 393.649 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR >>>

I've answered your questions in note 21... I recommend we move it there...
393.667SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 17:2437
      <<< Note 393.659 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
                                 -< ref .601 >-

>    Tom, I'm still waiting to hear why asking such questions is sinister.
    
Sorry, DougO. I got sidelined with <gasp> work, and just plain forgot. 
Besides, debatng with you requires more horsepower than I have - or have 
time to deliver.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't have chosen "sinister" to describe Paul's response 
to the OKC news. I stretched a tad to use your chosen word in my post. 
Sinister implies some kind of invisible and malicious activity. Of course, 
I don't think Suzanne was suggesting something sinister in Paul's posting, 
either.

Given my druthers, I'd have called it...disturbing. Not disturbing in the 
sense of disturbing my blissful ignorance; but disturbing in the sense of 
revealing how obsessive these issues have become and how passion has 
chucked reason and perspective right out the window.

There was none of the temperance of your language (putting aside 
"Gastapo tactics" for now :-)) to be found in Paul's question/response. It 
was presented in pretty much the same spirit as McVeigh might have used. 
That isn't to say that I think Paul likes what happened at OKC. Of course 
not, and you know it. 

I reacted the same way when Jack Martin responded to the killings at the 
abortion clinic with "Well, they're killing the innocent unborn. Doesn't 
that make them thugs? While I don't condone what that kid did, you can't
not expect to face thug-like consequences." I may not have posted my reaction 
at the time, but that's how I felt. Nobody would suggest that Jack applauds 
killing clinic workers - let alone suggest that he'd actually do it (which 
would be sinister), but a lot of folks in the box found his response 
disturbing. Yet, nothing that Jack said, philosophically, was a surprise or 
a real departure from any of his previous rhetoric.

Am I making myself clearer?
393.6688^)POWDML::LAUERLittle Chamber of Creamy PresentsFri Apr 28 1995 17:464
    
    {ahem} YAGN
    
    
393.669snarfSUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 17:566
    
    	re: .669
    
    	yeah, ain't it great? :)
    
    
393.670NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundFri Apr 28 1995 17:599
re:>Going to see more and more people justifying their favorite pet bills to
>"discipline" the population (to borrow one of President Clinton's words).

It's not just Bill's favorite.

From whom do you hear this most often: "You can't have freedom without
discipline". ?

(And part of my philosophy -- "You can't have discipline without freedom").
393.671SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 18:118
    
    
>From whom do you hear this most often: "You can't have freedom without
>discipline". ?
    
    	Ummm...Janet Reno maybe? Or is it Freeh?
    
    
393.672STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityFri Apr 28 1995 18:136
<<< Note 393.670 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

> From whom do you hear this most often: "You can't have freedom without
> discipline". ?

I don't know.  Who said that?
393.673NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundFri Apr 28 1995 18:515
re:.655 Mike

>4) to prevent tierny by the government.

You want to prevent the government from inflicting Gene Tierny on you?
393.674NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundFri Apr 28 1995 18:546
.649

I once fended off a group of attackers who objected to my race...by pretending
to have a gun.

Location: MIT/Mass Ave/Cambridge MA.
393.675What kindaname izzat ?GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Apr 28 1995 18:574
    
    How do you pronounce WANNOOR ?
    
      bb
393.676DASHER::RALSTONanagram: mortal snotFri Apr 28 1995 18:596
    >I once fended off a group of attackers who objected to my race
     
    Auto, marathon, turtle? What kind of race was it? I think maybe a gun was a
    little extreme, . :)
    
    ...Tom
393.677NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundFri Apr 28 1995 19:0412
Boy, you guys post responses faster than a pentium chip does instructions...

(Ok Mike, I see I missed my opportunity to get you on spelling -- which I don't
normally bother with, but this one was to juicy)

re:the quote

I usually have heard it from conservatives.

re: Mass Ave.

Yeah...they were saying something to the effect of "Go n****r Go!".
393.678Don't know how true this is, but read onSUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 19:13168
              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 4  Num. 72
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Many thanks to Mr. John DiNardo, who has been doing yeoman's work 
to get the truth out, for the following information:
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
Part 1, 4/26, INTELLIGENCE REPORT on the Oklahoma City Bombing
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
JOHN STADTMILLER:
Mark, without further ado, I think we'll bring on Mr.
Ken L. Gunderson. Mr. Gunderson, are you there?
 
KEN GUNDERSON:
Yes, I am.
 
JOHN STADTMILLER:
Okay. Mr. Gunderson, I'm sitting here and I'm reading
what you've been involved in -- what you've been doing
since you retired from the F.B.I.  You have quite a record
of service, sir:
 
   senior special agent for Los Angeles from 1977 to 1979;
 
   special agent-in-charge of Memphis, Tennessee 
     from 1973 to 1977;  
 
   in Dallas, in 1973, chief inspector;
 
   from 1965 to 1973, you were assistant special agent-
     in-charge of New Haven, Connecticut and
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
 
KEN GUNDERSON:
I retired in 1979. I was in the F.B.I. from 1950 to 1979.
And I was in Washington, D.C. in the `60s, as a supervisor.
And then I became a chief inspector in the early `70s.
And from there I went to Memphis, Dallas and Los Angeles,
where I headed up those three offices.
 
JOHN STADTMILLER:
Okay. Very good.
Now, I understand that you can shed some light on the
incident [bombing] that happened in Oklahoma City.
 
KEN GUNDERSON:
Well, several days ago, I received a copy of the seismogram,
which is from the University of Oklahoma Geological 
Department, Norman, Oklahoma.  This seismogram shows that
there were two surface waves in the seismogram that was
being monitored by the University of Oklahoma. Of course,
they normally monitor for earthquakes. 
 
But I called this morning and talked to Dr. Ken Luza.
I asked him to read and interpret this seismogram for me.
He told me that there were two surface waves on the morning
of April the 19th. One was at 9:02 A.M. and 13 seconds,
and the other was at 9:02 A.M. and 23 seconds, ten 
milliseconds apart.
   [JD: Actually, ten seconds apart.]
I asked him what that means, and he said that this indicates 
that there were two detonations of a bomb, not one, as our
Government would like to have you believe. 
 
So, with that, I did a more little research, through some of 
my sources and contacts, and I came up with what I think is 
probably the bomb that was used. At least it appears to have
been the bomb, based on my research and my contacts.
 
It was not a fertilizer bomb [as the U.S. Government states].
There are too many reasons why it was not a fertilizer bomb.
The [actual] bomb is called an "electro-hydrodynamic gaseous fuel
device" -- a barometric bomb.  Now what that does ... it's
similar to the Army Blue-82 bomb, which is called the
"Daisy Cutter". The primary detonation sets up a cold [coal?]
cloud, a chemical cloud, which is energized with the electrostatic
voltage, and the second detonation produces an enhanced
explosion due to electrostatic microfronts.
 
I called the person (whom I happen to know) who developed this
bomb, and I relayed the information from the seismogram to him,
and pointed out to him that there were ten milliseconds [or is it
"seconds"? between explosions]. And he says that he is confident 
that that is the bomb that he invented, or that he developed.
 
Now, the bomb has a signature [such] that barometric pressure 
increases so rapidly and dramatically that it blows out the
windows in buildings within a two-to-three-block radius.
And, believe it or not, the bomb is the size of a pineapple.
 
Now, the reason that I do not believe, nor do my two
technicians believe (and I talked to two individuals on this)
that this was a fertilizer bomb is because there is not
enough "breisance" in an explosion of fertilizer to cause
the shock wave that destroyed that building.
 
JOHN STADTMILLER:
>From what I understand, with these blasts that we're talking
about, we're actually talking about frequencies. And with 
the [Government-declared] fertilizer bomb [story], they
[the Government] keep increasing the size of the bomb.
It started out being a thousand to fifteen hundred pounds. 
And now they're up to two tons of it.
But, even still, that type of blasting device is a low-yield,
low-frequency [device], not capable of doing the type of
damage that was witnessed upon that Federal Building.
 
KEN GUNDERSON:
You said it before I did, and that's exactly what I was
going to say next. And that is exactly what was said by
the technicians whom I had talked to.
                    (to be continued)
*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
 
    I urge you to post the episodes of this ongoing series to other 
    newsgroups, computer networks, computer bulletin boards and 
    computer mailing lists.  It is also important to post hardcopies
    on the bulletin boards of campuses, churches, supermarkets,
    laundromats, etc. -- any place where this vital information may  
    be read by concerned citizens.  
    Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent
    today as it was 220 years ago.
 
                         John DiNardo    
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation 
  Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigxc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

 Brian Francis Redman    bigxc@prairienet.org    "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"        
--------------------------------------------------------------


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA23177; Fri, 28 Apr 95 15:03:03 -0400
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA06056; Fri, 28 Apr 95 14:45:53 -0400
% Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (firefly.prairienet.org [192.17.3.3]) by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA26942; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:41:40 -0500
% Received: by firefly.prairienet.org (4.1/SMI-4.1)id AA10432; Fri, 28 Apr 95 13:41:16 CDT
% Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 13:41:16 CDT
% Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9504280732.A24252-0100000@firefly.prairienet.org>
% Reply-To: bigxc@prairienet.org
% Originator: conspire@prairienet.org
% Sender: conspire@prairienet.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: Brian Redman <bigxc@prairienet.org>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <conspire@prairienet.org>
% Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 4 Num. 72
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
393.679STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityFri Apr 28 1995 19:175
<<< Note 393.677 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

> Boy, you guys post responses faster than a pentium chip does instructions...

Sometimes.  However, when I'm in a hurry, my typing is about as accurate!
393.680TOOK::GASKELLFri Apr 28 1995 19:287
    re. .638
    
    If what a person does terrorizes me then that person is a terrorist.
    
    It doesn't matter if its Salvi or NcVeigh, they are terrorists, defined
    by what they do regardless of their motivation.
                                                                   
393.681CSOA1::LEECHFri Apr 28 1995 19:505
    re: .677
    
    "too", not "to"  
    
    Hope this helps.  8^)
393.682SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 19:568
       <<< Note 393.678 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>
                 -< Don't know how true this is, but read on >-

"Conspiracy Nation"? How could it be anything but true?

BTW: you would expect two blasts in rapid succession with the fert bomb, 
wouldn't you? One for the igniting dynamite and the other for the big 
stuff.
393.683NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundFri Apr 28 1995 20:004
re:.681

No it goes like this: "To be or not to be, that is the question".

393.685SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 20:1364
OKBOMB
http://naic.nasa.gov/fbi/okbomb.html

$2,000,000 Reward


The U.S. Government is offering up to $2 million for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of the
persons responsible for the bombing of the nine-story
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on
April 19, 1995.

Two suspects are being sought in connection with this
bombing. Sketches and description data on these
individuals are as follows:

Suspect 1 
   Build: Medium 
   Height: 5'10"-5'11" 
   Weight: About 180-185 pounds 
   Hair: Brown, crewcut 
   Other: He is right-handed. 
   Sketch of Suspect 1 

Suspect 2 
   Build: Medium 
   Height: 5'9"-5'10" 
   Weight: 175-180 pounds 
   Hair: Brown 
   Other: Tattoo visible on his left arm below his
   tee-shirt. He is a possible smoker. 
   Sketch of Suspect 2 

Both of these men should be considered armed and
extremely dangerous. Citizens should not, therefore,
attempt to take any action against them.

Anyone with information about these two men should
provide it immediately to the nearest FBI office. Outside
the United States, information can be provided to local
authorities or the nearest U.S. Embassy.

Information can also be furnished to special phone banks
set up for this purpose at 1-800-905-1514.

This information has been communicated to law
enforcement at all levels - domestic and international.




The OKBOMB Task Force is appealing to the public for
assistance. For this purpose, a reward of up to two
million dollars is being offered for information resulting
in the identification, arrest and conviction of the person(s)
responsible. Contact the OKBOMB Task Force at
1-(800) 905-1514 or email to 
okbomb@orion.arc.nasa.gov. 

  Back to FBI Home Page 

Author: William L. Tafoya, Ph.D. 

Last Updated April 21, 1995
393.686GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingFri Apr 28 1995 20:2414
    
    
    Steve, that was my fire that you srole there. :')
    
    
    
    Brandon,
    
    I know what it's like to be hassled cuz you aren't the right color. 
    And all I wanted to do was hear some good blues music.
    
    
    
    Mike
393.687SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri Apr 28 1995 20:2530
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 27 APR 1995 17:04:32 -0400 
From: Aldo Tartaglini <liberty@panix.com>
Newgroups: misc.activism.militia, talk.politics.guns
Subject: Media "Militia Angle" Fading? 

In today's NY Post, an article on the OK bombing states:

   "The Oklahoma City bombing is focussing on up to a dozen Army
   buddies who served with suspect Timothy McVeigh, rather than
   on right-wing militiamen, a well-placed source told the Post
   yesterday.

   The source said FBI Director Louis Freeh is discounting the
   involvement of militia members in last week's bombing of the
   Oklahoma City federal building.

   "'That's not the common denominator,' the source quoted the
   the FBI director as saying. 'The biggest common denominator
   is service in the U.S. Army.'"

   -- NY Post, 4/27/95, p. 4, column 5

I guess the media will now decry the U.S. military as a vicious group of
ultra-rightwing white supremacist bomb-throwing anarchists/gun fanatics
who should be infiltrated and perhaps outlawed outright in the interests
of national security and public safety. Someone should alert Slick Willie
Clinton, Rep. Schumer, Tom Brokaw, and Pete Jennings of this grave new
threat to our American way of life. 

393.688PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 20:3112
    
    re: 393.687
    
    Does anyone rememeber the quote by Sen. Jesse Helms about the Prez
    need a body guard if he visited a military base in his state?
    
    If this story turns out to be true (could also be false, as many have)
    then it would seem all the drum beating about militias was a bit
    premature. 
    
    
    
393.689DV780::PETTIGREWFri Apr 28 1995 20:3328
    re:682
    
    The seismic traces are inconclusive:
    
      The seismograph traces do not necessarily indicate a second explosion.
      They could also be "echos" reflected off subterranean rock layers.  It
      would take careful analysis of traces from multiple sensors to be sure
      of this.
    
    Only the truck bomb was needed:
    
      Ammonium nitrate is certainly powerful enough to destroy a reinforced
      concrete pylon.  This has been done repeatedly in Beruit.  Once the
      pylon goes, the rest of the damage is done by gravity.
    
      The estimated 8000 pounds of high-nitrate fertilizer that was
      supposedly used for the bomb could easily be loaded into the
      rental truck that was used.
    
    Perhaps explosives were stored in the building:
    
      Initial reports mentioned that a rocket launcher and "other military
      ordinance" was found in the rubble.  This was subsequently explained
      as "training materials" stored in BATF offices in the building.
    
      Did the BATF have an armoury in the building where explosives were
      stored?  Could a primary blast from the truck bomb set off a secondary
      blast from an armoury? 
393.690well I'll be...SWAM1::MEUSE_DAFri Apr 28 1995 20:4322
    
    re. 682
    i wonder about two blast if all the barrels were wrapped in 
    "dead cord". At least that's what i recall from my infantry days.
    Don't even even remember if thats' what it's called. Basically
    c4 in tubing. An entire length goes up at once when an ignitor 
    is hit.
    
    but that's a long time ago.
    
    re 678
    
    i mentioned Daisey cutter in an earlier note. Called it
    Daisy Cluster at 2000 lbs. Only heard them go off in Nam.May 
    have been just big bombs that I heard.
    
    hope the FBI doesn't call me tonight.
    
    Dave
    
    
    
393.691SHRCTR::DAVISFri Apr 28 1995 20:5217
       <<< Note 393.687 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>


Thanks for setting us straight! That's a relief! Man, ol' BC and his 
lackeys in the liberal media had me going there. It's nice to know the 
truth for a change. It's nice to know that all the militias in this country 
are just a bunch of regular, middle-of-the-road guys with a harmless fetish 
for camouflage clothing. A more heterogeneous organization would be hard to 
find. Heck, it's a regular rainbow coalition - 'cept not a bunch of 
lefties. Nope, nothin' but patriots; an' everything from Reaganites to 
McGovernicks, organized, as -b says, to protect our nation from whomever 
(God knows the folks under the command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can't 
be expected to do it all!). Not a white supremacist in sight. You'd find 
more conspiracy freaks in the PTA! 

Yessiree, thanks for opening our eyes! I know I'll sleep better now. :')

393.692.691 ;-) :-)DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Apr 28 1995 21:021
    
393.693SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoFri Apr 28 1995 21:1635
    > Besides, debatng with you requires more horsepower than I have - 
    > or have time to deliver.
    
    Aw, now you're just trying to butter me up.
    
    > I stretched a tad to use your chosen word in my post.  Sinister
    > implies some kind of invisible and malicious activity. 
    
    I chose the word to negate it, of course.  Your choice to hurl it 
    back was ... hyperbolic, and that's why I called you on it.  Glad
    to see you aren't insisting on it.
    
    >"Gastapo tactics"
    
    just as you are right to call me on my hyperbole ;-).  But I did spell
    it correctly, didn't I?
    
    > Am I making myself clearer?
    
    Well, you are.  Certainly I can't argue with what you find disturbing,
    especially with so tragic a circumstance fueling the conversation from
    all viewpoints.  But I had to take exception to the former label you
    used to describe those of us who find such resistance to our analysis
    to be likely to hold sway in the press, and in the official response,
    and therefore to remain unacted upon.  If the impropriety of federal
    government police power abuses is not corrected, I am gravely concerned
    for the welfare of the next fringe group that happens to attract their
    attention.  And I am gravely concerned about the nuts who, convinced
    that government is abandoning the Bill of Rights, will decide to take
    matters into their own hands.  Call those predictions.  And call them
    surreal if you must; that I'll take as an expression of how much you
    are disturbed.  But sinister?  Don't you dare (and I know you won't -
    just let me have my little closing rhetorical flourish.)
    
    DougO
393.694Since you asked...NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundFri Apr 28 1995 21:414
>just as you are right to call me on my hyperbole ;-).  But I did spell
>it correctly, didn't I?

"Gestapo".
393.695SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoFri Apr 28 1995 22:0710
    >> But I did spell it correctly, didn't I?
    >
    > "Gestapo".
    
    I was aware that the quoted "Gastapo" was incorrect.  But I used it
    much before, in .473, now that I've looked it up, which is what he was
    quoting, and I was asking if my earlier spelling had been wrong.  It
    wasn't.
    
    DougO
393.696EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesFri Apr 28 1995 22:437
re .690:

>    i wonder about two blast if all the barrels were wrapped in 
>    "dead cord". At least that's what i recall from my infantry days.
>    Don't even even remember if thats' what it's called.

det cord.  ('det' as in detonate)
393.697PATE::CLAPPFri Apr 28 1995 22:448
    
    ABC news quoted Clinton as saying -
    
    "Don't quibble, act quickly"  on his anti terrorism legislation.
    
    Does't that make anyone else the least bit quezzy?  
    
    
393.698CSC32::D_STUARTSat Apr 29 1995 02:023
    re.696
    
    correct...det cord...handy stuff
393.699terrorist profileSUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CSat Apr 29 1995 10:26142
Date:         Fri, 28 Apr 95 14:51:39 EDT
From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
To: ACT@BOLIS.SF-BAY.ORG
Subject: TERRORIST PROFILE
Message-ID:   <950428.150857.EDT.34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>


                              Are You a Terrorist?


Based on the recent pronouncements in the national press concerning the
attributes of a terrorist as defined by the Clinton regime, I have developed
the following Terrorist Profile.  If you, or anyone you know, meets any of
the criteria listed in this profile you probably should turn that person,
or tourself, in to the nearest Law Enforcement Officer.


You are a Terrorist if you:

1.      Are from, or have ever visited Michigan, know anyone from there or have
        ever known anyone who has/does;

2.      Are, have ever been, or have ever known anyone who is a member of
        the NRA;

3.      Reside in, have ever resided in or visited any state with a militia
        or have ever known anyone who has/does;

4.      Participated in or supported militia activities physically, materially
        or financially, or in any publication or communication, or have
        ever known anyone who has/does;

5.      Possess, have read or have access to a copy of the U.S. Constitution
        or have ever known anyone who has/does;

6.      Own and/or use, or have ever owner and/or used, firearms for any
        purpose or have ever known anyone who has/does;

7.      Are a farmer or own, possess or use organic fertilizer in any form,
        have ever done so, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

8.      Own, possess, use or handle Diesel fuel for any purpose, ever have done
        so, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

9.      Listen or have ever listened to talk radio, including Rush Limbaugh,
        or have ever known anyone who has/does;

10.     Are or have ever been a WASP, have ever known anyone who is, or lived
        in any area where a WASP population was present, or have ever known
        anyone who is/has/does;

11.     Are a Republican, have ever been, or have ever known anyone who is/was;

12.     Disagree with the President on anything, in any way, have ever done so,
        or have ever known anyone who has/does;

13.     Refuse to believe what the national media says, have ever done so,
        or have ever known anyone who has/does;

14.     Possess, use or have access to any vehicle without a license plate,
        ever have, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

15.     Have ever done anything that could be construed as violent, including
        raising your voice to someone, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

16.     Believe or have ever believed that the government is not above the law,
        or have ever expressed such beliefs, or have ever known anyone who
        has/does;

17.     Have ever criticised the government or any agency or personnel thereof
        in any way, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

18.     Feel that federal authorities acted in any way improperly in
        their handling of the Branch Davidian crisis in Waco, Texas, on
        and before April 19, 1993, or at any time thereafter, have ever
        harbored or expressed such opinions, or have ever known anyone who
        has/does;

19.     Read or possess any conservative publication, have ever done so, or
        have ever known anyone who has/does;

20.     Believe or maintain that the US governemnt has lied to the American peop
        at any time for any reason, have ever done so or have ever known anyone
        who has/does;

21.     Know, possess a copy of, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, have ever
        done so, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

22.     Believe or maintain that parents should control the education of their
        children instead of the government doing so, have ever so believed
        or maintained, or have ever known anyone who has/does;

23.     Refuse to believe that the US Constitution says whatever the government
        says it says, have ever so believed, maintained or stated, or have
        ever known anyone who has/does;

24.     Refuse to accept, or are critical of, current US policies, goals and
        objectives with respect to the United Nations, have ever been so,
        have ever read or possessed any publication or listened to any
        broadcast, from whatever source, that has been so, or have ever known
        anyone who has/does;

25.     Are mistrustful or suspicious of the Federal Reserve system, have ever
        been or have ever known anyone who holds or ever held such attitudes;

26.     Have ever participated in any group, rally, meeting or gathering
        where firearms were present or discussed, or have ever known
        anyone who has;

27.     Have ever possessed or worn any type of camouflage clothing or
        camouflaged object or have ever known anyone who has/does;

28.     Refuse to accept the premise that safety and security are worth
        more than any so-called rights, have ever done so, or
        have ever known anyone who has/does;

29.     Refuse to accept the premise that only persons with "something to hide"
        advocate the so-called "right to privacy", have ever done so, or
        have ever known anyone who has/does;

30.     Possess, maintain or have access to any stockpile containing more than
        a seven-day supply of food and/or clothing, currency, fuel, weapons or
        other commodities or supplies in any form, associate with any group,
        organization or institution that does or that advocates such
        activities, have ever done so or have ever known anyone who has/does;

31.     Own, use or have access to any computer or FAX machine, or communicate
        with any other person by means of such computer or FAX machine,
        including communications carried over telephone lines or via the
        Internet, have ever done so, or have ever known anyone who has/does;.


---

W. K. Gorman  <bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu>

Copyright (C) 1995 by W. K. Gorman.
With explicit reservation of all rights, exclusively and without prejudice,
per UCC 1-207.  Any commercial or for-profit use of all or any part of this
message, in any form, is expressly forbidden. Opinions are my own.

------------------------------
393.700SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CSat Apr 29 1995 10:349
    
    
    	re: .691
    
    	I'm glad I could help solve your insomnia problem. Life is truly
    worth living now. ;*)
    
    
    jim
393.701krazy Kults backwards_R uSBOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Mon May 01 1995 12:3118
RE: 393.260 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C"

>> how waco ended was a tragedy, and while i feel badly about what
>> happened to the children, koresh himself pretty much had it coming.

> Ah yes, he'd committed no crimes, had complied with authorities in
> the past, but he 'had it coming'. Very nice. You remind me of the folks
> who say a woman who wears seductive clothing deserves to get raped.

Yea,  murder of BATF agents is never a crime.  They are not people,  trying
to do a difficult job.  Oh no,  they is Nazi Jackbooted Scum,  right?

Or was it self defense?  Then Koresh could have convinced a jury of that.

Koresh wanted to die.  It's hard to stop that.


Phil
393.702CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikMon May 01 1995 12:3921
    As a reminder, the door and other pieces of evidence that could have
    shown which way the bolltes  started flying was destroyed in the fire,
    or "lost" by the federal governments evidense storage.  
    
    Koresh isn't one of my favorite people, but if you could wait 51 days,
    what was the problem with waiting longer, and WHY, for the sake of the
    goddess, didn't the feds let the fire department in when the building
    went up.  Also why did the immediately bulldoze remaining walls as
    quickly as possible.  
    
    While Koresh, and Weaver, were wake up calls for the "right", dont
    forget we have had same for years on the left as well, or what do you
    call the MOVE massacre in PA, the SLA massacre in LA, numerous
    "drug-busts" nationwide, etc?  In the MOVE massacre, children were also
    killed, and the evidence, as well as the better part of a city block of
    homes destroyed.  
    
    Heavy-handed government tactics are used agains PEOPLE, not the "right"
    or the "left" exclusively.
    
    meg
393.703SHRCTR::DAVISMon May 01 1995 13:1536
      <<< Note 393.693 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

   
>    just as you are right to call me on my hyperbole ;-).  But I did spell
>    it correctly, didn't I?

I'm sure you did. Ah depend on a kindness of spell-checkers - just helpless 
without 'em. And when I neglect to use them, my incompetency is exposed. 
God knows, no error will escape the watchful eyes of the 'box!
     
>    > Am I making myself clearer?
    
>    Well, you are...

I agree, we need to be more open and critical of government actions when 
there is even the hint of abuse of basic constitutional rights. The sad 
thing is, it is the nature of the beast (human, not just bureaucrat) to 
want to hide mistakes, and of the beasts among beasts (paranoid, 
psychopathic, compulsive conspiracists - chew on that one if you dare) 
to not believe honest attempts at self-regulation in any case. But that 
shouldn't stop us from trying to clean up our act, of course.

> Call those predictions.  And call them
>    surreal if you must; that I'll take as an expression of how much you
>    are disturbed.  

I *wish* your little predictions were surreal! It's conspiracy nation 
that's surreal. It's a bunch of 4-Fs and 1-Ys and DDs dressing up in army
fatigues, playing war games in the woods, and gathering around a campfire
in an idealogically incestuous orgy of "ideas" about Janet Reno and her NWO
storm troopers - all in preparation for the inevitable civil war to restore
our noble republic to its 18th century greatness -- that's surreal. 

And SINISTER. 

But you knew that. :-) 
393.704CSOA1::LEECHMon May 01 1995 13:44105
    As just a small bit of empirical data on how effective the media is at
    promoting a specific view/propaganda/emotional response, I'll share
    with you a bit of the discussion I had with my family last night (after
    going over to my dad's for dinner Sunday evening).
    
    OKC bombing news update comes on tube, which triggers a few comments on
    the bombing.
    
    Step-mom:  I wish they'd do away with all those militias.
    
    Me: Why?  They had nothing to do with the bombing.
    
    Dad: (basically disagrees)
    
    Me: McVey was not even a member of the Michigan militia, he attended
    meetings but was booted out for promoting violence.  
    
    Dad: That's not what the news reports have said (he missed the last
    week's worth of OKC news, FWIW).
    
    Me:  The media blurts out hearsay as fact, before they have any idea
    what's going on.  They tried to make a militia connection, but even the
    FBI later said there was no connection, but in fact the Michigan 
    militia informed the FBI that McVey was possibly dangerous.  
    
    Dad: Militias are dangerous, they attract the terrorist types.  They
    trained him (McVey).
    
    ME: No, the army trained McVey.  If you want to make a connection, the
    army would be a much better one than the militia.  McVey wasn't even a
    member of the Michigan militia.
    
    Dad: But if the militia's purpose is to fight the government...
    
    Me: The only way it will fight the government is if the federal police
    try to force unconstitutional law on them, like suspending the Second
    Amendment, then come to try and take away their firearms.
    
    Dad: They are crazy if they think they can fight the US army.
    
    Me: It would be highly unconsititutional if the US army were used
    against the people it is sworn to protect.
    
    Dad: They should work within the system for changes.
    
    Me: They do.  But what happens when Congress ignores the people and
    enacts what THEY feel is best?  What happens when the system no longer
    works for the people?
    
    Dad: That would never happen.
    
    Me: Trends suggest something different.
    
    Dad: You're starting to sound like those guys they interviewed from the
    Militia [he mentioned that their attitude towards the government was
    "dangerous" previously].
    
    Me:  Maybe they have certain valid points? 
    
    Dad: That's a dangerous line of reasoning.
    
    Me: Why?
    
    Dad: Because taken to the extreme it leads to things like this bombing.
    
    
    
    
    There was a lot more to the conversation, this is just a brief excerpt. 
    It frightened me, to be honest.  Why?  My dad is very conservative.  He
    is also one of the most logical and intellegent men I know.  If he can
    be manipulated in this fashion by the media (to believe that the
    militias are all evil and are synonymous with terrorists), how many
    will escape this mentality?  I was surprised by many of the emotional
    responses, as he is the type to reason things our logically. 
    
    By the end of the argument, he conceeded that the militias have the
    consitutional right to meet, and that most of those in militias are
    probably average guys.  My step-mom ducked out of the conversation
    rather quickly.  8^)  Her opinion was that they should all be shot or
    outlawed or something.  Of couse, she has bought the media's line about
    "assault" weapons, too ("no one needs an assault rifle").  Sigh.  I'm
    still working on deprogramming her, though.  8^)
    
    I only bring this up to show how powerful a propaganda tool the media
    is.  It scares the hell out of me to think of how many people will
    cheer when the federal government (should this ever happen, I'm not
    saying it will) comes shooting for the militias.  Just as many cheered
    when the tanks rolled over the Dividian compound...never asking
    themselves the questions that should be obvious.  Are we so trained
    in our thought process that we (generic US we) don't question our
    government's actions?  Are we so ignorant of the Constitution that we
    are no longer alarmed when obviously unconstitutional actions are
    committed by the government?
    
    As I told my dad last night towards the end of our argument/discussion,
    the trend in DC and Clinton's anti-terrorist bill scares me much more
    than any militia or threat of terrorism ever could.  I explained a few
    of the detials and the erosion of the BoR it entailed, but he
    steadfastly defended this with the standard "it can't happen here"
    defense.  I said it already has.
    
    
    
    -steve
393.705STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityMon May 01 1995 13:5539
<<< Note 393.677 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

> re:the quote ["discipline"]
>
> I usually have heard it from conservatives.

I believe that you will find that conservatives and libertarians frequently 
use the word "discipline" in writing about schools and parenting.  This is 
very different from Bill Clinton's view of discipline imposed by Government
on the population:

    1.  When talking about schools and parenting, the people being
        disciplined are children.
    2.  Individuals are being disciplined for breaking the rules.  This is
        more fair because each individual is treated on a case-by-case 
        basis and because, we hope, the individual who is punished is the
        person who broke the rules.  (As opposed to prior restraint which 
        punishes a number of people who did nothing wrong.)
    3.  Many of the ways that governement may impose discipline (e.g. 
        censorship, loose rules for search and seizure, invasions of 
        privacy) may also be used by governement to gain power and 
        increase control over the population for the benefit of government.


We've heard this before.  President Clinton is right to talk about the need
for individuals to take responsibility.  This is something that conservatives
and libertarians have been talking about for years.  Where I have a problem
is this idea that when the State decides that the People aren't doing things
the right way, the State gets to move in and take away individual rights:

    What's happened in America today is, too many people live in areas
    where there's no family structure, no community structure, and no work
    structure.  And so there's a lot of irresponsibility.  And so a lot of
    people say there's too much personal freedom.  When personal freedom's
    being abused, you have to move to limit it.

                                                President Clinton
                                                MTV town meeting
                                                March 22, 1994
393.706Steve, listen to your DadDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundMon May 01 1995 14:2315
    Steve,
    
    I wouldn't bet the farm that further investigation of McVeigh does
    NOT lead back to the Michigan Militia, specifically Mark Koernke.
    Eyewitnesses have put McVeigh with Koernke traveling through
    Florida and other southern states last spring and summer on many
    of Koernke's weekend "rallies".  A motel owner has produced receipts
    to back this up.
    
    While executing the search warrant on Terry Nichol's home, investi-
    gators have found a receipt for 1,000 lbs of magnesium nitrate;
    his status is expected to change from material witness to co-conspir-
    ator soon.
    
    z
393.707PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon May 01 1995 14:269
    
>>    While executing the search warrant on Terry Nichol's home, investi-
>>    gators have found a receipt for 1,000 lbs of magnesium nitrate;
>>    his status is expected to change from material witness to co-conspir-
>>    ator soon.

	heard it was a receipt for a ton of ammonium nitrate, and that
	McVeigh's prints are all over it.

393.708CSOA1::LEECHMon May 01 1995 15:1560
    I remain sceptical on this bombing.  I bring up scenarios that the
    media will not, not because I believe that this is 100% truth, but
    because I think that the whole capture of McVey and the connections
    trying to be made with the Michigan militia is too convenient.
    
    We know only what we are told, and to be honest, I doubt everything the
    talking heads spew out of their collective mouth these days.  The
    slant, the emotional tugging, the demonizing, and finally the change of
    public opinion to accept Clinton's "anti-terrorist" bill.  It's just
    too much for me to swallow whole.  I won't even go into the timing of
    this incident, there are too  many tangents to bring up on this aspect
    of the bombing.
    
    It could be merely a bout of political opportunism.  Clinton wanting to
    be more that a one-term president, wants to look like he's doing
    something positive in light of tragety.  Too bad this bill, if passed,
    will only burn more pages from the Constitution, and will do NOTHING to
    prevent this type of terrorist action.
    
    It could be just coincidence that at a time when patriotism is revived
    and defenders of the Consititution begin meeting in numbers via
    militias, that the media and the government get just what they need to
    demonize them and nip patriotism of this sort in the bud.  
    
    It could be that a left-leaning administration just happened to get the
    shot in the arm it needed at just the right time it needed it, in a
    time when those on the left have been made a minority due to their
    big-government platforms.  
    
    It could be coincidence that no BATF officers were killed in the
    bombing, when they would have been the specific target of the
    bomber(s).
    
    It could also be coincidence that the media and the government are now
    hyping gun control (when no firearms were used in the bombing), and
    generally connecting all those with anti-big government views as
    "right-wing extremists" who are dangerous, in a time of political
    upheaval of anti-big government voters.  It could also be coincidence
    that somehow, Christians are be demonized along with the other
    non-politically correct militias, the NRA, and others in the "radical
    right", at a time when Christians are making their votes felt in DC.  
    
    And it could just be coincidence that McVey was never checked out by the 
    FBI after the Michigan militia warned them of his promotion of violence
    against the government.
    
    It is possible that this whole incident came about as displayed by the
    media; but I find that when I look at the big picture of this event, I
    find the media's interpretation a bit lacking and utterly simplistic.  
    In any case, the end result will benefit the Clinton administration, as
    the sheep happily bleat as they are being sheared of their
    constitutional rights all in the name of security.
    
    This whole thing scares the crap out of me, especially when patriots
    are demonized.  Be wary when the demonizing of groups takes place due
    to the actions of individuals.  Guilt by association is not mentioned
    anywhere in the Constitutional of the United States.
    
    
    -steve   
393.709CSOA1::LEECHMon May 01 1995 15:2210
    re: .706
    
    McVeigh DID attend rallies.  He was also booted out due to his extreme
    views.
    
    Do you suggest guilt by association?  Demonize the Michigan militia
    because one member (Koenke) may have ties with McVeigh?
    
    
    -steve
393.710Koernke isn't turning down any interviewsDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundMon May 01 1995 16:4215
    Koernke appears to be one of the most visible spokesmen for the
    MM; if the MM do not disavow Koernke, then they deserve whatever
    befalls them IMO.
    
    Local Atlanta played a clip of Koernke when he was in Atlanta
    last year; he was extolling the virtues of magnesium nitrate.  He
    knew what he was saying but he took a tongue in cheek attitude
    (knowing he was being filmed).  He had been speaking for a
    few minutes and was filmed saying "ooops, have to be careful what we 
    say here folks, but we all know what WONDERFUL things can be done with
    fertilizer; yes, yes fertilizer is our friend".  The audience was
    laughing and poking each other in the ribs; it was quite clear he
    was NOT talking about fertilizing the BACK40!!
    
    
393.711SHRCTR::DAVISMon May 01 1995 17:0250
                      <<< Note 393.708 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>    It could be merely a bout of political opportunism...
    
>    It could be just coincidence ...
    
>    It could be that a left-leaning administration just happened to ...
    
>    It could be coincidence that no BATF officers were killed ...
    
>    It could also be coincidence that the media and the government are now
    hyping gun control...

>   It could also be coincidence that somehow, Christians are be demonized 
	...
    
>   And it could just be coincidence that McVey was never checked out ...
    
I also could be that you've gone off the deep end, Steve.

Your Dad's not the one with the problem. Get it into your head, there is 
not now, nor has there ever been a "media agenda" - except to make money, 
of course. You can accuse them of sensationalism, of a rush to judgment, of 
a rush to getting the "scoop" (at the expense of accuracy sometimes), of 
even in more cases than not of displaying a sympathy for liberal issues 
more than conservative ones, but you can *never* accuse them of being in 
cahoots with each other, let alone with the gummint. One thing you can 
count on them to avoid, however, is far-fetched conspiracy theories. News 
media depend on at least a semblance of credibility to attract mass 
audiences, and that would blow them right out the window. The media are in 
the thick of an intensely competitive market; they have no 
time/interest/reason to cooperate that way.

You should also get the notion out of your mind that the gummint is
conspiring to strip you of the BoR. They have a hard enough time getting
Social Security to work right, let alone marshaling competing political 
interests in Washington and all the bloated (by your own definition)
agencies to secretly and subtly pick away at your liberties. If the scope
of our freedoms is narrowing, its the result of a natural, unmanaged
process. That isn't to say that it is always and in all ways right and
needs no corrective measures - it does. 

Tom

PS: By the way, where did you get this idea that Christians are being 
blamed for OKC? If anything, CHristianity is getting a lot of good press in 
helping OKC residents come to terms with their fate. Other than 
occasionally being one of the string of adjectives used to define white 
supremicists (who usually do, incredibly, profess to be Christians), I 
can't think of when Christianity's name's been used in vain. 
393.712GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingMon May 01 1995 17:044
    
    
    No media agenda?  Be for real.  What percentage are registered
    democrats?  
393.713MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Mon May 01 1995 17:567
    The Networks espouse to non conservative agendas...make no mistake
    about that.
    
    A good book to read is "The Stealing of America" by a guy named White I
    believe.  All the statistics are there.
    
    -Jack
393.714CSOA1::LEECHMon May 01 1995 18:0141
    re: .711
    
    Is it a conspiracy to take away our rights, or are our rights being
    narrowed due to the natural evolution of a bloated government?
    
    IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!  What does matter is the trend that is
    obvious to anyone with an IQ of over 20.  If you can't see the trend,
    then that's your problem.
    
    I may go blathering on about conpiracies and such, but I do so because:
    
    a) I have a good time doing it;
    b) they seem less crazy as time goes on;
    c) to counter the media bias;
    d) to throw out other possibilities that fit current trends.
    
    I've never said I've got all the facts.  I've never said I believe
    everything I post.  Heck, I've even mentioned the natural evolution of
    a bloated federal government may possibly being responsible for certain BoR
    violations, rather than some insidious plot (though this possibilitly
    remains open, I dismiss nothing simply because it seems unlikely to
    most people).
    
    Suddenly, after the OKC bombing, the opportunist politicians are scurrying 
    about trying to push through a bill (which magically appeared shortly
    after the bombing- complete with a name "Anti-terrorist bill"- that 
    basically does away with due process to those "suspected" of terrorism
    (and fedgov agends need no evidence to suspect you).  This makes me 
    suspicious.
    
    
    As far as Christians being demonized, someone posted an article a ways
    back (350-line post, I believe) which demonized Christians along with
    militias, and basically anyone who disagreed with current policies or
    find certain federal bureau activities suspect (Waco, Weaver).  Those
    who believe the government is too big are called "anti-government",
    which would probably even include you.  Didn't know you were a right
    wing, anti-governemtn nut, did you.
    
    
    -steve               
393.715MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Mon May 01 1995 18:108
    Our founding fathers were quite clear about their intent in the
    Constitution...the rights of the people WILL NOT be impeded by the
    government.
    
    They will take my gun OVER MY DEAD BODY and will have to pry my fingers
    off in doing it!
    
    -Jack
393.716JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeMon May 01 1995 18:115
    My biggest concern about gun control is that it leaves arsenals in the
    hands of the government and the criminals... this doesn't sound safe to
    me.
    
    
393.717MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryMon May 01 1995 18:116
    
    <--- !!!!!
    
    Pinch me.
    
    -b
393.718MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Mon May 01 1995 18:131
    Who ME!??  :-0
393.719Nancy has it rightTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSMon May 01 1995 18:194
Thank you Nancy. That is exactly the point!

Amos
393.721JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeMon May 01 1995 18:261
    Did spell it wong?
393.723JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeMon May 01 1995 18:281
    bet did.
393.72442344::CBHLager LoutMon May 01 1995 18:316
>       Arsenal?  Stuart?

ptui!  Wash your mouth out!  The name of that crap `football' team should
never be uttered...

Chris.
393.725SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotMon May 01 1995 18:536
    .713
    
    > The Networks espouse to non conservative agendas...make no mistake
    > about that.
    
    Ask Slick if he and the President agree with that statement...
393.726SX4GTO::WANNOORMon May 01 1995 19:0427
    
    .675 b braucher  ---
    were you simply curious about my name? does it matter what kind of
    name it is? just think of it as joe smith, if it makes it easier :-)
    
    .655 m wannemaker and mr? sadin....
    I stated as MY opinion  what a terrorist act would be. I also stated my
    opinion that there is NO NEED for guns for "protection". I have lived
    in other countries where gun ownership is not considered a necessity
    or a desire in everyday life. Before you froth yet again, these ARE
    civilized countries: one person one vote applies, with Parliamentary 
    and Senate legislative systems, with wonderful school system that in fact
    turn up productive and highly educated labor force, where MAYBE cops
    have guns. Pls check ALL the Commonwealth members stats on death by
    guns (especially accidental deaths), and add other industrial countries
    to that list such as Germany, France and Japan.
    
    As for mr sadin, I bet you the "fuzzy little hole" of my environment and
    lifestyle is MUCH MUCH larger and enlightened than your narrow  and 
    conservative one.
    
    At what point would you consider the merits of societal/community
    benefits/rights vs that of the individual? For example, who stands to
    lose less (and therefore benefits more) when guns/firearms are banned
    from within 1000 ft from schools (of course your viewpoint won in this
    case, since the supreme court overturned the ban)??
                                                                        
393.727Well, I just wunnered...GAAS::BRAUCHERMon May 01 1995 19:1825
    
    Well, I was wondering about WANNOOR (which a reliable source
    indicates is Malaysian) because :
    
       (1)  I was trying to picture you, as I do all 'Boxers.
       (2)  I was wondering if you were noting from the USA, which I now
          know you are.  Digital is multi-national.  But personal gun
          ownership is very deeply ingrained in the USA, since there never
          would have been any USA without it.
       (3)  In any event, while your English is excellent (better than
          many others here in the USA 'Box), your point of view on guns
          does not reflect mainstream American opinion.  For example,
          many public figures routinely use them, and it is certainly
          not surprising to visit a random American and find that he or she
          has firearms in the house, often prominently on display in a
          fancy locked case.
       (4)  I am trying to understand from whence your opinion springs, as
          I do all opinions I find a bit strange.  You capitalize "NEED",
          as if you are making an important point, but as I already pointed
          out, I don't think humans "need" anything, and think this idea
          irrelevant in discussing regulation.  If the government has a
          civil servant whose job it is to determine what I "need",
          I want the person FIRED IMMEDIATELY.  None of their business.
    
          bb
393.728MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryMon May 01 1995 19:2441
    >I stated as MY opinion  what a terrorist act would be. I also stated my
    >opinion that there is NO NEED for guns for "protection". I have lived
    >in other countries where gun ownership is not considered a necessity
    >or a desire in everyday life. Before you froth yet again, these ARE
    >civilized countries: one person one vote applies, with Parliamentary 
    >and Senate legislative systems, with wonderful school system that in fact
    >turn up productive and highly educated labor force, where MAYBE cops
    >have guns. Pls check ALL the Commonwealth members stats on death by
    >guns (especially accidental deaths), and add other industrial countries
    >to that list such as Germany, France and Japan.

    Sorry, and no offense intended, but I'm afraid your opinion
    matters about as much as the wind it takes to blow it out
    your behind in this case... the constitution of the US
    and principles of common law are what matter.

    >As for mr sadin, I bet you the "fuzzy little hole" of my environment and
    >lifestyle is MUCH MUCH larger and enlightened than your narrow  and 
    >conservative one.

    Disturbingly familiar rhetoric. Liberalism automatically
    equates to enlightenment. Look no further than the end
    of your nose (if you can see that far) for an example
    of close mindedness.

    >At what point would you consider the merits of societal/community
    >benefits/rights vs that of the individual? For example, who stands to
    >lose less (and therefore benefits more) when guns/firearms are banned
    >from within 1000 ft from schools (of course your viewpoint won in this
    >case, since the supreme court overturned the ban)??

    If you were as enlightened as you would like to believe,
    you would be aware that the law was not struck down on
    2nd amendment grounds, but on grounds of commerce. The
    specific legal issue is the boundaries of the federal
    government with respect to regulating commerce. The
    law that was struck down was largely symbolic, as more
    than 40 states already have specific regulations dealing
    with the possession of firearms on school property.

    -b
393.729CSC32::C_BENNETTMon May 01 1995 20:056
    I believe the congress has oversteped its power and the president
    has also.   
    
    Hopefully (just like the recent opinion of guns and schools) the
    Supreme Court will overturn these laws which the congress and president
    have unconstitionally implemented
393.730SMURF::MSCANLONoh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye.Mon May 01 1995 21:0342
I've been away at school for a week, and I confess I didn't read
all 729 responses.  I read about half. I am extremely concerned
that this espisode will lead to a reduction or ultimately an 
elimination of our civil liberties.  I believe the government is
using this espisode, tragic as it is, to further this.  

The "common thread", if you will, that may connect Conservatives,
Christians and the government together in the minds of many is
simply that people don't like other people telling them what to
do.  Our guns, our beliefs and our courage forged this country 200+ 
years ago without the benefit of government.  It was forged on the 
basis of personal liberty and religious freedom.  When you see 
these things being threatened, all eyes turn to the loudest voices.  
If the loudest voice happens to be Christian, well, I'm sorry, but 
you're known by the company you keep, regardless of your personal 
beliefs.  Opinions are formed quickly today, as fast as a 30 second
sound bite.  If you are forthright and forceful in verbalizing your
beliefs, you run the risk of ticking someone off.  People are afraid
that if you are willing to proselytize, you may also be willing to
legistate if the proselytizing doesn't work.  I don't believe that's the
    case, but I also don't have any solutions to offer.

The government has raised at least two generations on anti-communistic
propaganda.  I remember it in my history books in grade school.
It was always couched as a vignette depicting a denial of religious 
and/or personal freedoms.  People believe in these freedoms, as well 
as the freedom to have the means to defend yourself.  When you 
(as a government) spend untold amounts of money convincing people these 
things are important in a "civilized" society, then you start taking them
away, it's really no small wonder people get upset.  

The media can hardly be trusted as a source of information.  It
wants to deliver punch and impact, not fact.  The verbal and pictorial
content is edited with that in mind.  The only mistake I believe they
made, was that in attempting to portray the MM as a bunch of extremists,
they were surprised to find out a whole lot of very normal people
agreed with some of what they were saying.... :-)  Now all that's
come of it is that people who weren't questioning before are questioning
now, and I think that's good.  The more daylight we can shine around, the
less that gets lost in the shuffle. 

Mary-Michael
393.731SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 11:204
    
    	amen mary-michael!
    
    
393.732SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 11:2526
    
> <<< Note 393.701 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>
>                        -< krazy Kults backwards_R uS >-
    
    
>Yea,  murder of BATF agents is never a crime.  They are not people,  trying
>to do a difficult job.  Oh no,  they is Nazi Jackbooted Scum,  right?
>Or was it self defense?  Then Koresh could have convinced a jury of that.
    
    	Murder of BATF agents? I think not. It's been fairly well
    established that they came in firing and ended up shooting quite a few
    of their own. Who knows how many of those that were killed were killed
    by friendly fire? The BATF admitted they shot some of their own, but
    then were ordered to clam up. Check out some of the earlier news
    footage if you can find someone who was taping it.
    
    	re: convincing a jury
    
    	A bunch of armed federal goons just shot up your house, have killed
    a person who was trying to get back IN and left his body hanging on a
    fence to rot for days, and are blasting the sounds of rabbits being
    slaughtered at your home. Would you think you'd get a fair trial? 
    
    
    jim
       
393.733SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 11:4687
    
    
re:                     <<< Note 393.726 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR >>>
    
>I also stated my
>    opinion that there is NO NEED for guns for "protection". I have lived
>    in other countries where gun ownership is not considered a necessity
>    or a desire in everyday life. Before you froth yet again, these ARE
>    civilized countries: one person one vote applies, with Parliamentary 
>    and Senate legislative systems, with wonderful school system that in fact
>    turn up productive and highly educated labor force, where MAYBE cops
>    have guns. 

    	And those countries do not have a bill of rights. And Parliament
    can keep it self in power forever if it so votes. And those countries
    have ALWAYS had a low crime rate, even before gun control laws. These
    things I guarantee you.
    
    	Your other countries are not the United States and cannot be
    compared to it.
    
>Pls check ALL the Commonwealth members stats on death by
>    guns (especially accidental deaths), and add other industrial countries
>    to that list such as Germany, France and Japan.
    
    	I have.....many many times over. Guess what I find? Gun ownership
    is so much lower in those countries that you cannot have a statistical
    comparison of the two (U.S. vs whomever). Also, all those countries have 
    all had low crime even when gun-ownership was permitted. Check out
    England for example. Gun crime has risen 200% since 1982 (yes, I have
    the reference if you would like it). Guess what? Gun-crime was LOWER
    before the gun-legislation. Hmmmm....
    
>    As for mr sadin, I bet you the "fuzzy little hole" of my environment and
>    lifestyle is MUCH MUCH larger and enlightened than your narrow  and 
>    conservative one.
    
    	You come into this file and tell us how no one needs a gun because
    you don't see the need, and you call my field of vision narrow? As far
    as being a conservative, WRONG. I am not a liberal, I am not a
    conservative, I do not prescribe myself to any one group or idealism.
    Claiming to represent or believe in only one set of ideas/principles
    would be very narrow minded indeed.  I find good points on both sides
    of the fence, and in the middle as well.
    
>    At what point would you consider the merits of societal/community
>    benefits/rights vs that of the individual? 
    
    	"Society's needs come before the individual's needs."  -Adolf
    Hitler, 1933
    
    "There aren't enough bullets in the world to make socialism work." 
                                                  --- Hieronymous, 1989
    
    	These are a couple of quotes that strike me as being relevant to my
    thoughts on society's needs vs. individual's need. Socialsm, from my
    research, does not work and will never work. I would rather suffer with
    the pains of freedom than the slavery of socialism. YMMV...
    
>For example, who stands to
>    lose less (and therefore benefits more) when guns/firearms are banned
>    from within 1000 ft from schools (of course your viewpoint won in this
>    case, since the supreme court overturned the ban)??
    
    	As was stated before, this was a case on commerce, not 2nd
    amendment grounds. But, I feel banning firearms within 1000ft of
    schools was foolish. It's unenforcable (are you going to pay a few cops
    to frisk everyone within 1000' of a school?), it infringes on the folks
    who may happen to LIVE within 1000' of a school, and it's not going to
    deter criminals or crime in any way whatsoever. A useless law if there
    ever was one and I'm glad to see it gone. I was speaking with a friend
    who grew up in New Hampshire, and he tells me of days when he would
    hunt before he went to school and then bring his rifle into school and
    lock it up in the school gun locker! Funny how no one was ever hurt or
    killed with all those nasty guns in there eh? 
    
    	Like I said before, this is America and there are alot of deeply
    rooted feelings about patriotism. Alot of those feelings include the
    right to own firearms. 99% of legally purchased firearms will never be
    used in a crime (figure it out - 33,000 gun-deaths a year and there
    are over 300million legally owned firearms in the U.S.. Some put the
    figure at twice that, but we'll be conservative.). Why not work towards
    helping your community rather than pushing the anti-gun bandwagon? It'd
    be more constructive...
    
    jim
       
393.734SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 11:4656
                       NRA-ILA FAX NETWORK
                   NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
           11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Vol.2,No.19 Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918     4/28/95

            NRA SUPPORTS HOUSE LEADERSHIP'S DECISION
   TO ADDRESS COUNTER-TERRORISM BEFORE CLINTON GUN BAN REPEAL

   In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, Congressional
leaders has decided that as a matter of national priority, the
vote on repealing the Clinton gun ban (H.R. 1488) will be delayed
until Congress completes its work on this anti-terrorism
legislative package.  As NRA-ILA Executive Director, Tanya
Metaksa, noted, "I have spoken with the Leadership of the House
on this issue to let them know that I believe law-abiding gun
owners would support them in taking up the issue of counter-
terrorism as a matter of national priority.  We would not object
to delaying a few more weeks before voting on a repeal of the
Clinton gun ban if was for a good purpose.  This indeed is a good
purpose."  As for the anti-terrorism bill which is being
considered by Congress, NRA will not support any legislation
which infringes upon the civil liberties of law-abiding gun
owners, and we will work with our congressional allies to ensure
this does not happen.  We support tough measures which
effectively deal with criminals and terrorists, but not at the
expense of the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.  


   U.S. SUPREME COURT VOIDS "GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES":  This week,
the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal "Gun Free School
Zones Act" of 1990 based on a new, more restricted view of
Congress' power under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Constitution,
Article I, sec. 8, cl. 3).  Since the 1930s, the Court has
endorsed Congress passing laws regarding social, environmental
and police power issues, finding Congress had the power to
legislate in these areas since they (supposedly) effected
interstate commerce.  In U.S. v. Lopez, the Court put the brakes
on runaway federal power by finally holding that something
Congress wanted to regulate -- in this case, guns near schools --
in fact did not effect interstate commerce and thus was beyond
Congress' reach (note that most States already prohibit carrying
of guns to school for other than lawful purposes).  According to
Syracuse University law professor William C. Banks, following
U.S. v. Lopez, "a whole body of federal criminal law [and]
federal environmental law... are in question."  Stay tuned!
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Some useful URLs:  http://WWW.NRA.Org, 
gopher://GOPHER.NRA.Org, wais://WAIS.NRA.Org, ftp://FTP.NRA.Org,
mailto:LISTPROC@NRA.Org (Send the word help as the body of a message)

Information can also be obtained by connecting directly to the NRA-ILA 
GUN-TALK BBS at (703) 934-2121.

NRA.org is maintained by Mainstream.com  mailto:info@mainstream.com

393.735GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingTue May 02 1995 12:1416
    
    
    Does Clinton's current rhetoric scare anyone else?  If you  can't
    attack the message, attack the messenger.  We've seen the events in OKC
    used to demonize the right wing, militias, talk radio, the ownership
    of firearms, and people who disagree with the government.  If you don't 
    agree with the government and what's going on in government then you 
    are an "extremist" a "hate monger", etc, etc.  This guy in the White 
    House is a consumate politician.  He will do anything and/or use anything 
    for his own political gain.  He is an embarassment to the office and to
    our country.  I  can't wait until the next presidential election so as
    the people can get him out of there.  If the Dems were smart, they'd
    run someone else, someone who has an ounce of integrity.
    
    
    Mike
393.736TOOK::GASKELLTue May 02 1995 12:3021
    .715
    
      >>Our founding fathers were quite clear about their intent in the
        Constitution...the rights of the people WILL NOT be impeded by the
        government.
    
        They will take my gun OVER MY DEAD BODY and will have to pry my
        fingers off in doing it!<<
    
    The importance of a gun to our founding fathers was a great deal
    different than to Americans today.  Let's remember that back then
    there was no friendly cop at the corner donut shop, no phones and
    no 911, no handy supermarket or credit card.  The gun was not only 
    protection of everything from rabid animals to human predators, but 
    a source of survival--food.
    
    To take away the equivalent from today's American you would have to
    take car, phone, bank account and job.  Somewhat more serious than
    their weekend toy and ego trip--guns.
    
    
393.737HANNAH::MODICAJourneyman NoterTue May 02 1995 12:3114
    
    Re: .735 Hi Mike
    
    	No, Clinton is no longer a concern, at all.
    Before the bombing he was trying desperately to somehow
    convince the american public that the presidency was still
    relevant. He was searching for any issue to latch on to and
    failing miserably. With the bombing, he thought he had his chance.
    As usual, he failed miserably, culminated with his attack on
    talk radio.
    
    	I think most people see through this charade. 
    
    							Hank
393.738POWDML::CKELLYCute Li'l RascalTue May 02 1995 12:379
    re: . 736
    
    or perhaps you are missing the point...guns represent much more than
    an ego trip to most owners.  with regard to the friendly police and
    other gov't controlled organizations, how nice that you feel you can
    rely completely upon them.  However, what happens when the populace
    is unarmed and gov't becomes more intrusive?  To you this may sound
    paranoid, but it isn't.  It is one of the basic ideas behind supporting
    the right to bear arms.
393.739REFINE::KOMARThe BarbarianTue May 02 1995 12:478
    RE .736
    
    	I am so glad that you can count on the police to be there the
    instant someone attempts to commit a crime against you.  The gun can be
    carried (with a permit, of course) by you for protection when the
    police are not around.
    
    ME
393.740WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue May 02 1995 12:515
    .736 simply a remark from the land of the tiny brained folk.
    
         you know the place, Sarah Brady's hometown.
    
         Chip
393.741Free speech my butt. We have laws against it in Canada.KAOFS::D_STREETTue May 02 1995 13:0111
    So how do you "the governmet is out to get us" people feel about 
    Mr. Liddey (SP?)? A right of center talk show host (or should I say
    "Talking Head"), that explains the "best way" to "take out" an AFT agent
    is a "Head Shot".
    
     Is this the much talked about "right" to criticize the government ?
    May be it is just plain old free speech ? Or maybe it is an indication
    of just how warped some Americans are when they defend this type of
    garbage under the guise of "free speech".
    
    								Derek.
393.742SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherTue May 02 1995 13:0930
    re: .735
    
    As a matter of fact, this self-professed, dyed-in-the-wool
    liberal Democrat doesn't even care for him anymore.... :-)
    
    I fear this incident is going to divide the country.  We are
    trying to deal with the fact that something heinous was perpetrated
    by our own countrymen.  In a scenario where many people do not
    trust their neighbors already, I fear this will promote only
    fear and hate.  
    
    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.  If every person
    in this country knew the proper way to carry, clean, load, store
    and fire a gun, I'd be willing to bet you'd find gun accidents
    drop.  The problem isn't guns.  The problems are anger uncontrolled
    by discipline; ignorance fueled by a lackluster educational system;
    lack of control over personal environment and success (ie class
    structure); and the rapid pace of technology.  We are pulling into
    classes of haves and have-nots.  The haves are pulling together 
    to pull resources away from the have-nots in the guise of welfare
    reform and cuts in social programs.  People are becoming self-centered
    and selfish, and there is nothing to believe in.  Notice I didn't
    say religion.  It isn't about religion, it's about discipline.  
    A comprehensive study of martial arts gives you ample mean to
    control anger with disicpline.  But it takes years of study.
    And we don't want to wait for anything anymore.  Fast food, fast
    credit, fast track, fast computer.  Car phone, pocket phone, fax
    machine.  No waiting + no education = recipe for disaster.
    
    Mary-Michael
393.743TROOA::COLLINSOpposed to that sort of thing!Tue May 02 1995 13:115
    
    Too much caffeine makes Derek tense...
    
    :^)
    
393.744SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherTue May 02 1995 13:1714
    re: .741
    
    Hey, take a few deep breaths, ok? :-)  The right to free
    speech means that sometimes people say dumb things, violent things,
    nasty things and bigotted things.  BUT, if I am willing to 
    guarantee free speech to all Americans, I have to put up
    with the fact that all Americans may not use it to their
    best advantage.  That's what we mean by FREE.  Uninhibited.
    That's why you educate people.  So they can think for themselves
    and make up their own minds.  So that when people say dumb
    things very loudly, no one really pays much attention.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
393.745RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue May 02 1995 13:1810
    Anybody seen the clip of Clinton saying "Who are these people to say
    they love the country but hate the government . . . ?"  Somebody needs
    to send him a copy of that document beginning "We the people".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.74642344::CBHLager LoutTue May 02 1995 13:203
aaargh, it`s turning into another gun control topic...

Chris.
393.747WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 02 1995 13:214
     I was with you, Mary-Michael, until you got to here: "The haves are
    pulling together to pull resources away from the have-nots in the guise 
    of welfare reform and cuts in social programs."
    
393.748SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherTue May 02 1995 13:216
    re: .745
    
    Ha! Someone want to tell him that "those people" are all the
    ones that voted Republican last November? :-)
    
    Mary-Michael
393.749MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue May 02 1995 13:347
re: .741

Derek,
    You should take what you hear from G. Gordon Liddy with a grain of
salt. Several years in the slammer taking the rap for Watergate because
he wanted to be the scapegoat have changed him from simply an idiot to
a mean spirited one.
393.752typical crap from time magazineSUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 13:5972
This came off Time Magazine's Web page.

http://www.pathfinder.com/@@s4z0HQAAAAAAwL*S/time/timehomepage.html


THE POLITICAL INTEREST

WHY GUNS SHARE THE BLAME

BY MICHAEL KRAMER 

Shortly after the 0klahoma bombing, a colleague of Bob Dole's asked
him to postpone a vote on repealing the assault-weapons ban enacted
last year. Dole refused. "I am not aware of the involvement of
so-called assault weapons in the senseless bomb attack," Dole said.
On the surface, that's right. The innocents killed April 19 weren't
shot. But guns and bombs are connected. The mere presence of
weapons can spur violent behavior, and since Timothy McVeigh, the
man charged with the Oklahoma horror, was obsessed with guns, the
issue is particularly pressing. 

"The finger pulls the trigger," says Leonard Berkowitz, an emeritus
professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin. "But the trigger
may also pull the finger. It's not just that having a gun is a convenient
way of settling an argument. The weapon itself is a stimulant to
violence." 

Berkowitz has studied the "weapons effect" for more than 40 years.
"There's no dispute," he says. "Even the sight of guns, which people
think of as objects that can hurt others, can induce aggressive ideas.
A weapon can function as a conditioned stimulus, eliciting both the
thoughts and motor responses associated with its use." 

In a classic field experiment, subjects threw wet sponges at a carnival
clown. The psychologists placed a rifle near the front of the booth for
some of the players to see and removed it for others. The
researchers also had the clown insult some of the sponge throwers.
The insults had no discernible effect on the participants' behavior,
but those exposed to the rifle threw more sponges. Similar studies
have replicated the weapons effect worldwide. Psychology professor
Ann Frodi found that Swedish high school students administered
more and longer electric shocks to other students when a weapon was
present. "Objects with clear aggressive connotations can trigger
violent acts," says Frodi. "Parents know that kids who play with toy
guns can become more aggressive. It's the same with adults, and it's
provable." 

Like movies and news reports of violence, says Berkowitz, "guns
should be thought of as risk factors in a public-health sense. Their
presence increases the chance that something bad will happen, and
not just because they have the power to cause injury." The word
psychologists favor is prime. A gun can "prime aggressive ideas,"
Berkowitz explains. "People disposed to aggression because of their
perception of the world feel powerful around guns, and those guns
can prime their aggressive ideas. Weapons may not be a precipitating
influence, but they are likely a reinforcing factor. Guns aren't neutral.
They create aggression that wouldn't exist in the absence of guns." 

Firearms violence has reached epidemic proportions. An American
child is killed by a gun every two hours. An estimated 100,000
students carry a gun to school each day. It is expected that by the
year 2003 the annual number of deaths from firearms in the U.S. will
surpass the number of people killed in motor-vehicle accidents, thus
becoming the leading cause of injury-related deaths. Oklahoma's
bombing can provide what educators call a "teachable moment" - and
just because a vital lesson appears to have escaped Bob Dole doesn't
mean others can't learn. Outlawing all guns may be impossible, but
continuing the ban on assault weapons should be beyond debate. 

Copyright 1995 Time Inc. All rights reserved.


393.754Entry .730--- Well said!!!!CSOA1::BROWNETue May 02 1995 14:005
    Re: .730   Well said!!!!!!!
    
    	Hopefully, most Americans will be able to avoid being caught up in
    the "Politician and Media" driven frenzy. 
      	
393.755SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 14:0027
<forwarded message>
    
Subj:	OKC Blast

I just spoke with Dr. Charles Mankin of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, a
State Agency located at the University of Oklahoma at Norman(405-325-0311).
This is 16 miles away from the site of the blast at OKC. My call was
regarding an Internet Posting concerning a seismogram that purportly revealed
that there were 2 distinct blasts.
After Our discussion I asked for and received permission to post the
following for clarification. according to Dr Mankin........
There is indication that there were two distinct events the first occuring at
9:02:13 the time of the bomb blast . The other at 9:02:23
He states that their office can not conclude there was a second explosion.
However he can say that it is not a reflection or a refraction of the first
event. He also can conclude it is not an earthquake. He states that none of
his collegues have the ability to based on the seismogram alone to conclude
that there was a second bomb. 
Addtional info
The local  OKC television is reporting that all of the removed debris is
being stored at a compound and is not being destroyed for further
investigation. Is there anyone out there that can confirm this and the
location of the site.I have been advised that seismologists from 16 miles
away would not be able to conclude there was a second blast. To make that
determination that it will require structural evaluation at the  site.
Lets keep digging.The truth will be told

393.756GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingTue May 02 1995 14:049
    
    
    RE: .741  Liddey's remarks were uncalled for, but the media is not
    telling the whole story and the context in which the description (of 
    where to shoot a federal agent) was used.  The context was if the
    agents had unlawfully broken into your residence.  
    
    
    Mike
393.759BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 14:2833
RE:. 393.732 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C"

> Murder of BATF agents? I think not. It's been fairly well established that 
> they came in firing 

And it's fairly well established that the Koreshites knew they were coming,  
and had prepared a "welcome".  As in steel jacketed hot lead welcome.


> A bunch of armed federal goons just shot up your house, have killed
> a person who was trying to get back IN and left his body hanging on a
> fence to rot for days, and are blasting the sounds of rabbits being
> slaughtered at your home.  Would you think you'd get a fair trial?


  1) Koresh wasn't interested in a fair trial.  Serving 5 to 15 years for
     owning machine guns or whatever didn't fit in with his vision of the 
     last days,  but dying in a burning building did.  

  2) Koresh had the money to fight a court battle just as we are seeing in
     the OJ case.  Fair?  Beyond fair.

  3) If I was firing machine guns at federal employees,  I'd expect them to
     shoot back.  

  4) If you don't like the laws,  vote.  If you lose,  don't whine,  don't
     start shooting.

  5) If you don't like how the federal government is being run,  vote.  If
     you lose,  don't whine,  don't start shooting.


Phil
393.760NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue May 02 1995 14:341
Liddy.  Reagan.  NNTTM.
393.761CSOA1::LEECHTue May 02 1995 15:0112
    re: .752
    
    So, the new catch phrase (and modern court defense) will be:
    
    The gun made me do it!
    
    
    Sounds a bit fishy to me.  Calling this "crap" is quite an
    understatement.
    
    
    -steve
393.762SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 15:1758
    
    
    
>And it's fairly well established that the Koreshites knew they were coming,  
>and had prepared a "welcome".  As in steel jacketed hot lead welcome.
    
    	Show me where it's been proven that the Koresh followers fired
    first. None of them were found guilty of murder (fact). They served
    time on firearms charges and nothing more.
    
>  1) Koresh wasn't interested in a fair trial.  Serving 5 to 15 years for
>     owning machine guns or whatever didn't fit in with his vision of the 
>     last days,  but dying in a burning building did.  
    
    	So you have exclusive insight into the mind and thoughts of David
    Koresh now do you? How do you know he wasn't interested in a fair
    trial? Oh, you must've watched the NEWS and got all your FACTS from
    them. Uh huh....
    
>  2) Koresh had the money to fight a court battle just as we are seeing in
>     the OJ case.  Fair?  Beyond fair.
    
    	What do you think is going to have more influence over the
    court...money or the federal government? 
    
>  3) If I was firing machine guns at federal employees,  I'd expect them to
>     shoot back.  
    
    	THE KORESH FOLLOWERS DID NOT FIRE FIRST!! Have you even looked at
    the news tapes of the initial shootout? Notice how no bullets are
    striking the vehicles or the ground around the BATF agents? See the
    agents walking around upright in and around the vehicles? Also, why
    would they call 911 for help if they were doing something illegal? Have
    you heard the 911 tapes???
    
>  4) If you don't like the laws,  vote.  If you lose,  don't whine,  don't
>     start shooting.
    
    	The Davidians were doing nothing illegal! The Sheriff of Waco had
    inspected the Davidians firearms 2 months before and had been ordered
    by a JUDGE to return the firearms since all the paperwork was in order.
    Social services had been to the house to investigate reports of child
    abuse and found nothing out of the ordinary. Child abuse doesn't even
    fall under the charter of the BATF and that's what they claim made them
    decide to attack even after it was clear Koresh knew they were coming!
    
>  5) If you don't like how the federal government is being run,  vote.  If
>     you lose,  don't whine,  don't start shooting.
    
    	Give me a break Phil. This wasn't about the not liking how the
    federal government is being run. This was about an agency of the
    government trying to justify it's existence, plain and simple.
    
    	And I do vote.....hence the new congress and the pending appeal of
    the assault weapons ban.
    
    
    jim
393.763RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue May 02 1995 15:1824
    Re .759:
    
    > 4) If you don't like the laws,  vote.  If you lose,  don't whine, ...
    
    Why not?  Why should one not complain about wrongs that are being done? 
    Is there something magical about voting that automatically makes the
    outcome correct?  Can nothing go wrong with it?
    
    If one votes for a representative who then reneges on their promises,
    should one not complain?
    
    If one votes for a representative who is then stymied by parliamentary
    rules that deny power to newcomers, even though they represent as many
    people as entrenched politicians, should one not complain?
    
    If the majority votes to infringe upon the rights of the minority,
    should one not complain?

    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.764Do you trust the Media?CSC32::P_YOUNGMEYERTue May 02 1995 15:26133
   I have seen several things written in this note that truly
bother me.  I see people completely trusting of the electronic and 
printed main stream media.  I see whole groups of people (militias, 
patriots, republicans, democrats,conservatives, liberals) lumped and 
judged as a single entity. Since the OKC bombing it has been the 
militias, and patriots movements in the country that have all been 
characterized as gun toting, beer swilling, IQ deficient, paranoid 
psychopaths.  Those making these charges in the mainstream media have 
yet to ask one of these people why they are doing what they are doing 
other than focus on the gun issue.  I have not heard of one that actually 
asked one of them why they feel like they do. I ask the participants here,  
in this note file that are critical and skeptical of  these groups, 
have you ever talked with someone that is in the patriot movement, or a 
member of the militia.  If all your opinions have been formulated 
by the mainstream media, I submit that your education to form an opinion 
is sorely lacking.  I have spoken with these people and have gone to 
their meetings.  I have read a lot of their material. I have yet to go 
to a meeting or have a conversation where I did not feel that the primary 
issue was just to educate the attendees at the meeting.
  Some of the material is quit radical and is mainly just that
persons opinion, and backed up with very little factual and
legal research.  But the majority of their material is well done
and has plenty of legal documents to backup their view.  These
are people who have given up their tv's and leisure time to
become involved in the political process, making informed
decisions that impact their lives.  Now I'm not defending all
the people in these groups nationwide, but by and large their
main objective is to educate the public as to what our
government is doing, whether or not or government is living
within its bounds of what is spelled out in our bill of rights
and our constitution.  I have seen some individuals develop an 
attitude and anger at the government at the infringements and
fraud our government has perpetrated on us, but never in any of
the meetings have I heard anyone say anything about revolt or
armed insurrection at anything other than the ballet box.  I have 
seen nothing other than a desire to educate the public.  I am not 
saying it may not have happened elsewhere, as with any group or 
movement this size you will have certain individuals that will take 
it to the extreme.  But do not lump all individuals in a movement 
into the same boat.  
 But back to my main issue, and that is to see opinion based
solely on information that is printed or communicated by the
main stream media.  I would just like to give you a few quotes
based on some research by some of us in the patriot movement and
why we feel this way.

The first quote is from an interview with Richard M. Cohen,
Senior Producer of CBS political news stated:

	"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing
	 with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with."

Richard Salant, former President of CBS News said in an
interview:

	"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we
	decide they ought to have."

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the New York Times,
call by his peers, "The Dean of his profession,"  was asked in
1953 to give a toast before the NY press club and said:

	"There is no such thing at this date of the world's  history,
	 in America, as an independent press.  You know it and I know
	 it.  There is not one of you who dares to write your honest 
	 opinions, and if you did , you know beforehand that it would 
	 never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest 
	 opinions out of the paper I am connected with.  Others of you 
	 are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you 
	 who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be 
	 out on the streets looking for another job.  If I allowed my honest
	 opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four 
	 hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalist 
	 is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; 
	 to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his 
	 race for his daily bread.  You know it an I know it and what 
	 folly is this toasting an independent press?  We are the tools 
	 and vassals for rich men behind the scenes.  We are the jumping 
	 jack, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our 
	 possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.  
	 We are intellectual prostitutes."

  Now you know why I do not trust a thing that I see or read
that comes to me through the mainstream media in this country. 
And who are these rich men behind the scenes?  We are not sure
who the men are but there is a very common organization to our
entire media industry in this country and for that matter
throughout the world.  This organizations name is called the
"CFR" (Council on Foreign Relations).  This organization has some 
pretty heady members including the following;

	The CEO's and top exec's of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, AP,
	Reuters, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Children's TV Workshop,
	NY Times, Newsweek, Time/Warner, Washington Post, Dow Jones,
	Wall Street Journal, National Review, Readers Digest. 

  Other individual members have included;

	All of our presidents since 1933 with the exception of John F.
	Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.  Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, 
	John Chancellor, Marvin Kalb, Irving R. Levin, Diane Sawyer, Barbara
	Walters, Robert McNeil, Jim Lahrer, Daniel Schorr, Hodding Carter,
	William F Buckley, George Will and many other media types are active 
	CFR members.

  Now let me tell you a little about the CFR.  In the book titled "Tragedy 
& Hope" by Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, 
CFR member and mentor of Bill Clinton;

	"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated
	 in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated 
	 and one-world rule established."

  Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former CFR member for 16 years
states;

	"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one
	 objective in common -- they want to bring about the surrender
	 of the sovereignty of the national independance of the United
	 States.  A second clique of international members in the CFR 
	 comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key 
	 agents.  Primarily , they want the world banking monopoly from 
	 whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

   I could go on with hundreds of other examples and quotes, but
all I am really saying is, before you express opinions about
things you have no idea about outside of what you read in the
paper or hear and see in the mainstream broadcast media, do a little 
more digging.



Incomin!!!!!!!!!!
393.765And of course, owning a firearm makes me "hateful"MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue May 02 1995 15:349
    I was watching channel 2 last night (PBS). They were having one
    of their round table discussions. The subject was "hate speech".
    If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. The participants,
    particularly two psychopaths, er, I mean psychologists, were
    spouting some of the most hateful garbage I've ever heard.
    Too bad TV doesn't hand out pot and kettle awards.

    -b
393.766SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue May 02 1995 16:3124
    The Economist cover/leader the past two weeks has been on the OKC
    bombing, and its implications.  The first week was more event-
    reporting.  This week they've had some time to think (some) things
    through and while I don't agree with all of the logic they used to get
    there (as usual, they're European liberal antis with respect to 2nd
    Amendment issues) I was particularly heartened by their conclusion. 
    Here it is:
    
    "America is now faced with two extreme methods of defending liberty,
    and both are dangerous.  The one is armed and organised militias, which
    do not trust the government; the other is the apparatus of an
    over-intrusive state which does not trust its citizens.  Each method
    is, in truth, an enemy of the liberty it purports to protect.  The
    greatest liberty for the greatest number calls for certain freedoms-
    such as the freedom to bear arms- to be curtailed.  A limited, strictly
    controlled and properly accountable amount of spying on groups likely
    to pose a threat to society at large is also justified.  But times such
    as these are not well-suited to balancing the conflicting demands that
    liberty makes.  Right now, the dangers of government acting too
    strongly may be greater than the dangers of failing to act.  In a free
    America, another Oklahoma must remain a possibility.  It is awful; it
    is regrettable.  It is liberty's price."
    
    
393.767SHRCTR::DAVISTue May 02 1995 16:3613
                   <<< Note 393.764 by CSC32::P_YOUNGMEYER >>>
                          -< Do you trust the Media? >-

If you dig hard and long enough, you can find anything you want. And 
apparently you've found what you want. I'm not sure what makes these 
"alternative" sources more credible, but whatever floats your boat...

Does it not strike you as ironic that among conservatives - especially here
in the 'box - for whom a free market is a central element, if not *the*
central element of a free society, to be cherished and protected at all
costs, the sources of news most purely driven by the market - the
mainstream commercial media - are considered corrupt, unreliable, and
probably outright deceitful? 
393.768The checks and balances have worked pretty good so farDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 02 1995 16:4313
    I don't trust the government 100%.
    I REALLY don't trust many of these militias.
    I don't believe everything I might read in a Time magazine any more
    	than I would believe a posting off the net of an NRA article.
    I believe David Koresh is equally culpable as the FBI/ATF in the
    	Waco tragedy.
    I do not believe we need additional laws to prevent another OKC; nor
    	do I believe we need more restrictive gun laws.
    
    For those of you who truely believe Big Brother is coming to get you
    so be it; I choose not to live with that level of paranoia in my life.
    
    
393.769BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 17:1085
RE: 393.762 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C"

> Show me where it's been proven that the Koresh followers fired first. 
> None of them were found guilty of murder (fact). They served time on 
> firearms charges and nothing more.

"fairly well established" is not the same as "been proven".  

    
>> 1) Koresh wasn't interested in a fair trial.  Serving 5 to 15 years for
>>    owning machine guns or whatever didn't fit in with his vision of the 
>>    last days,  but dying in a burning building did.  
    
> So you have exclusive insight into the mind and thoughts of David
> Koresh now do you? 

Hardly exclusive.  If David Koresh wanted a trial all he had to do was 
walk out the door with a white flag.  He didn't do so.  Why not?  


>>  2) Koresh had the money to fight a court battle just as we are seeing in
>>     the OJ case.  Fair?  Beyond fair.
    
> What do you think is going to have more influence over the court...money 
> or the federal government? 

I would hope that the Constitution of the United States,  and the laws of
the United States,  also known as "the Federal Government",  would have more 
influence over the Court:  but I'm well aware that money can buy influence.

None of the Koreshites were found guilty of murder:  why not,  if the 
evil "feds" have so much power?

    
>> 3) If I was firing machine guns at federal employees,  I'd expect them to
>>    shoot back.  
    
> THE KORESH FOLLOWERS DID NOT FIRE FIRST!! Have you even looked at the 
> news tapes of the initial shootout? 

I've seen the tape.  Machine guns,  proven.  Next issue:  who fired first?
No one was shooting at the agents by the cars,  at first:  I agree.  What
about the rest of the agents?


> Also, why would they call 911 for help if they were doing something 
> illegal?  Have you heard the 911 tapes???

Why did the guy that beat his wife almost to death in Nashua a little while
ago call 911 and request assistance?  It's not that uncommon for the criminal 
to report the crime.
    

>>  4) If you don't like the laws,  vote.  If you lose,  don't whine,  don't
>>     start shooting.
    
> The Davidians were doing nothing illegal! 

If you don't think unlicensed machine guns and large qualities of explosives
are "illegal",  I guess there is no discussion.  The Koreshites had machine
guns:  listen to the tapes.


>>  5) If you don't like how the federal government is being run,  vote.  If
>>     you lose,  don't whine,  don't start shooting.
    
> Give me a break Phil.  This wasn't about the not liking how the
> federal government is being run. This was about an agency of the
> government trying to justify it's existence, plain and simple.

The BATF is trying to enforce laws passed by Congress.  While I'm well
aware you don't like the laws,  calling them Pigs,  Nazis and Thugs isn't a
reasonable response.  The BATF was hired by We,  the People of the United
States.  Don't like the job,  fire them.  Vote.

    
> And I do vote.....hence the new congress and the pending appeal of
> the assault weapons ban.

"Assault weapons ban" has nothing to do with the Koreshites:  machine guns
have been illegal since 193? or so,  and the National Rifle Association
helped to write that law as well.  Are you against it?  Vote.  


Phil
393.770BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 17:157
RE: 393.763 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

There is nothing magical about voting:  it is the worst of all possible
political systems.  Except for all the rest of the systems,  of course.


Phil
393.771RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue May 02 1995 17:2810
    Re .770:
    
    Then why shouldn't somebody complain after voting?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.772ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Tue May 02 1995 17:3514
re: .769

>If you don't think unlicensed machine guns and large qualities of explosives
>are "illegal",  I guess there is no discussion.  The Koreshites had machine
>guns:  listen to the tapes.


I see you have magic ears that could determine that the automatic weapons
fire came from the Davidians who might or might not have had automatic weapons,
and not from the feds who we know did have automatic weapons.

There were no large quantities of explosives found.

Bob
393.773GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingTue May 02 1995 17:4612
    
    
    
    And there were a few Davidians who had FFL's.  Why was all the evidence
    bulldozed a short time after the fire?  Why wasn't the media allowed
    closer? (the cheap excuse of concern for the safety doesn't flush
    because the media was allowed in Bagdad when the bombing was going on).
    Why was CS gas used in an enclosed area when it is outlawed during
    wartime and the manufacturer specifically says it's not to be used in
    an enclosed structure?  
    
    Mike
393.774MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue May 02 1995 18:0535
re: .769, Phil


>  If David Koresh wanted a trial all he had to do was 
>walk out the door with a white flag.  He didn't do so.  Why not?  

Phil, do you actually believe that David Koresh could have walked out the
door with a white flag without having his brains splattered all over said
door by a BATF agent who would claim he was armed, and whose statement would
then be corroborated by all of his fellow BATF and FBI officers at the scene?
And, even if you do believe it, do you think that Koresh had any reason
to believe it, since, afterall, it was his brains that would have gotten
splattered?

> None of the Koreshites were found guilty of murder:  why not,  if the 
> evil "feds" have so much power?

How 'bout, "because after having already virtually castrated the Branch
Davidians in the Waco slaughter, there was little to be gained by attempting
to get them for murder, but a hell of a lot to be lost if the BD's fought
real hard in court and were able to turn the case around and get the Feds
charged with it instead"?

>The BATF is trying to enforce laws passed by Congress.  While I'm well
>aware you don't like the laws,  calling them Pigs,  Nazis and Thugs isn't a
>reasonable response.  The BATF was hired by We,  the People of the United
>States.   Don't like the job,  fire them.  Vote.

A large part of the job in getting them (or their agency) "fired", has
to do with getting people to realize that they are pigs, thugs and Nazis.
Calling them a bunch of law-abiding nurturing father-figures won't cut it.
And, if they were in fact guilty of slaughter and unconstitutional
denial of the rights of the BD's, they also were not enforcing laws
passed by Congress, but were violating some others.

393.775SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 02 1995 18:2431
re: <<< Note 393.769 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

    
>"Assault weapons ban" has nothing to do with the Koreshites:  machine guns
>have been illegal since 193? or so,  and the National Rifle Association
>helped to write that law as well.  Are you against it?  Vote.  
    
    	They aren't illegal! In 1938 the NRA and the federal govt got
    together and put a $200 transfer tax on a machine gun transfer. That's
    it! In massachusetts there are over 3,000 legally registered full auto
    receivers, in connecticut there's over 13,000, New Hampshire has over
    5,000, and Oaklahoma is the largest machine gun owning state in the
    U.S. (I think the number is around 30,000). source: BATF. In
    massachusetts you need to get a special state license (a green card)
    but the background check is no different than getting a license to
    carry a pistol. Once you get the green card from your police chief you
    can go and pick out the machine gun you want. Then you would have the
    dealer fill out a BATF FORM 4. You have the chief sign the form 4 and
    send it down to Washington with two fingerprint cards and 3 1.25"
    front pictures of yourself (along with the $200 transfer tax). In
    4-6months you should get your tax stamp back and then you can go pick
    up your machine gun. It's the same process for each machine gun you
    buy. In New Hampshire you just need a FORM 4, no state license.
    
    	re: the rest of your note
    
    	you have your opinion and I have mine. I have followed the case and
    I'm convinced that what I have stated is true. enuff is enuff I
    guess...
    
    jim
393.776BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 18:5652
RE: 393.774 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

>>  If David Koresh wanted a trial all he had to do was
>> walk out the door with a white flag.  He didn't do so.  Why not?

> Phil, do you actually believe that David Koresh could have walked out the
> door with a white flag without having his brains splattered all over said
> door by a BATF agent who would claim he was armed, and whose statement
> would then be corroborated by all of his fellow BATF and FBI officers at the
> scene?

What would have the public reaction to seeing David Koresh,  Live On CNN,  
unarmed and under a white flag,  go down under a hail of FBI fire?  Turn on
the brain and think about it.

He would have been safe,  and he should have known it.  Assorted Koresh
followers didn't get shot as they left,  correct?


>> The BATF is trying to enforce laws passed by Congress.  While I'm well
>> aware you don't like the laws,  calling them Pigs,  Nazis and Thugs isn't
>> a reasonable response.  The BATF was hired by We,  the People of the United
>> States.   Don't like the job,  fire them.  Vote.

> A large part of the job in getting them (or their agency) "fired", has
> to do with getting people to realize that they are pigs, thugs and Nazis.

All of them?  Really?  

Unless you want alcohol not taxed and not regulated at the national level,  you 
need a national police force to enforce payment of taxes and following of 
regulations.  While I agree that our alcohol laws are not the best,  the 
solution is to change the laws,  not blow up Federal buildings.

Unless you want any weapon from pea shooters to H-bombs not regulated,  you
need a national police force to enforce such regulations.  The type of
weapons and rules under which weapons are matters that reasonable people
can disagree on,  and vote on,  Much better than full auto shoot outs on CNN.  

While tobacco is a major killer,  banning addictive drugs doesn't stop
addiction.  About the best we can do is tax it and try to keep the pushers
out of the schools with their Kute Kamel Kartoons.


> And, if they were in fact guilty of slaughter and unconstitutional
> denial of the rights of the BD's, they also were not enforcing laws
> passed by Congress, but were violating some others.

If they were,  then take them to court.


Phil
393.777BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 18:5910
RE: 393.775 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C"

> They aren't illegal! In 1938 the NRA and the federal govt got together 
> and put a $200 transfer tax on a machine gun transfer. 

Illegal was too strong of term:  a tax and a background check for machine 
gun ownership.


Phil
393.778Why keep the press and cameras away?DECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allTue May 02 1995 19:048
>> What would have the public reaction to seeing David Koresh,  Live On CNN,  
>> unarmed and under a white flag,  go down under a hail of FBI fire?  Turn on
>> the brain and think about it.
    
    I thought that cameras were not allowed anywhere near the compound,
    or any kind of media/press at all.  Who would've seen it?
    
    Chris
393.779SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue May 02 1995 19:0415
    > What would have the public reaction to seeing David Koresh, Live On
    > CNN, unarmed and under a white flag, go down under a hail of FBI
    > fire?
    
    Shot with extreme longrange lens from behind the FBI-established
    perimeter four miles away, I doubt very much that Koresh would have
    been recognizable, or that the camera crews would have been filming
    during just another boring lonely day of the seige, four miles from the
    action.  Koresh had no cards to play- the FBI had all the control. 
    That alone is why many of us are suspicious that no one from the
    compound survived.  Its simply so convenient for those who would
    explain away the government's actions; they had the opportunity to
    bulldoze all the evidence, and they did!  WHY, Phil?
    
    DougO
393.780BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 19:2126
RE: 393.779 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto"

>> What would have the public reaction to seeing David Koresh, Live On
>> CNN, unarmed and under a white flag, go down under a hail of FBI
>> fire?

> Shot with extreme longrange lens from behind the FBI-established
> perimeter four miles away, I doubt very much that Koresh would have
> been recognizable, 

Perhaps not.  The white flag would have been,  as would have been the fact
that someone got shot.  Other of Koresh's followers left in safety.


> or that the camera crews would have been filming during just another 
> boring lonely day of the seige, four miles from the action.  

How much are video tapes each again?  The cameras would have been on.


> Koresh had no cards to play- the FBI had all the control.

Until Koresh went to court.  Why didn't he?


Phil
393.781MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue May 02 1995 19:2332
>Unless you want alcohol not taxed and not regulated at the national level,  you 
>need a national police force to enforce payment of taxes and following of 
>regulations.  While I agree that our alcohol laws are not the best,  the 
>solution is to change the laws,  not blow up Federal buildings.
>Unless you want any weapon from pea shooters to H-bombs not regulated,  you
>need a national police force to enforce such regulations.  The type of
>weapons and rules under which weapons are matters that reasonable people
>can disagree on,  and vote on,  Much better than full auto shoot outs on CNN.  
>While tobacco is a major killer,  banning addictive drugs doesn't stop
>addiction.  About the best we can do is tax it and try to keep the pushers
>out of the schools with their Kute Kamel Kartoons.

I don't necessarily disagree that some level of regulation may be justified
with respect to some of these things. And no one is proposing that the
detonation of Federal buildings is a proper plan of opposition, in any event.
What I do disagree with is the "need [for] a national police force to
enforce" any of this. Assuming we have laws which we can morally agree upon,
and assuming we have local and state police forces which are already
charged with upholding laws, I would prefer to see these forces involved
in the enforcement activities than "a national police force" being maintained
for this purpose. The very concept is disgusting, unnecessary, and a threat
to every American. Is now and has been ever since the inceptions of the FBI
and BATF in the past century. They consistently and continually set themselves
above the law and the fact that they _are_ a national police force is exactly
what allows them to get away with it. A bit less "jurisdiction", ala local
police forces, would do well to keep them in tow. We've also been over the
"interstate fugitive from federal crimes" bit in here, and it has yet to
be shown that cooperative intervention can't be more effective.

The enforcement arms of the BATF and FBI are unnecessary. If the local police
can't handle it, the governor is always free to call in the National Guard
for muscle.
393.782ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Tue May 02 1995 19:2514
Phil,

>Unless you want alcohol not taxed and not regulated at the national level,  you 
>need a national police force to enforce payment of taxes and following of 
>regulations.

>Unless you want any weapon from pea shooters to H-bombs not regulated,  you
>need a national police force to enforce such regulations.  The type of


We are supposed to be the United STATES of America.  Why do we need the feds
involved in any of the above?

Bob
393.783BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Tue May 02 1995 19:4117
RE: 393.781 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> What I do disagree with is the "need [for] a national police force to
> enforce" any of this. Assuming we have laws which we can morally agree upon,
> and assuming we have local and state police forces which are already
> charged with upholding laws, I would prefer to see these forces involved
> in the enforcement activities than "a national police force" being maintained
> for this purpose. 

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but wasn't it President George Washington that set 
up the first "national police force" to collect federal duties on alcohol, 
as well as customs duties at ports?

I guess the Whiskey Rebellion isn't over yet.


Phil
393.784MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue May 02 1995 19:517
I don't pretend to be an expert on what Washington may or may not have done,
but when Washington was president we didn't have hundreds of thousands
(or is it millions?) of state and local law enforcment officials in place to
deal with enforcement issues. The FBI and BATF enforcement arms are
unnecessary agencies which only serve to provide the Federal government
with an illegal means of oppressing the populace of the country.

393.785POLAR::RICHARDSONFan Club Frog HemmingTue May 02 1995 19:521
    An astute observation by a very lucky man.
393.786MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue May 02 1995 20:076
<-----  Well, Franny, it's like my momma always usedta say. "Life is like
	a box of deluxe mixed nuts. You never know what you're gonna get
	until you chomp down on a bad filbert."

-Jack-boy-Bob Gump

393.787SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue May 02 1995 20:0710
    Phil, you didn't address the question I asked in capital letters.  WHY
    did the FBI bulldoze all the evidence?
    
    You can speculate until the cows come home over why Koresh and 80 other
    dead people did or didn't do something, but we know for a fact that the
    existence of evidence to answer that speculation was in control of the
    feds and that they bulldozed it.  Why didn't Koresh come out?  Who
    knows?  Maybe because the feds had waltzed in shooting from day one.
    
    DougO
393.788POLAR::RICHARDSONFan Club Frog HemmingTue May 02 1995 20:113
    |WHY did the FBI bulldoze all the evidence?
    
    Because it would take too long to do it by hand?
393.789CSOA1::LEECHTue May 02 1995 20:187
    Good point (.788).  8^)
    
    My question is at what time did the bulldozer arrive at the scene and
    why did they order one.
    
    
    -steve
393.790DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 02 1995 20:5628
    IMO Phil brought up a valid point; if Koresh has displayed a white
    flag anywhere, the authorities would have been fools to move in and
    there WERE many members of the press that followed this siege for all
    51+ days!!
    
    John Gibson who is now covering the Simpson trial made a comment the
    day of the OKC bombing (when rumors were rampant that this was related
    to Waco) that he had been in Waco for the duration of the entire siege!!
    The press was in place and had cameras ready to roll; they just
    weren't doing the saturation coverage we've been getting on OKC now.
    
    I can remember watching a special with a number of relatives and legal
    spouses of the Davidians who remained inside.  Many of those relatives
    were concerned about Koresh's practice of bedding most females over
    the age of 12!!  I will agree the FBI and ATF should not be called for
    statutory rape charges, but Koresh most definitely faced multiple
    counts of rape if he had left his compound.  He fathered numerous
    children with females no more than children themselves.
    
    IMO Koresh was the wacko from Waco who sought martyrdom and he didn't
    much give a damn who he took with him.  Equally at fault were the
    politicos who gave the FBI and ATF the go ahead to accomodate him.
    
    Why can't some of you realize that there are those among us who be-
    lieve both sides were EQUALLY to blame and stop trying to paint Koresh
    as some sort of religious martyr or beacon for our constitutional 
    rights??
    
393.791SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoTue May 02 1995 21:076
    Actually, I don't much care for Koresh himself.  But I don't think the
    people inside with him had a chance to get out against his wishes, and
    thus I think federal government bumbling effectively murdered them- and
    that this has been covered up.
    
    DougO
393.792CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenTue May 02 1995 21:203
    Was the bulldozer black and did it have UN markings or a lack thereof?  
    
    
393.793TROOA::COLLINSWould you like fries with that?Tue May 02 1995 21:233
    
    Which is *more* sinister:  U.N. markings, or a lack thereof?
    
393.794gonna hit the fan nowOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaTue May 02 1995 21:261
    Sen. Dole has called for a full investigation on Waco.
393.795POLAR::RICHARDSONFan Club Frog HemmingTue May 02 1995 21:321
    He's bananas.
393.796JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeTue May 02 1995 22:213
    NO he's pineapples!
    
    I can't believe I happen to agree with DougO on this one.
393.797Why crucify the good agents?DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 02 1995 22:2827
    What's the point of crucifying ALL ATF or FBI now on Waco?  Anyone
    who can tune to CNN can now see ATF and FBI agents risking their
    lives along with other rescue workers going into the OKC site time after
    time.  They've been standing right there with other rescuers as slabs
    of concrete etc. plummet to the ground. They have been in there all
    along gathering evidence; would any of you like their jobs right now,
    gathering evidence in what has become a tomb for 50 + people?
    
    They blew it at Waco; I think it's safe to assume they won't risk that
    sort of incident again. A perfect example was the agent Ricks (sp); his
    face was all over the tube the day of the OKC bombing until evidence
    indicated this was not perpetrated by foreign terrorists and there
    might be a link to Waco.  I haven't seen his face since; I doubt he's
    callling any shots.
    
    Let's face it, not all workers at Mother DEC are dedicated and hard
    working; would you like to be painted with a broad brush lumping you
    in with people who perform less than admirably?
    
    IF McVeigh ever talks I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he was
    just as PO'd at the military as he was about the Waco incident.  CNN
    interviewed a number of men who served with him in the Gulf War.  They
    all said he was an above average soldier but he grew bitter when he
    was refused admission to Special Forces training.  There was an Army
    recuitment office in the building as well as a Marine.
    
    
393.798MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue May 02 1995 22:4324
    I think the point Karen is that as we face belt tightening
    in this country, these federal police agencies are a good
    place to start. I doubt that any BATF agents will end up
    being prosecuted as a result of the Waco inquests, but it
    sure would be nice if they saw their budget evaporate.

    We do not need these monstrous federal agencies. I support
    the FBI to the extent that they have the top forensics
    experts in the US, if not the world. An agency dedicated
    to assisting in criminal investigations is a good idea,
    but nothing resembling the bloated excess of the current
    bureaucracies.

    With the power that is currently concentrated in the federal
    agencies, abuse is inevitable. Waco is one of the precipitating
    events leading to the realization that we _can_ live without
    the bureaucrats.

    Perhaps we seem fixated on Waco, but frankly, it is exactly
    the sort of political cannon fodder that makes things
    change...

    -b
393.800 Snarf Control TROOA::COLLINSWould you like fries with that?Tue May 02 1995 22:566
    
    As an uninvolved and probably under-informed observer, it would seem
    to me, at the very least, that if the functions of the BATF and the
    DEA are deemed to be needed, they *could* be amalgamated into the FBI,
    considerably reducing overhead and duplicated effort.
    
393.801MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue May 02 1995 22:5610
    Fiscal responsibility is just part of the picture. Perhaps
    the bigger picture is the laws which carefully construct
    jurisdictional firewalls between the agencies. Initially
    intended to prevent abuses like Waco, the result is
    typical of when Congress tries to fix a problem: they
    buggered it up so bad that 10% of the nation's police
    personnel are now part of some federal agency...

    -b
393.802MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue May 02 1995 22:597
Karen, I don't want to see Koresh canonized and I agree he was a looney
who needed to be dealt with for a number of matters. But I refuse to let
that even begin to justify the actions of the BATF and FBI. I also may
agree that the FBI (and the BATF to a lesser extent) perform worthwhile
functions. Their role as enforcement personnel is not part of that
function, however. We do not need a national police force. Or two.

393.803somehow I don't think soCLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_MThe Ballad of the Lost C'MellWed May 03 1995 11:4120
393.804????????HANNAH::MODICAJourneyman NoterWed May 03 1995 12:4011
    
    What is it with Janet Reno?
    
    She has promoted Larry Potts to the number 2 position in the FBI.
    This is the same Larry Potts who managed the Randall Weaver
    and Waco debacles.
    
    Talk about absurd timing...let alone the fact that he was recently
    censured for poor management of the Weaver standoff!
    
    
393.8052 wrongs = 1 right ?CSC32::C_BENNETTWed May 03 1995 12:4926
    The local Sherrif visited the Waco compound to look for possible firearms 
    violations weeks before the FEDs came and at that point in time NO 
    firearm violations were discovered.  
    
    Now why didn't the FED cronnies even consult the local Sherrif?  
    
    I believe some heads should have rolled on this one.   Namely our
    Attorney General Janet Reno who stated "I take full responsibility...
    " blah blah...  
    
    Just like the fact (as verified by a recent Supreme Court reversal)
    that the FEDs have no reason / power in the area of making and 
    enforcing laws that deal with guns in LOCAL school areas the FEDs
    should have nothing to do with the kind of crap that happened at
    Waco.  What constitutes action by the FEDs in the Waco case?
    
    Although I disagree about the method used but 
    lets talk about what statement whoever made when the OKC
    bombing occured?     
    
    I am sorry if Bill Clinton is mad at me for making 'hatespeak' (I mean
    exercising my right to free speech) but to date there have been no 
    serious discussion as to the possibility that the FEDs have overstepped 
    there boundaries.    Our only hope is that the balance of powers will 
    work and the Supreme Court will enforce the consitition.
    
393.806SHRCTR::DAVISWed May 03 1995 12:5341
   <<< Note 393.803 by CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M "The Ballad of the Lost C'Mell" >>>
                         -< somehow I don't think so >-

>     If you are _not_ a zipper head, swallow large amounts of toxic fluids.
>  Oh, you didn't do so? why not?  You must be a zipper head,

>     Do you follow this logic?

I know you weren't addressing me, but...yeah, I folow your logic, but it 
doesn't apply.

Koresh wasn't afraid of dying. He quoted Revelations, to portray himself as 
messiah and to predict his and his followers' deaths in an all-consuming 
fire. He *knew* he would die if he fought to the end. There is evidence 
that he even was the architect of his own demise, setting the fires. Not 
surrendering because he was afraid he'd get gunned down makes no sense, not 

just because he knew the world would be watching, but because he gave every 

indication that he in fact *wanted* to die. 

The BATF and FBI blew it, and it cost a lot of lives. They probably 
shouldn't have assaulted the complex to begin with. Once the seige was on, 
they should have kept waiting them out. They grew impatient. It was an
embarrassment. It was frustrating. So they chose to ignore the advise of
experts on dealing with nuts like Koresh and the result resonates still. 

The point is, law enforcement at all levels has gotten out of hand from 
time to time, leading to unnecessary deaths. It's happened from the 
beginning of organized legal enforcement, and it will happen many times 
again. Day in and day out they deal with dangerous people, the scum of the 
species. Very, very few of us would not become a bit jaded, begin to 
de-humanize our criminal adversaries, who seem to come in wave after wave, 
no matter how many we prosecute. And it leads to errors of judgment that 
shock those of us who enjoy a relative tranquillity. That doesn't justify 
their abuses, but it explains their actions more realistically.

When cops go over the edge, we need to stop them and prosecute them. But
when we jump from instances of abuse to the conclusion that they're all out
to get us and our liberties, we are the ones who have gone over the edge. 

393.807GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingWed May 03 1995 13:339
    
    
    I can't figure that one out, Hank.  I notice it's being ignored in
    here, so I guess others can't figure it out either.  Message to Potts
    and other agents is, you done good with regards to Waco and Ruby Ridge.
    Scary if you ask me.
    
    
    Mike
393.808MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Wed May 03 1995 13:576
Re: Mike, Hank

Let's be honest - wouldn't it have been a far bigger surprise to us all
if she instead had reprimanded or disciplined him? I personally found
her actions to be SOP.

393.809Reno made it... didn't she??SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed May 03 1995 14:294
    
    re: .804
    
    "Peter Principle"
393.810GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingWed May 03 1995 14:297
    
    
    
    You're right Jack, I was trying to use logic. :')
    
    
    
393.811HANNAH::MODICAJourneyman NoterWed May 03 1995 14:3313
    
    Re: .808 Hi Jack
    
    Yeah, you're probably right.
    Guess my problem is I keep hoping to see our elected and appointed
    officials do the right thing, not matter how I feel about them
    or how they've performed in the past.
    
    I just couldn't believe the timing of this one.
    
    Reno make Meese look good in retrospect....not an easy feat.
    
    							Hank
393.812sinister? VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyWed May 03 1995 15:316
    re: Note 393.793 by TROOA::COLLINS
    
    > Which is *more* sinister:  U.N. markings, or a lack thereof?
    
    How 'bout ATF agents who tape over their badge numbers?  You need
    photos?
393.813She should've been the first to get cannedDECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allWed May 03 1995 15:3710
    re: General Reno
    
    It's no accident, nor is it incompetence.  It's defiance.
    She's in your face, the face of the whole country, giving
    us the finger, with her jaw set and feet dug in.
    
    Now it's up to those wimps Dole and Gingrich to do something
    about it.
    
    Chris
393.814WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed May 03 1995 15:424
    re; Potts' promotion... i think it's a reward system based on body
        count <extreme sarcasm>
    
        Chip
393.816America: it's almost a free countryOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaWed May 03 1995 16:057
>    What is it with Janet Reno?
>    
>    She has promoted Larry Potts to the number 2 position in the FBI.
>    This is the same Larry Potts who managed the Randall Weaver
>    and Waco debacles.
    
    Mediocrity loves company.
393.817They're good at being badDECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allWed May 03 1995 16:075
    >> Mediocrity loves company.
    
    So does evil.
    
    Chris
393.818Jackboot Janet is rubbing our nose in itTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSWed May 03 1995 16:1128
   <<< Note 393.815 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>
                 -< Jackboot Janet is rubbing our nose in it >-

>            <<< Note 393.804 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>
>                                 -< ???????? >-

    
>    What is it with Janet Reno?
    
>    She has promoted Larry Potts to the number 2 position in the FBI.
>    This is the same Larry Potts who managed the Randall Weaver
>    and Waco debacles.
    
>    Talk about absurd timing...let alone the fact that he was recently
>    censured for poor management of the Weaver standoff!
 
Either her "sensitivity meter" is shut off or she is deliberately flipping us
the bird.

BTW the Texas dept of soc. service has repeatedly said there was no indication 
of child abuse or illicit sex with minors at Mount Carmel. They had 
investigated claims of this several times in previous years and found 
ZERO problems there.

I think Ms. Reese could stop spreading discredited stories.   
    


393.819CSOA1::LEECHWed May 03 1995 16:1510
    re: .806
    
    Where did you get your information that Koresh claimed to be the
    Messiah?
    
    I keep hearing this, but as of yet have seen absolutely zero evidence
    that this is true.
    
    
    -steve
393.820CSOA1::LEECHWed May 03 1995 16:2111
    If Clinton had any balls (which we know he doesn't), he would have
    canned Reno long ago.  For a smart "politician", I'm surprised that he
    can't see the immediate public support that would go his way- his
    approval ratings would be at an all-time high.
    
    Reno is sitting in her castle picking her nose at the public.  Guess
    it's time for another letter to my congresscritter.  She goes too far
    once again.
    
    
    -steve
393.821reno and hillary mud wrestleSWAM1::MEUSE_DAWed May 03 1995 16:398
    
    reno is j.edgar hoover reincarnated as a woman.
    
    
    he did like to dress up occasionally.
    
    
    
393.822OUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaWed May 03 1995 16:472
    That's why Clinton hasn't canned her.  Janet Nero and Hillary are such
    good friends.
393.823The coin flips both waysDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundWed May 03 1995 16:5022
    .818
    
    I'm not given to fantasy.  If there was no sexual misconduct on
    Koresh's part, why did mothers, fathers of young women and girls
    who remained behind with Koresh go on national TV and so state?
    
    Am I now to believe that foreign citizens conspired together with
    US citizens to slander Koresh?  Films clips of several young girls
    were shown; while they might have physically appeared mature, the
    fact remains that they were under-age, i.e jailbait.  The program
    aired during the days of the siege; these people were desperate to
    get their daughters and new grandchildren out of that complex.  I
    tend to believe these women stayed behind willingly; that doesn't
    make it right.
    
    Am I supposed to be surprised that local authorities found no evidence
    of sexual misconduct/abuse?  I don't think so.  The welfare of minor
    females and children WAS the responsibility of local law enforcement;
    if they did nothing about it I wouldn't expect them to admit now that
    they knew it was going on.
    
    
393.824CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikWed May 03 1995 16:559
    Sexual misconduct is not in the perview of the ATF, nor is it the
    business of the FBI unless statelines are crossed.  In any case
    murdering children to save them from abuse is a little like practicing
    vaginal intercourse to protect a hymen.  It is also about as effective. 
    if they wqere concerned about the children, why were they playing tapes
    of dying rabbits as 90 db.  Certainly this would qualify as child abuse
    in my book.
    
    meg
393.825WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed May 03 1995 17:003
    -1 great analogy Meg!
    
       Chip
393.826Sounds like something I've heard beforeCOVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed May 03 1995 17:021
"Fighting for peace is like bonking for virginity."
393.827GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA member in good standingWed May 03 1995 17:0412
    
    Good note, Meg.
    
    
    I believe that some of the ex-Davidians have an ax to grind against
    Koresh.  I don't know what happened and will reserve judgement.  What I
    find humorous (or I would find humorous if it weren't for the massacre)
    is all the different excuses the AG used to justify the actions.  How
    many were there?  Illegal weapons, child abuse, etc, etc, etc.
    
    
    Mike
393.828WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed May 03 1995 17:143
    John, bonking or boinking?
    
    Chip
393.829SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CWed May 03 1995 17:1515
    
    
>    Sexual misconduct is not in the perview of the ATF, nor is it the
>    business of the FBI unless statelines are crossed.  In any case
>    murdering children to save them from abuse is a little like practicing
>    vaginal intercourse to protect a hymen.  It is also about as effective. 
>    if they wqere concerned about the children, why were they playing tapes
>    of dying rabbits as 90 db.  Certainly this would qualify as child abuse
>    in my book.
    
    	Also, pumping CS gas into an enclosure when the manufacturer
    specifically warns against such (it can cause death in confined spaces)
    does not seem to be in the best interest of the children. 
    
    jim
393.830RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 03 1995 17:3413
    Re .812:
    
    > How 'bout ATF agents who tape over their badge numbers?  You need
    > photos?

    Where can I get photographs?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.831DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundWed May 03 1995 17:5540
    I think I mentioned it was NOT the responsibility of the ATF or
    FBI to go in and rescue women and children; it *should* have been
    handled by the locals as soon as family members started inquiring.
    
    Mike, I can agree that some of the men who were interviewd for the
    show had an axe to grind with Koresh; all of their wives had stayed
    behind.  One man did acknowledge that he knew his wife was lost to
    him, but he did want to get his 2 children out.  The focus of the
    show was on a couple from New Zealand who had been members of
    Koresh's group themselves early on.  They grew disenchanted with
    Koresh's teachings and behavior and left  some months before.
    Unfortunately, there weren't able to convince their teen-aged
    daughter to leave with them.  By the time the show aired they knew
    their daughter had borne a child by Koresh; they admitted they 
    realized it might now be impossible to convince their daughter to
    leave, but they wanted the grandchild out.
    
    The couple appeared to be of modest means; they didn't seem to have
    money to throw away on air flights from New Zealand just to make
    propaganda against Koresh.  Everyone interviewed were in agreement
    about their fears; they feared exactly what happened!!  A number of
    them commented that they hoped the FBI and ATF would NOT take
    Koresh's bait; they were hoping for a negotiated agreement where they
    could get the very young children out.
    
    Shows like this have risks attached; the prevailing sentiment of these
    people were that they wanted SOMEONE to do SOMETHING (a concept we
    should keep in mind in the aftermath of OKC).  I've often wondered if
    the media pressure family members hoped to bring against Koresh didn't
    play right into the hands of Reno, et al.
    
    I said it before and I'll say it again; there is plenty of blame to
    go around on this one.  Plenty of heads at the top should have rolled.
    
    FWIW I agree that the Potts appointment is unbelievable!! I thought
    my ears deceived me when CNN explained his connection to Waco and
    also Randall Weaver.  Has EVERY member of this administration and
    cabinet taken stupid pills?
    
      
393.832VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyWed May 03 1995 18:1532
    re: Note 393.831 by DECLNE::REESE
                                 
    Cut out all the BS, what if's, ya buts...
    
    What does the ATF do?
    
    Now, visit the issue of jurisdiction.  Just WHERE can the federal
    government operate (not just the ATF).  We know where LEGALLY they can 
    operate, and under what circumstances.  Are YOU (us "people") going to 
    tolerate, or condone granting the fed more power by ignoring the
    underlying issue, thereby increasing their
    jurisdiction by default?  The feds prod.  If the people don't push
    back, they'll keep prodding, until we put our foot down, or until
    someone "does something stupid" (i.e. bomb something).  We don't
    need to wait for the supreme Court to say "hey, you can't do that".
    We as concerned citizens should say "what the hell are you doing?
    Cut it out."
    
    It's about POWER, and excersizing of that power, or authority.
    Getting confused by koresh being an idiot, or he could have
    surrendered, or the media/lawyers/fbi spokeman said... is a side show.
    This is a power grab.  Waco was a major wakeup call to the "average
    American".  Holy cow, this DID happen.  And it's not supposed to.
    This wasn't just an "accident", it was a big accident that made big
    news.  This sort of thing [abuse of jurisdiction] happens "often"
    under supposed authority.  This is called "color of law", legally,
    and is punishable by federal statute.  That's another rathole, but
    if everyone knew it, stuff would get fixed right quick.  Notice
    the media picking up on this attitude and slamming it hard now.  "Anyone
    who thinks this way is a (insert favorite slander for nutcase)."
    
    MadMike
393.833CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikWed May 03 1995 19:0424
    mad mike,
    
    WACO was just one of a series of wake up calls over the last few years. 
    We have the DEA breaking down doors of law abiding citizens because
    some informant either had a grudge or bad information that he passed on
    to save his butt.  We have the ATF doing the same stuff about people
    who like to collect guns, solely for the sake of owning them, and
    terrorizing microbreweries to justify their jobs.  We have the FBI
    pushing for more ability to "infiltrate" suspect groups of people, from
    Earth First!, clear down to some patriot groups.  
    
    Given their track record on encouraging people to break the law
    regarding Earth First!, I can imagine what sorts of encouragement they
    could give to other fringe groups and some of the fringy people who
    belong.  They already are paying horrendous amounts of money to get
    people to "encourage" fringe people in illegal acts, witness the
    Shabazz/ Farrakan debacle.  
    
    it is everywhere, but those on the right are just gettng a taste of
    what has been happening to groups on the left for some time.  maybe we
    need to find our common ground and work to get the government out of
    our bedrooms, meetings, and religions.
    
    meg
393.834BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Wed May 03 1995 19:287
RE: 393.787 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto"

The FBI didn't bulldoze all the evidence.  Think about it,  Doug.  What
evidence was not bulldozed?


Phil
393.835VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyWed May 03 1995 19:5423
    Phil,
    
    Where's the front door?  Huh?  Where is it?  If the feds kept the
    door they could have said "see, exit holes... they shot at us".
    Instead, they can't find the door.  Why?
    
    ... and do you condon using tanks and other military aparatus on
    civilians, no matter how screwy they are?  Or will you sweep that
    under the rug too?
    
    re: Meg,
    
    I know it's been happening for a long time.  I didn't want to set
    myself up for a flamefest by being too specific.  You have to admit,
    Waco WAS the wakeup call for most americans.  It's been going on for
    a long time, thought.  One thing you said, which I never thought about
    it:
    The Repubs are getting a dose of "the feds peeking into your business".
    I never thought of it as a repub/dem/left/right issue.  I personally
    want people to mind their own business, not mine.  Now that you
    do mention it, it seems that "the right" does have a habit of telling
    folks what's ok to do behind closed doors.  Maybe they'll see the error
    of their ways.  Maybe not, we'll see what dole/newt do next.
393.836how to pay off the national debtOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaWed May 03 1995 20:115
    The dramatic increase in government's illegal search and seizure of
    private property over the last 5 years is interesting too.  I guess
    they have to pay their bills some how.
    
    Mike
393.837SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CThu May 04 1995 10:547
    

    	Most police departments now subsidize over 25% of their budget with
    money/property taken in seizures. This number has been rising steadily
    during the past decade....


393.838BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu May 04 1995 11:1619
RE: 393.835 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"

> Where's the front door?  

I asked what evidence remains:  answer that.  


> ... and do you condon using tanks and other military aparatus on civilians, 
> no matter how screwy they are?  

If some screwy internal minority was in armed revolt,  I would support ANY
MEANS NECESSARY to restore law and order.  Do you disagree?

Notice,  that in this case the "military apparatus" was used to put tear
gas into a building to attempt to force a surrender.  That's hardly
excessive force.


Phil
393.839WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceThu May 04 1995 11:547
    >They already are paying horrendous amounts of money to get
    >people to "encourage" fringe people in illegal acts, witness the
    >Shabazz/ Farrakan debacle.
    
     In the plea bargain, Shabazz had to agree to take full responsibility
    for the incident, admit that there was no FBI conspiracy to frame her,
    and obtain drug/alcohol treatment.
393.840VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu May 04 1995 13:2126
    > I asked what evidence remains:  answer that
    
    How do I know what's left?  I'd assume the only thing that's left is
    a couple survivors and "Eye-Witnesses" (agents) and videotape of 
    things they (government) wanted to document.  The place is flattened
    and quaranteened.  Now, if you were leaving the place after burning
    it down, wouldn't you find and take the STEEL door to support your
    case that you got shot at?  You wouldn't loose it, unless it was
    subpeonaed by some bd and the evidence didn't support your case.
    
    The military aparatus used for inserting cs gas...  
    ...and crushing cars and flying over the place and shooting down at 
    the bd's.
    
    I do not condone "anything to bring the ya-ho's under control".  There
    is (supposed to be) a clear separation between the police and the
    military.   I want it to stay that way.  This is not (elsewhere) where
    you have soldiers with submachineguns standing on the street corner
    and consider it normal.  There is too much confusion today between
    what should be local police issues v. federal police jurisdiction, and
    now they want to toss the military in?
    
    It does appear that the government _is_ giving us peons the finger.
    Jackboot janet is prolly in her office says "Ya, this outta really
    get them wound up.  Promote arseholes and tighten the fist at the same
    time."       
393.841DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu May 04 1995 13:486
    Mike,
    
    Won't the next Attorney General be able to rescind the Potts
    promotion?
    
    
393.842NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu May 04 1995 14:2513
From a USENET group:

>As to ammonium nitrate's stability... well, a shipload of it blew
>"spontaneously" in the ship channel south of Houston in the mid 1940's.
>Took out most of the town of Texas City.  In comparison, the recent
>federal building bombing was a minor problem.  :-(

Yep.  An article in the New York Times about accidents involving
ammonium nitrate mentioned that one.  The story is that a (small?)
fire broke out in the hold, and the crew tried to smother it by
shutting it in.  The resulting heat and pressure were enough to
trigger the explosion.  600 people were killed, and bodies were
thrown up to 10 *miles* away.
393.843Some things I just can't understand ....BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralThu May 04 1995 15:3331
re: BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?"

I have been reading your replies with great interest in hopes it would lead to
the logic you use to justify your position. Then you wrote the following and I
felt compelled to respond.


>Notice,  that in this case the "military apparatus" was used to put tear
>gas into a building to attempt to force a surrender.  That's hardly
>excessive force.

Hardly Excessive? Women and children in large numbers in an enclosed area,
the feds want to pump in and basically flood the compound with tear gas, and
you respond with " That's hardly excessive force" !!!???  Had you a sister or
brother or grandchildren in the compound would you have thought it "Hardly 
excessive"?

Truely amazing .... (You don't work for the feds do you?)

The feds knew the building was a tinderbox, they new of the potential of fire
from both the CS and the BDs, and they chose to do what they did despite the
evidence. They pressure employees to modify their positions to support their
desired actions, and then they bulldoze the hole thing into the fire, limit
public access to any remaining evidence, and the democratic leadership whitewash
the whole event.

There is plenty in the Waco issue that still needs to be aired and addressed.


Doug.

393.844BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu May 04 1995 15:3510
RE: 393.840 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"

> There is too much confusion today between what should be local police 
> issues v. federal police jurisdiction, and now they want to toss the 
> military in?

Whiskey Revolt is still in progress,  I see.  


Phil
393.845TIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSThu May 04 1995 15:5222
> <<< Note 393.838 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>


>If some screwy internal minority was in armed revolt,  I would support ANY
>MEANS NECESSARY to restore law and order.  Do you disagree?

Should we nuke Michigan then? How about Kingman Arizona? air-strikes? Napalm?
Go read the Posse commitatus law then get back to us.


>Notice,  that in this case the "military apparatus" was used to put tear
>gas into a building to attempt to force a surrender.  That's hardly
>excessive force.
CS gas will not be sold by its MANUFACTURER for use inside of buildings. 
Specifically because in the presence of open-flames it creates CYANIDE
gas. But hey, if cyanide is good for termites it must work great on
christians, right? Also reports that the carrier agent is itself flammable
so by all means insert it where we know open flames exist.

No excessive force here!

basic chemistry, thought you knew that.
393.846BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu May 04 1995 15:5821
RE: 393.843 by BRITE::FYFE "Lorena  Bobbitt for Surgeon General"

> I have been reading your replies with great interest in hopes it would lead
> to the logic you use to justify your position. Then you wrote the following
> and I felt compelled to respond.

> Hardly Excessive? Women and children in large numbers in an enclosed area,
> the feds want to pump in and basically flood the compound with tear gas,
> and you respond with " That's hardly excessive force" !!!???  

Ok,  your call:  you would not use tear gas,  would you rather just wait 
to starve them out?  How would that go over if you had a sister or brother or 
grandchildren in the compound?  Might have worked.  Might have seen the
Koreshites carry their dead children outside one at a time.

Or what?

It's pretty easy to say that the FBI failed with 20-20 hindsight.


Phil
393.847BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu May 04 1995 16:1626
RE: 393.845 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS"

>> If some screwy internal minority was in armed revolt,  I would support ANY
>> MEANS NECESSARY to restore law and order.  Do you disagree?

> Should we nuke Michigan then? 

Is that necessary?


> Air-strikes? Napalm?

Ever read about the Civil War?  Oh,  and ever watch "Fritz the Cat"? 


> CS gas will not be sold by its MANUFACTURER for use inside of buildings. 
> Specifically because in the presence of open-flames it creates CYANIDE
> gas. 

Sure.  Like McDonalds,  they don't want lawsuits.

Many of the people in the compound were shot to death.  Many died of smoke
inhalation.  Did _any_ of the bodies show sign of death by cyanide gas?


Phil
393.848SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CThu May 04 1995 16:3410
    
    
    >Many of the people in the compound were shot to death.  Many died of smoke
>inhalation.  Did _any_ of the bodies show sign of death by cyanide gas?
    
    	That's not the point. The fact that the manufacturer warned against
    indoor use and that cyanide gas can be produced is enough to make me
    feel the government should have known better.
    
    jim
393.849SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotThu May 04 1995 16:4912
393.850OUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaThu May 04 1995 17:157
    >Should we nuke Michigan then? How about Kingman Arizona? air-strikes? Napalm?
    
    before you do Kingman, let me know if the strike has a radius of > 200
    miles.
    
    thanks,
    Mike
393.851NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu May 04 1995 17:153
Has anyone noted where Timothy McVeigh is being held?

The Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, OK.
393.852Wrong.VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu May 04 1995 17:4122
    re: Note 393.844 by BOXORN::HAYS
    
    > Whiskey Revolt is still in progress,  I see.
    
    GOOD ANSWER (not).  No, some of us just demand performance of the
    Constitution.  How bout you?  Ever read it?  Do you think 
    Article 1 Section 8 = the whole USA?  If it does, state sovereignty
    doesn't exist and you can throw away Amendment 10.
    
    Not being up on the Whiskey Revolt, let me take a stab at it.
    Whiskey, moved from Georgia to South Carolina = INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
    Subject to Congress's jurisdiction.  Poor example for a come back.
    Whiskey made in Georgia and sold in Georgia sounds like a Georgia
    issue.  Opps, here comes the BATF.  Do they have jurisdiction yet?
    I'd say no, not until it leaves the state.  Until then, the Georgia
    revenuers have jurisdiction.
    
    Do you know about the history of the FBI and why they came into
    existance?
    
    MadMike
    
393.853Tell me about the whiskey revoltVMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu May 04 1995 17:4610
    More on the Whiskey Revolt:  Lemme guess, it was crushed by the
    national army.  So we have interstate commerce going on, and congress
    has jurisdiction, and the people are revolting over the government
    screwing with booze.  So the revolt is put down with military force.
    When did the revolt occur?   Posse Comitatus came about in 1879 (or
    so).  After the civil war/reconstruction when folks stepped back and
    said "this needs to be fixed" (using the military as a police force).
    It too closely resembled the police states they tried preventing.
    
    Am I wrong about the whiskey revolt?
393.854MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 17:4716
re: .849, Dick

>    Do you know all of the health and safety warnings of all the substances
>    you use, well enough to recall and apply them when you're in the heat
>    of what amounts, in terms of activity level, to a battle?  I doubt it.

Gee, I don't know, Dick, but when I think about the sheer number of
agents that were at Waco - both FBI and BATF - and speculate as to the
number of disciplines within their respective organizations that should
have been represented for a confrontation that size which had been receiving
the full focus of national attention for as long as it had, I would most
certainly expect that there were more than zero people on hand who had
a very clear understanding of the consequences possible. Some of them
were probably not even on the front lines, specifically so that they
COULD provide coolheaded advice via comm channels.

393.855BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Thu May 04 1995 18:4534
RE: 393.852 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"

>> Whiskey Revolt is still in progress,  I see.

>    GOOD ANSWER (not).  No, some of us just demand performance of the
>    Constitution.  How bout you?  Ever read it?  

Yep.  How about you?  


Section. 8.  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and 
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall 
be uniform throughout the United States;


> Do you think Article 1 Section 8 = the whole USA?  

It says Congress has the Power to lay and collect excise taxes:  such as on
whiskey.  Notice the word "collect".

> Not being up on the Whiskey Revolt, let me take a stab at it.
> Whiskey, moved from Georgia to South Carolina = INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Nope.  Whiskey,  distilled in Western Mass,  and the locals didn't care to
pay excise taxes on it to the BATF.  Constitution gives Congress the Power
to collect such taxes,  so President George Washington went out with a few
good men and explained the matter to them.  They were not dumb enough to die 
over the matter.

Notice again that an Excise tax does _not_ require interstate commerce.


Phil
393.856MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 19:019
>Nope.  Whiskey,  distilled in Western Mass,  and the locals didn't care to
>pay excise taxes on it to the BATF.  Constitution gives Congress the Power
>to collect such taxes,  so President George Washington went out with a few
>good men and explained the matter to them.  They were not dumb enough to die 
>over the matter.

Well, I wouldn't be stupid enough to die for anything distilled in Western
Mass, either . . . 

393.857MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu May 04 1995 19:046
    RE: Whiskey revolt in western Mass.

    It's a good thing for those miscreants that the Duke hadn't met up
    with that tank yet...

    -b
393.858Yes, Geo Washington led the militia.GAAS::BRAUCHERThu May 04 1995 19:168
    
      Whiskey rebellion was in Pennsylvania in 1794.  It was Shay's
     Rebellion of 1787 that was in Western Massachusetts.  In 1794,
     Pennsylvania farmers were protesting a liquor tax of 1791.  It
     was suppressed by 15,000 militia.  Hamilton used the incident
     as justification for broad extension of federal police powers.
    
      bb
393.859MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 19:316
Was it still (no pun intended) crap Western Mass spirits that had
been imported to Pennsylvania?

(Sorry - I slept through most of American History. Miss Anderson
 was so old that she taught my father when he was in high school.)

393.860SHRCTR::DAVISThu May 04 1995 19:599
        <<< Note 393.859 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


>(Sorry - I slept through most of American History. Miss Anderson
> was so old that she taught my father when he was in high school.)

Did you have an old miss Anderson for history, too? You wouldn't be from 
illinois, would you, Jack.

393.861POLAR::RICHARDSONGrim Falcon The ElfThu May 04 1995 20:011
    He's too lucky for that.
393.862MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 20:325
This time Glenn's right. I was too lucky to be from Illinois. I'm was from
Syracuse, instead.

I was lucky, once. But, no more.

393.863NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu May 04 1995 20:331
Lucky to be from Syracuse?  It boggles the mind.
393.864MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 20:413
Stop that, Gerald. Some great people come from Syracuse. You and me.

393.865POLAR::RICHARDSONGrim Falcon The ElfThu May 04 1995 20:411
    And lucky people too!
393.866MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 20:444
I have no doubt that Gerald is quite a lucky man.

I like that in a person.

393.867POLAR::RICHARDSONGrim Falcon The ElfThu May 04 1995 20:483
    Well now, come to think of it....
    
    no, really?
393.868VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu May 04 1995 20:5121
    re:  Note 393.855 by BOXORN::HAYS
    > Yep.  How about you?
    
    Keep reading.
    You've probably seen me mention this before, but in case you missed
    it...
    
    Paragraph 17 and 18 of Article 1 section 8 clobbers the federal
    government when it tries to do anything not specifically specified
    in the Constitution.
    
    Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
    and Excises, as long as they're uniform throughout the United
    States.  Since most of it ain't, I'd say that's unconstitutional.
    Wouldn't you?  
    
    Paragraph 17 and 18 define jurisdiction.  Congress can do anything it
    wants within it's jurisdiction.  When it goes to Waco Texas, it needs to 
    be invited or it needs to have a Constitutionally specified reason to 
    show up. Like the post office was threatened or something.
             
393.869SnArFVMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyThu May 04 1995 20:521
    ***KA-BOOM****
393.870OUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaThu May 04 1995 20:541
    OOoooo, what a lucky man, he was.
393.871MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 04 1995 20:553
Well, someone ought to be, after all. I can't think of anyone more
deserving than Mad_Mike. I hope Glenn takes note.

393.872BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Fri May 05 1995 11:2922
RE: 393.868 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"

> Paragraph 17 and 18 of Article 1 section 8 clobbers the federal
> government when it tries to do anything not specifically specified
> in the Constitution.

> Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
> and Excises, as long as they're uniform throughout the United
> States.  Since most of it ain't, I'd say that's unconstitutional.

Come again?  Excise tax on machine guns is the same regardless of which
State you live in.


> When it goes to Waco Texas, it needs to be invited or it needs to have 
> a Constitutionally specified reason to show up. 

Like the failure to pay excise tax on machine guns,  which is not a State
matter,  but a Federal one.  Not to mention Rebellion.


Phil
393.873Where is "The United States" LEGALLY.VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri May 05 1995 12:2524
    Ah ha, you're talking about machine guns now.  I suppose this is
    something that should be debated.  If someone is engaged in commerce
    (trafficing machine guns), or is an FFL (which some of the BD's
    were) then I'd say the ATF has jurisdiction to look into the matter.
    
    My point was Article 1, Section 8 is thought to be open ended.  It is
    not, because it is shut at paragraph 17 and 18.  The open issue is
    can congress regulate something that is not being trafficed?  For
    example, does a home brewer need to conform to ATF guidelines?
    If he doesn't, can the atf storm his house and burn it down?  Or does
    the home brewer have to leave the state before he can get investigated
    by federal authorities?  Come to Dawsonville and play with my mailbox
    and see what happens though.
    
    This is how you can avoid the IRS.  Are you in the federal zone or not?
    If you are, you're subject to congress.  If not, your subject to state
    statute, which can't violate the federal constitution.  puts government
    in a catch 22 and puts you in court to sort it out.  I don't recall
    the bd's going to court, they got assaulted. 
    
    ***
    My understanding is the ATF (or other federal official) are supposed to 
    be escorted to someones place of business by the sheriff.  Is this true?
       
393.874There were lots of options - the feds chose them poorly ...BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralFri May 05 1995 14:4936
>Ok,  your call:  you would not use tear gas,  would you rather just wait 
>to starve them out?  How would that go over if you had a sister or brother or 
>grandchildren in the compound?  Might have worked.  Might have seen the
>Koreshites carry their dead children outside one at a time.

>Or what?

So you believe the options available were ones that would result in death?
There were many alternatives that were not excersized specifically because
the feds would not waiver on jurisdiction to the state level or would not
consider any alternatives other than victory by their superiority.
This isn't even a valid option because there was plenty of food and stored 
water in the complex much to the anxiety of the feds. They knew waiting forever
was not an option.

>It's pretty easy to say that the FBI failed with 20-20 hindsight.

BS! It has NOTHING to do with hindsight. I watched for 51 days as the feds
esculated the situation in an attempt to break koresh. That was their goal.
To win by their rules and nothing else.

I knew then it was a mistake to shut off water and electricity to a house full of
women and children, that using tactics to deprive sleep and play psych games 
would not play to a non-violent end, that using tear gas was a monumental 
mistake. I knew that the excessive restrictions on the media was for the purpose
of restricting what they could report to the crap the feds prepackaged. It was 
clear we were being lied to as soon as they started spouting the child abuse 
stories. "Do it for the children" while during the 51 days they were doing it
to the children.

Now the parents have to share the blame, but that is no justification for what
the CIVILIAN police force did at Waco.


Doug.
393.875SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotFri May 05 1995 15:093
    Rescue operations have been ended.  Final death toll is 165, including
    18 children.  Two are missing and presumed dead.  The rescuers will
    hold a memorial service on the site today.
393.876NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri May 05 1995 15:091
Coulda sworn they said 19 children on NPR this morning.
393.877SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri May 05 1995 15:126
    
    
    	they did say 19 children on NPR this morning. I heard it too.
    
    
    jim
393.878SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotFri May 05 1995 15:192
    Sorry, I caught it only in a passing hurry and misremembered.  Us old
    farts are allowed to do that, aren't we?
393.879PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri May 05 1995 15:201
    .878  yes, but it's funnier if you claim you have a cold.
393.880SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotFri May 05 1995 15:311
    Achoo!
393.883COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri May 05 1995 16:5381
Oklahoma search ends; bombed building falls silent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reuters

OKLAHOMA CITY (8:52 a.m.) - The cranes and excavators fell silent at
Oklahoma City's bombed federal building on Friday as workers ended an
exhausting 15-day search, pulling 164 bodies from the rubble and leaving two
people unaccounted for.

"We've been through every rubble pile that we possibly can in the building
that the structure will allow us to do," Assistant Fire Chief Jon Hansen
said, announcing that the search officially ended a few minutes before
midnight on Thursday.

In a final flurry of activity, the searchers recovered 18 bodies Thursday
from the ruins of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building, blown up by a truck
bomb on April 19.

Among the last bodies found were those of three babies, just a few months
old, who were in cribs in the federal building's day care centre when the
huge fertiliser and fuel oil bomb exploded. They were the last children
missing.

A total of 19 children died in the explosion, the worst attack against
civilians in U.S. history.

The final death toll does not include nurse Rebecca Anderson, 37, who died
after being hit by falling debris when she rushed to help bomb victims.

More than 400 people were injured in the blast.

On the day of the bombing, 87 people were rescued from the building;
afterwards, searchers found only bodies.

Hansen said that when the search was declared over, "our chaplain was there
and we gathered around. It was a sad relief. This was an unbelievable
situation."

Chaplain Gibbs Hammond from Knoxville, Tennessee, told reporters that rescue
workers held a prayer service at the end, followed by "a lot of hugging and
crying."

In recent days, work was stopped at night because of the unstable state of
the building, but on Thursday they vowed to push on into the night until the
search was finished.

The building will now be turned over to the FBI to complete its
investigation.

Searchers planned to hold a memorial service at the wrecked building Friday;
another service for the families of the victims will be held at the site
later.

The tragedy brought an incredible outpouring of support for Oklahoma City.
Hundreds of volunteers flocked from all over the country to help, working in
dangerous conditions and often with bare hands to remove hundreds of tonnes
of rubble from the collapsed nine-storey building.

The city was inundated with donations of food and money, letters and flowers
from around the world.

The fate of the federal building has not yet been decided.

But there is wide support in Oklahoma City to tear down the building and
build a park on the site. Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating has suggested the
park should have a bronze statue depicting the now-famous photograph from
the bombing of a firefighter cradling a dead baby in his arms.

Timothy McVeigh, 27, an embittered Gulf War veteran who has been linked to
right-wing paramilitary militia groups, is the only person so far charged
with the attack.

Thousands of FBI agents are searching for a second unidentified suspect,
known only as John Doe No. 2, who has been described by witnesses as a
suntanned man with the build of a weightlifter.

ABC News reported Thursday that McVeigh bought 200 pounds of ammonium
nitrate fertiliser -- of the type believed used in the Oklahoma City bomb --
last year from a hardware store in Kingman, Arizona. The FBI had no comment
on the report.
393.884CSOA1::LEECHFri May 05 1995 19:493
    re: .880
    
    Sounds like you need my spitpro 9000 screen savers.  8^)
393.885BOXORN::HAYSI think we are toast. Remember the jam?Fri May 05 1995 20:0412
RE: 393.874 by BRITE::FYFE "Lorena  Bobbitt for Surgeon General"

> So you believe the options available were ones that would result in death?

There is never a zero risk option.  If you really think there is you are
fooling yourself.  Even a fairly minor mistake in dealing with a fanatic
like Koresh can end up causing many deaths.

Having said that,  I'll agree that hindsight shows many mistakes.


Phil
393.886The common denomonator? BATF implementation of law enforcement.BRITE::FYFELorena Bobbitt for Surgeon GeneralFri May 05 1995 20:3038
>There is never a zero risk option.

Quite correct. But in this case MANY options were not in consideration that 
should have been. My take on those reasons is that this particular organization
has an overzelous attitude in enforcement technique. They treat a compound of
familys as iff it were a house full of drug dealing bank robbers holding 
hostages. This is where the "jackboot nazi" references come from. They bust down
the doors of businessfolks, unnecessarily abuse the individuals involved as well
as the law in general.

What they need is a serious attitude adjustment. The best form I can think of
is removing the current management along with those folks who 
consistantly demonstrate a perpensity to use overzealous and inappropriate 
methods. Examples of inappropriate methods would be killing a dog when no 
threat is posed, shooting a boy in the back, shooting a mother holding her child, using tanks in
killing the family cat during a search, pushing a pregnant woman up against 
the wall, disallowing people to call their lawyer during a search, and on and on. ...


>  If you really think there is you are
>fooling yourself.  Even a fairly minor mistake in dealing with a fanatic
>like Koresh can end up causing many deaths.

I never gave any indication that I thought this way nor do I subscribe to the 
other extreme. The question is about judement in applying law enforcement.
The rash of BATF screwups could have been avoided if their collective
testosterone levels of these agents were cut in half and more appropriate 
meassures were taken.

For instance, before the raid on the weavers the feds had no trouble at all
at meeting with this man. Why all of a sudden do they have to 'RAID' his house.
He showed NO aggressive behavior before this event. Same with all the FFL 
gun dealers that have been getting harrassed. Same with the davidians.

Under Reno, you get promoted for displaying such stupidity and arogant disregard
for individual rights.

Doug.
393.887Collision Course...STRATA::BARBIERIMon May 08 1995 13:5235
      I need to preface this by stating that what took place at Oklahoma
      was totally heinous.  Ok.
    
      Well, the forces of a corrupt government and a minority of persons
      who are in the know look to be on a collision course.  The main-
      stream media is even making note of militia persons and 'Consti-
      tutionalists.'
    
      A recent Time magazine had a one page story and it mentioned folks
      who are declaring themselves to be 'sovereign citizens.'  Apparently
      such declarations are rampant in the west where entire towns are
      doing so (including local govt. employees).  These people pay no 
      fed taxes.  They understand what it means to have been deceived and
      they value the Constitution.  Many have no licenses, no SS numbers.
      After all, they are protected by law.  The Time magazine showed a 
      picture of a piece of land with a sign that read, 'No Trespassing...
      This is Sovereign Territory' or some such thing.  I am not sure as 
      this was related to me by my brother.
    
      A recent 60 minutes episode (which was reported to me - I didn't see
      it) included interviews with Green Berets.  In one such interview,
      a Green Beret said that if he is ever ordered to remove firearms from
      any private citizens home, he will immediately leave and join a
      militia.  And he said he knows exactly which one he will join.
    
      My guess is that this whole situation will escalate.  The mainstream
      media will be in bed with the federal govt.  The majority will be also
      because of pathetic ignorance.  The fed will win the struggle by 
      removing more Constitutional 'rights' that are extended to its
      citizenry.
    
      No one will ever be a sovereign citizen again.
    
      And the media and the fed govt. and the blind masses will just keep
      on sleeping with each other and the night will be very dark.      
393.888There are so many "lambs" in this countrySWAM1::MERCADO_ELMon May 08 1995 18:5136
    The term "ignorant masses" has suddenly taken on new meaning for me.
    There are so many so-called educated people who read their Time Magazine, 
    or watch Tom Brokaw every evening and honestly think they are really
    up to speed on what's happening in our country/government.  WRONG!
    
    I have heard intelligent,reasonable people just blindly accept
    the government's story (spin) on events at Waco,Ruby Ridge and
    Whitewater, the "Healthcare Taskforce" et.al. I could go on.....
    and never take the time to "look for the man behind the curtain".
    Case in point: A week ago Thursday several independent organizations
    (Western Journalism Center, Center for Accuracy in the Media..)
    held a press conference to release details of an independent
    investigation into Vince Foster's so-called suicide.  They hired
    some of the best forensic scientists and homicide detectives to
    look over the facts and evidence that have been released.
    Their finding?  Nothing about his death indicates suicide. In fact
    he was not killed at the place his body was found.  
    
    Unfortunately this did not get much play in our media.  I am sure
    that this was partially due to the OKC bombing, but when one of the
    highest ranking White House officials (and boyhood chum of Clinton)
    is found to be murdered, and when a coverup and obstruction of justice
    are involved.....you would think this would be a pretty important news
    story. This is just ONE instance of the masses not getting the whole story.
    
    Just for grins, try asking someone to describe the role of the
    Federal Reserve, who the principals of this PRIVATE CORPORATION are,
    and how they came into existence.  Most people have no clue and yet
    our country "owes the farm" to this privately held, foreign owned
    entity.
    
    I think if people did have more knowledge of the details behind that
    which we are spoon fed, we would have a revolution on our hands.
    
    Elizabeth 
          
393.889:')GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberMon May 08 1995 19:116
    
    
    Elizabeth, I really like the way you think.  You married??? 
    
    
    Mike
393.896CSOA1::LEECHMon May 08 1995 20:126
    re: .888
    
    I like this Elizabeth person.  She's got 'er head on straight, she do. 
    
    
    -steve
393.898Good head on them shoulders!!!MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryMon May 08 1995 20:164
    
    She sounds like one of them there gunnuts to me... :-)
    
    -b
393.900SNARFOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaMon May 08 1995 22:071
    
393.904Thanks Elizabeth!STRATA::BARBIERITue May 09 1995 12:246
      re: .888,.902
    
        Just want to give my compliments to these replies as well.
        Really appreciate them.  We NEED your inputs!
    
    							Tony
393.905CSOA1::LEECHTue May 09 1995 12:464
    And don't get upset when the box denziens call you a paranoid
    conspiracy nut.  8^)
    
    -steve
393.906F-O-SMIMS::SANDERS_JTue May 09 1995 17:374
    re. 888
    
    Judging from your last paragraph, I would have to say that you are
    F-O-S.
393.907SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 09 1995 18:4711
    
    
re:                     <<< Note 393.906 by MIMS::SANDERS_J >>>
                                   -< F-O-S >-
>    Judging from your last paragraph, I would have to say that you are
>    F-O-S.
    
    	Why? Explain yourself....
    
    
    
393.908MKOTS3::JMARTINYou-Had-Forty-Years!!!Tue May 09 1995 19:462
    What he meant was he noticed your keystrokes shaking...implying you
    might have to go number 2
393.909SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 09 1995 20:0616
                       NRA-ILA FAX NETWORK
           11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Vol. 2, No. 20Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918    5/5/95

                        NRA NOT TO BLAME

     After two weeks of hate-mongering, scape-goating and standard-
stock NRA-bashing, Janet Reno finally puts the word out.   On May
4, UPI reported that the attorney general went out of her way to
refute reports that the National Rifle Association was in any way
a target of the bombing investigation.  "So far as I know, I know
of no links between the NRA and what happened in Oklahoma City,"
Reno said.  "And I think it is important that nobody jump to
conclusions, and that nobody link anybody to something unless there
is solid evidence to support it."

393.910BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Tue May 09 1995 20:117
    
    	That's similar to a prosecuting attorney who gives a really good
    	jab to the current witness and the judge says "The jury will dis-
    	regard that last comment".
    
    	Yeah, right!!  How can they forget?!
    
393.911or join the foreign legion...42344::CBHLager LoutTue May 09 1995 20:125
>    	Yeah, right!!  How can they forget?!
    
go down the pub?

Chris.
393.912SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 09 1995 20:508
    
    
    	re: .910
    
    	yup, I agree. The damage is already done.....
    
    
    jim
393.913PCBUOA::KRATZWed May 10 1995 14:368
    Today's Boston Globe:
    (Larry Frame was McVeigh's roommate for several months in the Army):
    "Frame tell of how McVeigh, an NRA member, once tried to get platoon
    members to sign a National Rifle Association petition opposing
    gun control.  Most of them just ignored it.  It was an ongoing thing
    with McVeigh, working for the NRA... I mean he was very into guns."
    
    i.e. woulda fit into this conference just fine ;-)
393.914MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Wed May 10 1995 15:026
re:                      <<< Note 393.913 by PCBUOA::KRATZ >>>

I don't understand.

I belong to the NRA yet I don't own any guns.

393.915GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberWed May 10 1995 15:049
    
    
    
    Guilt by association is that it Kratz?  ANother evenheaded liberal,
    that's you that is.
    
    
    
    Mike
393.916It's quite simple really...REFINE::KOMARThe BarbarianWed May 10 1995 15:104
	The Boston Glob is anti-gun/anti-NRA.  They see that quote as a way to
get at the NRA and people who feel they have a right to own guns.

ME
393.917COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed May 10 1995 15:1628
Now they're beginning to think that the 12-year-old son of Terry Nichols
might be John Doe #2.

From the New York times:

  In another development, a law enforcement official in Washington told The
  Associated Press that "some investigators think there is a fair chance that
  Nichols' son Josh was at the rental office in Junction City when the truck
  was rented."

  Some witnesses in Herington said they recalled seeing young Nichols in town
  the same day McVeigh rented the truck in Junction City. Myrna Leckliter, the
  manager of Catlin's IGA, a supermarket, said Nichols and his son came in on
  Monday, April 17, and rented three film videos and bought a can of peanuts.

And charges have been filed against Terry Nichols:

  Federal prosecutors in Oklahoma City have filed criminal charges under seal
  against Terry Lynn Nichols in the bombing of the Federal Building there,
  law-enforcement officials said on Tuesday night. Nichols is an Army buddy
  of Timothy J. McVeigh, the only suspect so far charged in the case.
  
  Government lawyers would not say why they filed the charges under seal but
  one lawyer said the government was trying to keep some undisclosed details
  of its evidence from being made public now and wanted to give defense
  lawyers time to review the charges before they are made public.

/john
393.918MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed May 10 1995 15:177
    
    No one mentioned this... I'm surprised. It appears one of the
    Nichols has admitted his role in the bombing, saying that he
    and McVeigh drove the truck to OkC. Story was on the front
    page of today's Bawston Herald.
    
    -b
393.919MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed May 10 1995 15:184
    RE: .917
    
    Figures, just as I was typing 918... :-)
    
393.920COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed May 10 1995 15:2424
And McVeigh's sister is preparing herself for possible charges of conspiracy:
  
  In upstate New York, Jennifer McVeigh, the younger sister of Timothy McVeigh,
  the prime suspect in the bombing, has hired two lawyers to represent her in
  the event she is charged in the case, the lawyers said on Tuesday.
  
  One of the lawyers, Joel L. Daniels told The Buffalo News that Ms. McVeigh is
  concerned that the FBI may be considering conspiracy charges against her. A
  spokesman for The FBI would not comment.
  
  The weekend after Mr. McVeigh's arrest near Perry, Okla., 90 minutes after
  the bombing, federal agents searched Ms. McVeigh's pickup truck and a house
  where she was staying over spring break in Pensacola, Fla. According to court
  documents filed after the search, the agents found pamphlets and tape
  cassettes of materials that are circulated among right-wing groups warning
  against federal policies that limit individual rights and, in their view,
  overstep the bounds of the Constitution. One tape was entitled, "Watch Out
  For Martial Law." Another was "Warning: It's Dangerous to be Right When the
  Government is Wrong."
  
  In March Ms. McVeigh, a student at Niagra County Community College, wrote a
  letter to her local newspaper, The Union Sun & Journal in Lockport, N.Y.,
  citing the raid in Waco and gun control laws as evidence that the
  Consititution is "being perverted."
393.921NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed May 10 1995 15:271
Isn't it just like the Times to explain what an IGA is?
393.922POWDML::LAUERLittle Chamber of Creamy PresentsWed May 10 1995 15:292
    
    I used to shop at the IGA in Canton, New York.
393.923COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed May 10 1995 15:489
Yeah, it wouldn't have been quite so weird if they had just said

	Catlin's IGA supermarket

instead of 

	Catlin's IGA, a supermarket.

/joh
393.924BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Wed May 10 1995 15:595
    
    	No one has mentioned that the 12-year old McVeigh is not a suspect
    	in the case.  The FBI does believe that he was the "other person"
    	who was with McVeigh when the truck was rented.
    	
393.925CSOA1::LEECHWed May 10 1995 16:3317
    re: .920
    
    I don't get the connection...
    
    I have all kinds of litterature in my home warning of bloated
    government, reduced personal freedoms and similar stuff.  Does this
    mean that I will be suspect if anything happens in my neck of the
    woods?  
    
    Does this make me anti-government (I'm not, I'm pro-Constitution- big
    difference).  I believe in the litteral words written in the
    Consitution, does this make me a Constitutional extremist?  I am a
    Christian, does this make me a dangerous member of the "right wing" who
    is currently being demonized with sustained effort?
     
    
    -steve
393.926NETCAD::WOODFORDBoiOIoiOIoiOIoiOIoiOIngWed May 10 1995 16:349
    
    
    Steve, even without that stuff, you're suspect.
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    
393.927MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed May 10 1995 16:344
    <-- you better pray Nichols and McVeigh have never
        been to Cincinnati. :-)

393.928XEDON::JENSENWed May 10 1995 16:494
    I'm relieved to hear that the young Nichols resembles Doe #2.  It
    was a bit unnerving to see the second sketch bearing an uncanny
    resemblance to a certain Mr. G. Silva of HLO2.     ;^)
    
393.929OUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaWed May 10 1995 16:5112
    Either extreme is not immune.  The Unabomber is a left-winged tree
    hugger.  Left-wingers have done just as much violence to save
    environments and animals.
    
    Re: FBI
    
    I get the sense they're reaching because they don't have a clue and
    need to nail someone.  Getting McVeigh was pure luck, and they didn't
    even find him (locals did on another charge).  Here we thought patsies
    went out with Lee Harvey Oswald. ;-)
    
    Mike
393.930NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed May 10 1995 17:191
Isn't a left-winged tree hugger some kind of bird?
393.931SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed May 10 1995 17:213
    
    Only the yellow-breasted ones....
    
393.932Make the connection!MIMS::SANDERS_JWed May 10 1995 17:329
    re. 925
    
    You would be a suspect if it were found out that your brother or sister
    had been involved in some hideous act in "your neck of the woods".
    
    It is not the material alone that makes Ms. McVeigh a suspect, it is
    that coupled with the fact of who her brother is.  I would have thought
    you could make the connection.  When 165 are murdered, the FBI should
    leave no stone unturned.
393.933Fess Up Glen!!!STRATA::BARBIERIWed May 10 1995 17:3810
      re: .924,.928
    
      Yeah, that composite does look a bit like Glen!  Glen, so
      all your supposed 'liberal leanings' are mere subterfuge, 
      huh??!
    
      I am a little unnerved by the accuracy of these composites.
      If the composite of John Doe #2 looks like a 12 year old...
    
    						Tony
393.934WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceWed May 10 1995 17:424
    >the FBI should leave no stone unturned.
    
     Sounds like the DEA dope burning party on the Maine coast that left no
    tern unstoned.
393.935BIGQ::SILVADiabloWed May 10 1995 20:5316
| <<< Note 393.928 by XEDON::JENSEN >>>



| I'm relieved to hear that the young Nichols resembles Doe #2. It was a bit 
| unnerving to see the second sketch bearing an uncanny resemblance to a certain
| Mr. G. Silva of HLO2.     ;^)


	Joanne.... I think you're confused. I'm the one who acts 12 years old,
not the one who IS! :-)  I was not there no matter how much it looked like me.
BTW, how many 12 year olds do you know with a goatee?? :-)


Glen

393.936CSOA1::LEECHWed May 10 1995 20:5535
    re: 393.932      
    
>    You would be a suspect if it were found out that your brother or sister
>    had been involved in some hideous act in "your neck of the woods".
 
    You mean that if my sister were to bomb a federal building, I would be
    an instant suspect, by relation?
    
    I think you missed the point I was trying to make. 
      
>    It is not the material alone that makes Ms. McVeigh a suspect, it is
>    that coupled with the fact of who her brother is.  
    
    Guilt by association and possession of politically incorrect documents
    is what you describing here.  If there is real evidence to incarcerate
    or suspect McVeigh's relatives, then fine.  If having a viewpoint that
    is not condoned by the federal government is ample evidence to suspect
    someone of a crime, then I think something is wrong.  Who your relative
    is should also be irrelevent.
      
>    I would have thought
>    you could make the connection.  When 165 are murdered, the FBI should
>    leave no stone unturned.
    
    They should look for evidence, not harass people due to their political
    views.  If they find evidence, fine, arrest them.  What we have now is
    the media implicating people as being related to the crime by
    association and political views.  I see the FBI doing the same thing. 
    I await some real (meaning non-manufactured, as if we would ever know
    the truth) evidence.  They are pressured so hard to find someone,
    anyone, to arrest in connection to McVeigh that they are bound to step
    over the law to get someone (whether they be guilty or not).
    
    
    -steve
393.937BIGQ::SILVADiabloWed May 10 1995 20:5616
| <<< Note 393.933 by STRATA::BARBIERI >>>

| -< Fess Up Glen!!! >-

	Ok Tony.....

| Yeah, that composite does look a bit like Glen!  Glen, so all your supposed 
| 'liberal leanings' are mere subterfuge, huh??!

	Yup! I hate everything, everyone! Well.... except the Babes. :-) I
secretly have my flashlight in hand under the covers reading all of the books
about famous conservatives! Reagan was my hero, and Bush is my man! But be vewy
vewy quiet about this.... shhhhhhhh


Glen
393.938BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Wed May 10 1995 21:1410
    
>I
>secretly have my flashlight in hand under the covers reading all of the books
>about famous conservatives! Reagan was my hero, and Bush is my man! But be vewy
    
    
    	More precisely, you have the flashlight in ONE hand ...
    
    	8^)
    
393.939BIGQ::SILVADiabloThu May 11 1995 02:491
<---- EEEEKKKK!!!!  I said be vewy vewy quite!!!!!!
393.940He'll be a busy boyTLE::PERAROThu May 11 1995 13:497
    
    Heard on the news this AM that Johnny Cochran has filed a lawsuit on
    behalf of 4 families of victims against the fertilizer company for not
    toning down the percentage of nitrate(?) in their fertilizer.
    
    Mary
    
393.941REFINE::KOMARThe BarbarianThu May 11 1995 13:545
	So it's the fertilizer company's fault that their product was
used to make the explosives?  I suppose they sue the other companies
whose products were used in the making of the explosive.

ME
393.942SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu May 11 1995 13:574
    
    
    Next it'll be the Rent-A-Truck company for allowing the vehicle to
    carry such a gross weight....
393.943XEDON::JENSENThu May 11 1995 14:093
    ... And whichever school allowed Terry Nichols to take driver's
        education classes.
    
393.944PCBUOA::KRATZThu May 11 1995 14:378
    The Globe did another piece on the NRA/OKC theme today:
    George Bush resigned his lifetime membership from the NRA after
    LaPierre's comments comparing federal workers under the
    Clinton administration to nazis.  Some of the federal workers
    killed at OKC had worked for and were close friends of Bush.
    
    Is LaPierre/NRA really serving the interests of [us] gun owners
    by doing this?
393.945WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceThu May 11 1995 14:466
    Bush's response seems like a tantrum or emotional outburst. While
    Lapierre's language has been strong and words harsh, to the people who
    have been on the receiving end of such treatment they are not overdone.
    The federal government needs to stop abusing power, and the people
    responsible need to be brought to justice. But they are all playing
    circle the wagons.
393.946JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeThu May 11 1995 15:121
    back-a-few  I'm a prophet I predicted this yesterday!
393.947SHRCTR::DAVISThu May 11 1995 15:575
          <<< Note 393.945 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

I think you forgot to add IMHO. Another explanation for Bush's reaction is 
that the NRA is becoming increasingly radical in its politics and lossing 
touch with its mainstream membership, among them GHWB.
393.948SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu May 11 1995 16:059
    
    GHWB?????
    
    
    mainstream membership??????
    
    
    Shirley yew jest!!!!!!!!!
    
393.949WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceThu May 11 1995 16:097
    >I think you forgot to add IMHO.
    
     No, I actually gave people the credit for being intelligent enough to 
    realize when I was speaking my own opinions. Apparently I was too 
    generous with said credit. My apologies.
    
     For the clue impaired, that note was IMHO.
393.950They are stretching on this oneDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu May 11 1995 16:258
    I can't buy the idea that Nichol's 12 year old son is John Doe #2.
    TV has been showing a pic of the kid, unless it's really outdated
    it doesn't even come close to resembling the composite of John Doe 
    #2!!
    
    How many 12 year olds have tatoos???
    
    
393.951NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu May 11 1995 16:271
In the picture I've seen, he looks more like a body stuffer than a body builder.
393.952BIGQ::SILVADiabloThu May 11 1995 16:597
| <<< Note 393.950 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>


| How many 12 year olds have tatoos???


	Maybe he got it out of CoCoa Puffs.....
393.953SHRCTR::DAVISThu May 11 1995 17:3312
          <<< Note 393.949 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    >I think you forgot to add IMHO.
    
>     No, I actually gave people the credit for being intelligent enough to 
>    realize when I was speaking my own opinions. Apparently I was too 
>    generous with said credit. My apologies.
    
>     For the clue impaired, that note was IMHO.

And I apologize for not including a smiley face with that comment - for the 
humor impaired among us. :'>
393.954Yes, they've changed.GAAS::BRAUCHERThu May 11 1995 17:555
    
    Actually, the NRA has indeed gotten more radical in the last few
    years.  It's normal for any group that gets attacked this hard.
    
      bb
393.955CSOA1::LEECHThu May 11 1995 19:185
    The more they get demonized by the media (and Congresscritters), the
    harder they have to fight.  This, in itself, makes them seem radical to
    the general (uninformed) public.
    
    -steve
393.956PATE::CLAPPThu May 11 1995 22:2215
    
    re: Note 393.955 
    
    >The more they get demonized by the media (and Congresscritters), the
    >harder they have to fight.  This, in itself, makes them seem radical to
    >the general (uninformed) public.
        
    Perhaps it's the demonization itself that makes them appear more
    radical.
    
    I've noticed, since January, a lot meaner sprited media.  
     
    al
    
    
393.957OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Thu May 11 1995 23:2213
    Re: .955
    
    Oh, I see.  They're victims.  Poor NRA.
    
    Consumer Reports did an article on corporate-sponsored materials in the
    classroom.  One example of bias in materials:
    
    "There are no endangered species, maintains the Council for Wildlife
    Conservation and Education, which turns out to be affiliated with the
    National Shooting Sports Foundation -- an organization that has the
    same address as the National Rifle Association."
    
    Yeah, the media made them do it.
393.958Don't get confused by the truth.VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri May 12 1995 02:254
    re:  Note 393.957 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    Apparently you missed Consumer Reports retraction of their
    erroneous reporting.  There was no affiliation with the NRA.
393.959SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CFri May 12 1995 11:34368
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: no-terrorism-bill <no-terrorism-bill@webcom.com>
Subject: NTB! Statements on Terrorism Bill

X-within-URL: http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/cnss.cti.anal.html

   CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES
   Gelman Library, Suite 701
   2130 H Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20037
   tel: (202) 994-7060
   fax: (202) 994-7005 
   
   April 26, 1995 
   
   CLINTON TERRORISM LEGISLATION THREATENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
   
   On February 10, 1995, a counterterrorism bill drafted by the Clinton
   Administration was introduced in the Senate as S. 390 and in the House
   of Representatives as H.R. 896. 
   
   The Clinton bill is a mixture of: provisions eroding constitutional
   and statutory due process protections, selective federalization -- on
   political grounds -- of state crimes (minus state due process rules),
   discredited ideas from the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the
   extension of some of the worst elements of crime bills of the recent
   past. 
   
   The legislation would: 
   
    1. authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to
       investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and
       associations; 
       
    2. repeal the ancient provision barring the U.S. military from
       civilian law enforcement; 
       
    3. expand a pre-trial detention scheme that puts the burden of proof
       on the accused; 
       
    4. loosen the carefully-crafted rules governing federal wiretaps, in
       violation of the Fourth Amendment; 
       
    5. establish special courts that would use secret evidence to order
       the deportation of persons convicted of no crimes, in violation of
       basic principles of due process; 
       
    6. permit permanent detention by the Attorney General of aliens
       convicted of no crimes, with no judicial review; 
       
    7. give the President unreviewable power to criminalize fund-raising
       for lawful activities associated with unpopular causes; 
       
    8. renege on the Administration's approval in the last Congress of a
       provision to insure that the FBI would not investigate based on
       First Amendment activities; and 
       
    9. resurrect the discredited ideological visa denial provisions of
       the McCarran Walter Act to bar foreign speakers. 
       
   Once again, the impatience of those charged with upholding the
   Constitution has led them to seek authority to circumvent it. 
   
   The U.S. has not been a fertile breeding ground for terrorism. Part of
   the reason lies in the values at the core of our unique system of
   governance -- diversity, religious and ethnic tolerance, acceptance of
   change, openness to new ideas, constitutional limits on government
   discretion, reliance on legal proceedings open to public scrutiny.
   These values make it hard to nurture in the U.S. the ethnic or
   religious hatred that fuels much terrorism. Unfortunately, these
   values would be undermined by this legislation. 
   
   
   1. Use of Secret Evidence to Deport Aliens Not Charged with Criminal
       Activity
   
   Title II is a slightly modified version of a proposal first made
   during the Bush Administration, which Congress twice refused to enact.
   The changes made by the Clinton Administration do not cure the essence
   of the proposal: it would create a special court to hear secret
   evidence against aliens whom the government wishes to deport. 
   
   It is important to recognize at the outset that the provision applies
   only to aliens who are not charged with any crime. If any person found
   in this country was suspected of committing a crime, especially a
   terrorist crime, that person would be arrested and put on trial here
   or extradited to a country where he could stand trial. This provision
   is designed to allow the government to deport persons who are deemed
   undesirable because of their political associations and beliefs. 
   
   For the government to take adverse action against an individual based
   on secret evidence is the antithesis of American jurisprudence and a
   fundamental due process violation. 
   
   Aside from the Star Chamber concept that is at the core of this
   provision, it has many other extraordinary features, among them the
   following: 
   
   Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence. The provision states: "Nor shall
   such alien have the right to seek suppression of evidence." Repealing
   the exclusionary rule eviscerates the Fourth Amendment protection
   against unreasonable search and seizure. 
   
   Exemption from FISA Standards. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
   Act has a meticulously crafted set of procedures intended to balance
   the rights of individuals against the national security. Those
   procedures include a requirement that the government give the
   defendant notice when it intends to use information from a FISA
   wiretap and allow the defendant to move to suppress the evidence if it
   was obtained illegally. The bill would make such provisions, which
   have worked fine in the most serious espionage cases, inapplicable in
   alien deportation cases. 
   
   Permanent detention. If no country is willing to receive an alien
   ordered deported under the new provisions, the bill states that "the
   Attorney General may, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
   retain the alien in custody. ... Any alien in custody pursuant to this
   subsection shall be released from custody solely at the discretion of
   the Attorney General." 
   
   Appeals only in D.C.. In what appears to be either forum- shopping or
   an effort to impose additional costs on aliens fighting deportation,
   the bill would allow appeals from deportation proceedings only to the
   United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
   forcing attorneys from all over the country to come to Washington. 
   
   Guilt by Association. The legislation subtly but critically rewrites
   the definition of engaging in terrorist activity in the Immigration
   and Nationality Act, which serves as the basis for the exclusion of
   aliens seeking entry and the deportation of aliens already in this
   country. 
   
   The current law defines "to engage in terrorist activity" to cover
   someone who "affords material support to any individual, organization,
   or government in conducting a terrorist activity." The revised
   definition would read: "affords material support to an individual,
   organization, or government which the actor knows or reasonably should
   know has committed or plans to commit terrorist activity." The change
   would remove the current law's requirement that there be a nexus
   between the material support and the terrorist activity, thereby
   allowing exclusion and deportation of any alien who had supported the
   peaceful, legal activities of a group that engaged, or had subgroups
   that engaged, in illegal acts. The "has committed" language would even
   seem to sweep in those who support groups that once committed but have
   now foresworn terrorism. 
   
   Guilt by Association, Part II. The bill would resurrect the
   discredited ideological tests of the McCarran Walter Act for denying
   foreign visitors visas to come to speak in the U.S. While the
   Immigration Act of 1990 authorized the denial of visas to persons who
   had engaged in terrorist activities, this bill would deny visas to all
   representatives or spokespersons for groups labeled terrorist, even if
   the representative or spokesperson had never engaged in any illegal
   activity. This test would have allowed the exclusion of
   representatives of the African National Congress or the IRA or many
   other political groups, even if they were seeking to enter the U.S. to
   talk about prospects for peace. 
   
   Continued Exclusion of PLO Representatives. Even after Yassar Arafat
   has been received at the White House, where he signed a peace accord
   with Israel, he and every other alien who is a representative of the
   PLO is "considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a
   terrorism activity." 
   
   Son of Star Chamber. Section 202(d) of the bill seems to authorize a
   mini-Star Chamber proceeding, allowing the use of classified
   information in any deportation case, even those where the complex
   provisions of the alien terrorist removal section are not invoked. 
   
   
   2. Terrorist Fund-Raising Is Whatever the President Decides It Is and
       Nobody Can Question His Decision
       
   Title III of the bill creates a new federal crime of "terrorist
   fund-raising." The provision would allow the President to define the
   crime by designating certain groups as terrorist organizations. The
   President can also designate individual persons who are raising funds
   for, or acting for or on behalf of, any organization he designates.
   From then on, it is a crime for "any person subject to the
   jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to directly or indirectly,
   raise, receive or collect on behalf of, or furnish, give, transmit,
   transfer or provide funds to or for an organization or person" so
   designated, unless a license has been granted by the Secretary of the
   Treasury. 
   
   In an attempt to avoid judicial review of designations that are either
   arbitrary or politically motivated, the legislation states that the
   President's designation of a group or individual would be final. "Any
   finding made in any designation pursuant to [this section] shall be
   conclusive. No question concerning the validity of the issuance of
   such designation may be raised by the defendant in a criminal
   prosecution as a defense or as an objection to any trial or hearing."
   Introducing a further opportunity for biased or inconsistent
   decisions, the legislation allows the President to take an
   organization or person off the list whenever he decides that "the
   national security, foreign relations, or economic interests of the
   United States so warrant," even though the organization is still
   involved in terrorist activity. 
   
   The new crime adopts by reference the definition of terrorist activity
   in the Immigration and Nationality Act. That definition states that a
   terrorist organization means any organization engaged, or which has a
   significant subgroup which engages, in terrorism activity, regardless
   of any legitimate activities conducted by the organization or its
   subgroups. 
   
   The fundraising provisions are unconstitutional because they violate
   the fundamental principle of our constitutional law that "a blanket
   prohibition of association with a group having both legal and illegal
   aims," without a showing of specific intent to further the unlawful
   aims of the group, is an unconstitutional infringement on "the
   cherished freedom of association protected by the First Amendment."
   Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966). As the Supreme Court
   emphasized in Noto v. United States, 364 U.S. 290, 299-300 (1961),
   "There is a danger that one in sympathy with the legitimate aims of .
   . . an organization, but not specifically intending to accomplish them
   by resort to violence, might be punished for his adherence to lawful
   and constitutionally protected purposes, because of other and
   unprotected purposes which he does not necessarily share." 

   
   3. A New Federal Crime of Terrorism to Be Applied Selectively Based on
       the Political Motivation of the Offender 
   
   Section 101 of the bill creates a new federal crime of international
   terrorism in the United States. Terrorist activity should be a crime.
   It already is a crime. Section 101 does not criminalize anything that
   is not already a crime. The new offense is defined as any killing,
   kidnapping, maiming, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or
   assault with a deadly weapon, and any damage to any real or personal
   property "in violation of the laws of any State or the United States,"
   so long as one of 9 jurisdictional bases is met. 
   
   Since the new offense does not cover anything that is not already a
   crime, the main purpose of the proposal seems to be to avoid certain
   constitutional and statutory protections that would otherwise apply.
   Investigations of, and prosecutions for, the new crime would be
   subject to the following special rules: 
   
   Suspension of posse comitatus. The new subsection (f) provides a
   wholesale exemption from one of the oldest protections in American
   law, the separation between military and police functions. At a time
   when there is growing public concern about the militarization of law
   enforcement, subsection (f) provides that "Assistance may be requested
   from any Federal ... agency, including the Army, Navy and Air Force,
   any statute, rule or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding." 
   
   Avoiding state due process protections. The federal rules of criminal
   procedure are in certain respects outdated compared to state court
   rules. For example, many states have rejected the concept of trial by
   surprise, adopting instead rules that require the prosecution to
   disclose its evidence to the defense in advance of trial, and vice
   versa. This facilitates plea bargaining and ensures that both sides
   are better prepared so the trial, if there is one, runs more smoothly.
   By contrast, under federal law, a defense lawyer is entitled to see
   prior statements made to police by a witness against his client only
   after the witness testifies at trial. There is increasing discussion
   of modernizing this federal rule. 
   
   In contrast to this trend, the draft adopts a tactic that state and
   federal prosecutors have jointly pursued to circumvent state
   procedural rules. Subsection (g) provides that in any prosecution
   under the section, "only the elements of state law, and not any
   provisions pertaining to criminal procedure, are adopted." This allows
   state prosecutors, dissatisfied with the rules of their own state, to
   take certain cases to federal prosecutors in order to obtain the
   benefit of rules that make it harder to mount an effective defense. 
   
   Chipping away at the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In derogation of the
   Fifth Amendment's presumption of innocence and the Sixth Amendment
   right to bail, Subsection 101(d) of this bill provides that anyone
   accused of committing a crime thereunder is presumed to be ineligible
   for bail and may be detained pretrial. The accused bears the burden of
   rebutting the presumption. (This is a significant expansion of a
   provision that first appeared in 1984, when Congress adopted 18 USC
   3142(e), shifting to the defendant in certain drug cases the burden of
   proving pretrial that he is eligible for the constitutional right to
   bail.) 
   
   Loosening the rules on wiretaps. Subsection (e) would exempt terrorism
   cases from the carefully crafted and balanced standards developed in
   1986 for so-called "roving taps." When Congress adopted the Electronic
   Communications Privacy Act of 1986, it struck a careful balance
   between privacy and law enforcement. Because of the Fourth Amendment's
   specificity requirement, federal law has always required applicants
   for wiretap orders to specify the location to be tapped. Some
   criminals were attempting to evade surveillance by using pay phones,
   the location of which could not always be anticipated for inclusion in
   the wiretap application. Therefore, Congress in 1986 created a limited
   exception to the specificity requirement where the target of an
   investigation has been taking steps to thwart interception by changing
   facilities. This bill would dispense with that standard, allowing
   roving taps to be used anytime a person is suspected of being involved
   in a terrorist crime, regardless of the law's requirement that there
   be a basis for the roving tap authority. 
   
   Mandatory jail sentence. The new subsection 2332b(d) would provide
   that no person convicted of a violation under the new crime could be
   placed on probation. While it is reasonable that persons who commit
   violent crimes would be incarcerated, the new section is not limited
   to violent offenses. Someone who intentionally scratches the car of a
   foreign diplomat would go to jail if charged and convicted under this
   provision. This gives prosecutors, who decide whether to charge under
   this section or another section, a tremendous club to hold over the
   heads of minor offenders. 
   
   Threats Under the proposed statute, threatening to do anything violent
   is a crime itself. There are numerous federal threat statutes already
   on the books (bomb threats, threats against the President), but there
   is no general threat statute. Under this bill, threatening to hit a
   tourist would be a federal crime, which could be investigated and
   prosecuted without adherence to constitutional and statutory
   protections. 
   
   First Amendment dangers. It is unlikely, of course, that ordinary
   crimes against tourists would be prosecuted under this section. The
   question of how cases will be selected for investigation and
   prosecution under such a broad statute brings us to the nub of the
   threat it poses. Proposed new section 2332b(e) provides that no
   indictment could be brought unless the Justice Department certifies
   that the offense appeared to have been intended to intimidate or
   retaliate against a government or population. So the cases will be
   chosen based on the offender's political motives, known or suspected. 
   
   Selecting offenders for prosecution based on their politics is fraught
   with danger to the First Amendment, especially where ordinary
   constitutional and statutory guarantees are circumvented. The problem
   is further exacerbated here, where motive is not an element of the
   crime to be proved at trial but an unreviewable prosecutorial
   determination. 
   
   Worse than the prosecutorial concerns are the investigative
   implications of the legislation. Encompassing as it does attempts,
   threats and conspiracies, and read in conjunction with the
   extraterritorial provisions in sections 102 and 103 and the
   fund-raising provisions in Title III, this legislation is a general
   charter for the FBI to investigate political groups and causes at
   will. 
   
   Indeed, the Administration is quite explicit about its intention to
   investigate based on First Amendment activities. In section 601 of the
   bill, it seeks to repeal a seemingly modest provision (the "Edwards
   amendment") agreed to by the Administration only 6 months ago and
   enacted in last year's crime bill that prohibited investigations of
   "material support" based on activities protected by the First
   Amendment. The Administration now claims that this provision imposes
   "an unprecedented and impractical burden on law enforcement concerning
   the initiation and continuation of criminal investigations" and asks
   for its repeal. The amendment in fact was intended to merely codify
   the criminal standard in the Smith guidelines. 
   
   Equal protection violation. One of the jurisdictional bases set forth
   in the new provision is that any alleged offender is an alien. While
   the federal government has broader discretion than the states in
   making distinctions between citizens and aliens, providing different
   crimes for aliens and citizens would surely seem to violate the
   Constitution. 
    
   _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   See also:

   URL: http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/cnss.FBI.auth.html
   URL: http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/cnss.trends.html

   *****************************************************************

393.960GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri May 12 1995 11:367
    
    
    Get your keyboard out of your mouth, AGAIN Chels.  Just because they
    are colocated means they are related?  Interesting theory.  
    
    
    Mike
393.961EST::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQFri May 12 1995 13:585
Just curious - has anyone found anything in Billy's terroism bill that would
have prevented the OKC bombing? Maybe in the fine tradition of the Brady
Bill, we should call it the OKC Bill...?

It seems to be more concerned with deporting aliens than building bombs...
393.962?TIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSFri May 12 1995 14:027
RE: Same address.
Does that mean that Digital Equipment Corp. is responsible for the Aluminum 
windows and doors manufactured in the old Maynard mill building during the 
60's & 70's? After all they had the same address xx Main st Maynard MA.

Amos
393.963NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri May 12 1995 15:4010
From today's Boston Globe:

  Said [FBI Special Agent Henry C.] Gibbons of the day FBI agents arrived to
  search the house: "Nichols stated several times that if they searched his
  residence, he hoped that agents 'would not mistake household items' for
  bomb-producing materials.  In particular, Nichols told agents that he had
  several containers of ground ammonium nitrate, which he said he sells as
  plant food fertilizer at gun shows."

Is it common for fertilizer to be sold at gun shows?
393.964MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri May 12 1995 15:424
    > Is it common for fertilizer to be sold at gun shows?
    
    Fertilizer sales are much more common in Boston Globe articles.
    
393.965GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri May 12 1995 15:495
    
    RE: .963 I've never seen any, Gerald.
    
    
    Mike
393.966Clinton has no clueOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaFri May 12 1995 15:587
    Re: .959
    
    I saw Slick Willy's police state proposal was immediately rejected by 
    Congress.  All that time in Moscow during Vietnam must've made him a
    closet Communist/Socialist.
    
    Mike
393.967FBI is clueless too and their story is unravelingOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaFri May 12 1995 16:004
    Reports from a OKC tv station now are saying McVeigh was arrested 2
    days later on Friday and not on Wednesday 90 minutes after the bombing.
    
    Shades of L.H. Oswald all over again.
393.968NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri May 12 1995 16:044
re .966:

Any unrepentant veteran of the anti-war movement would have conniptions
at the idea of increasing the FBI's powers.
393.969DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri May 12 1995 16:059
    There's same address and then, there's same address ;-}
    
    If the street address is the same, but list different office or
    suite numbers then the argument might hold some water.
    
    If the street AND office numbers are identical, then the argument
    doesn't wash.
    
    
393.970PATE::CLAPPFri May 12 1995 16:107
    
    re: <<< Note 393.964 by MPGS::MARKEY
    
    >Fertilizer sales are much more common in Boston Globe articles.
    
	Aren't Boston Globe sales considered fertilizer sales?
   
393.971MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri May 12 1995 16:103
    
    Why yes, Gilligan, they are.
    
393.972SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotFri May 12 1995 17:1211
    .967
    
    > Reports from a OKC tv station now are saying McVeigh was arrested 2
    > days later on Friday and not on Wednesday 90 minutes after the bombing.
    
    You really ought to learn how to parse nooz.  McVeigh was arrested in a
    city some 60 miles from OKC, for a traffic violation, about 90 minutes
    after the explosion.  He was still being held by the locals two days
    later, on Friday, when one of them suddenly twigged to the fact that
    the guy they had in their lockup looked a lot like John Doe #1.  They
    called the feds, and McVeigh was turned over to federal custody.
393.973DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri May 12 1995 17:198
    -1 No wonder the trooper looked embarrassed when he was referred to
    as a hero....dumb luck :-)
    
    Since McVeigh appears to be a good little foot soldier who won't
    spill the beans, I wonder how long it will take to round up all
    that were involved.
    
    
393.974OUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaFri May 12 1995 17:361
    Dick, don't believe everything you see on the toob.
393.976sounds coolOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaFri May 12 1995 17:451
    What TV's run Notes?
393.977NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri May 12 1995 17:461
The participants in XDRESS::TRANSVESTISM.
393.979OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Fri May 12 1995 19:016
    Re: .958
    
    >Apparently you missed Consumer Reports retraction of their
    >erroneous reporting.
    
    So where was it?
393.980I don't get CRVMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri May 12 1995 21:0411
        re: Note 393.979 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
        I believe Consumer Reports corrected itself in a followup issue.
        Both the NRA and the NSSA pointed out the error and Consumer
    Reports corrected itself.  If you want to know the issue, I have no 
    idea.  It's after the issue that you apparently have, which incorrectly
    tied the 2 together.  Or maybe you "heard it somewhere", if you don't
    have the actual CR Magazine.  I got the retraction from the NRA
    themselves.  In it, it said the CR corrected itself.
    
    MadMike
393.981BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Fri May 12 1995 21:2912
    
    	Well, 2 victims are unaccounted for, right?
    
    	What are they going to do ... level the building and not bother
    	to dig them out?
    
    	If they're going to level the place [which I'm sure they will
    	do, since to my non-architect intellect, the place looks like
    	a total loss], would it be possible to remove 1 floor at a time,
    	starting from the top, until they get down to the area where they
    	know the bodies are?
    
393.982You can only ask so much of rescuersDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri May 12 1995 21:3612
    .981
    
    Reports from rescue teams on the site say the decision was made
    NOT to try and recover the 2 bodies because the building is now
    so unstable it is unsafe for rescue workers to be in there.
    
    They feel they know who the 2 women are; the women's families have
    indicated that although they would prefer to have the remains of
    their loved ones, they don't want anyone else getting injured (or
    possibly killed) trying to recover the bodies.
    
    
393.984BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Fri May 12 1995 22:1513
    
    	RE: Karen
    
    	I realize that, and don't blame them a bit.  But are they just
    	going to drop the building on top of them?  Again, if they are
    	I don't blame them.
    
    	RE: Joe
    
    	No, I heard the same thing that Karen did.  I believe they've
    	narrowed down the location to a 20'x20' area or so, by talking
    	to co-workers and asking them questions.
    
393.985MASALA::SNEILJ.A.F.OSat May 13 1995 00:319
    

       Heard on the Radio today that ICI are being sued by 4 of the
    survivors.The grounds being that ICI did not put suitable additives
    into the fertilizers so that it would be useless if used as part of a
    bomb.


    SCott
393.986WMOIS::GIROUARD_CMon May 15 1995 11:033
    ...and Johnny Cochran filed it!
    
    Chip
393.987I'd bet Johnnie has a video of the news clipDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundMon May 15 1995 14:0319
    As Cochran put it "there's life after OJ".
    
    Cochran may be able to mount a class action suit.  Right after the
    explosion one of the night time news shows (could have been 60
    Minutes) interviewed a man who had developed a process whereby the
    fertilizer could be manufactured in a way that would make it more
    difficult or almost impossible to explode.  The show also interviewed
    a representative of the fertilizer manufacturer (don't know if it is
    same company now being sued); the rep said there had been so few
    instances of the fertilizer exploding, they didn't see the need to
    incorporate the other man's process into their product (indicating
    to do so would add to the fertilizer's cost).
    
    What struck me as odd was that neither man talked about anyone using
    the fertilizer to build a bomb; references to explosions seemed to 
    be something that happened infrequently in the normal use of the
    product.
    
    
393.988Probably wasn't an easy decisionDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundMon May 15 1995 14:1420
    Joe,
    
    I two women I referred to were known to be employees of the credit
    union located very close to what is now being referred to as the
    "point zero".  It could very well be that they feel the women were
    incinerated, but officials are not actually saying so in order to
    spare their families.
    
    Anyway, the area the women were working in is now under the most
    debris, so it might be weeks before they could remove that debris
    to see if the bodies can be found in any way, shape or form.  The
    building's architect and other structural engineers feel the risk
    to rescue workers is too great to continue in the search for the
    bodies.
    
    I think it's the fact that these two bodies can't be retrieved (I'm
    amazed there aren't more) that everyone seems to feel a memorial
    should be built on the site. IMO the rescue efforts were herculean;
    you can only ask so much of people, you know.
    
393.989OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon May 15 1995 18:2411
    Re: .980
    
    >It's after the issue that you apparently have
    
    The reason I ask is I don't recall receiving an issue after the one
    which carried the article.
    
    >I got the retraction from the NRA themselves.  In it, it said the CR 
    >corrected itself.
    
    Well, then, I guess I'll wait until I hear it from CR.
393.990ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Mon May 15 1995 18:336
>    Well, then, I guess I'll wait until I hear it from CR.

Does this mean you will continue to repeat this information until you get a
personal retraction from CR?

Bob
393.991OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon May 15 1995 19:056
    Re: .990
    
    >Does this mean you will continue to repeat this information
    
    What kind of bozo question is this?  What do you think I'm going to do,
    call up everyone in the phone book and let them know?  Get a clue.
393.992Now we know what you do with your weekends:-)ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Mon May 15 1995 19:1010
re: 991

>    What kind of bozo question is this?  What do you think I'm going to do,
>    call up everyone in the phone book and let them know?  Get a clue.

Well, since you didn't trust the source of the rebuttal, I was wondering if
you would continue to spread possibly false information.  Doesn't sound like
a bozo question to me.

Bob
393.993OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon May 15 1995 19:116
    Re: .992
    
    >I was wondering if you would continue to spread possibly false 
    >information.  Doesn't sound like a bozo question to me.
    
    Then think about it for a good deal longer.  Years, if you have to.
393.994ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Mon May 15 1995 19:145
re: .993

I guess I'll have to wonder about it until you answer the question.

Bob
393.995fixed - thanks, doctahPENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon May 15 1995 19:306
	Have to say I thought it was a tad bozo-esque myself, Bob.
	Anyone who's read Chelsea's notes for more than a day should
	be able to tell she wouldn't keep repeating info that
	was in question.

393.997VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyMon May 15 1995 19:3213
    Bob,
    
    Relax, chelsea ain't gonna get a coronary for spouting something that
    I know to be false.  And I certainly ain't gonna get a hernia over
    this. And I'm not going to waste time searching through all sorts of
    crap just to prove her wrong.  So, she can appear high and mightly
    and stand in the center of the room screaming "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!".
    
    Whatever floats her boat.  I'll give her credit, someday CR will say
    "yes, we were wrong" and she'll stop saying the NRA is affiliated with
    blah-blah... most places don't GAS and purposely continue to print 
    lies (often known as "falsehoods") because they don't have a case.
    
393.998OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon May 15 1995 19:5918
    Re: .997
    
    >So, she can appear high and mightly and stand in the center of the
    >room screaming "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!".
    
    I could, but so far, I haven't.  So you can knock it off with the
    intimations that I have.
    
    >someday CR will say "yes, we were wrong"
    
    Until they do, they haven't made the retraction.
    
    >she'll stop saying the NRA is affiliated with blah-blah...
    
    I said it once, several days ago, but you assume that I won't "stop"
    until sometime in the future.
    
    The only thing I want to hear from you in the future is an apology.
393.999sorry, but...42344::CBHLager LoutMon May 15 1995 20:010
393.1000I wanted the 1000!42344::CBHLager LoutMon May 15 1995 20:010
393.1001COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon May 15 1995 20:11108
Lawyer defended '60s leftists, now represents Terry Nichols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO -- What a long, strange trip it's been for Michael Tigar, (CQ)
the "spell-binding firebrand" lawyer who defended leftists in the 1960s and
will now defend a soldier of the extreme right: Oklahoma City bombing
suspect Terry Nichols.

First with a microphone, then with a law book, Tigar starred in now-mythic
clashes on the tear-gassed University of California-Berkeley campus; in
courtrooms where his clients included Angela Davis and the Chicago Seven;
and in rallies where he declared that "genocide and imperialism will be
stopped in Vietnam and Mississippi and in Georgia."

On a May day 25 years ago, on a Berkeley campus crawling with cops and
closed by order of Gov. Ronald Reagan, Tigar told a sea of students and
draft resisters that President Richard Nixon was a "war criminal" and
America an "international outlaw."

"The issue now," warned the tall, handsome Tigar, who was then a UCLA law
professor, "is whether you and I will liberate this country from inside or
whether it will be liberated from abroad."

The crowd shot to its feet in a standing ovation.

Only four years later, in 1974, he was working for a fancy Washington law
firm and defending a wealthy ex-member of the "war criminal's"
administration -- onetime Treasury Secretary John Connally, who was charged
with accepting a bribe.

Tigar's office was decorated with Daumier prints, and his elegant clothes
and cropped hair made him look "more like a Young Republican than the
spell-binding firebrand he was a dozen years ago," a San Francisco reporter
wrote at that time.

The reporter asked Tigar if he still considered himself a revolutionary. He
paused for a long time. "Do I have to answer that question?" he asked. Then
he said: "The Left doesn't exist here anymore. ... (It has) been unable to
formulate a coherent position supported by a broad spectrum of the people
...

"It doesn't mean I have gotten more conservative. It means I have come to
realize the formidable power the government can wield when it decides to be
regressive."

He knew what he was talking about. In the 1960s he had been a brilliant law
student at UC-Berkeley -- first in his class and editor in chief of the
California Law Review -- and was offered a post as a U.S. Supreme Court
clerk. But the offer was withdrawn after the California Senate Un-American
Activities Committee blasted him for attending an allegedly
Soviet-influenced film festival in Finland years earlier.

Later Tigar played lead or supporting roles in some of the most dramatic
courtroom confrontations of the day, including the trial of the so-called
Chicago Seven.

The Seven were accused of disrupting the 1968 Democratic National
Convention. Early in the trial, Tigar riled Judge Julius Hoffman and was
temporarily ejected from the courtroom, along with another lawyer. On the
way out they raised clenched fists in a "power to the people" salute.

He also helped Davis, the black radical philosopher, win acquittal on
charges that she had masterminded a shootout that left a judge dead in Marin
County.

But with time, his highest-profile clientele became richer and -- by leftist
standards -- rather reactionary. Connally was acquitted; so was U.S. Sen.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who had been accused of misconduct while
state treasurer. The columnist Murray Kempton reported in 1980 that Connally
rewarded Tigar by giving him a prize bull, and that Tigar passed the bull on
to Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Tigar also represented John Demjanjuk, who was
convicted for war crimes at a Nazi death camp, then released after the
evidence against him weakened.

Tigar and San Francisco attorney Dennis Riordan are handling the appeal of
Clayton Jackson, once a top Sacramento lobbyist who is serving a 6 1/2-year
sentence for money laundering, racketeering and offering a bribe to former
state Sen. Alan Robbins.

Now 54, Tigar has agreed to represent Nichols at the request of three
federal judges. On Wednesday, Nichols, 40, was charged in the April 19
bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

At the time, that made Nichols the second person charged, along with Timothy
McVeigh, 27. But on Friday in Oatman, Ariz., authorities picked up a third
suspect, Steven Garrett Colbern, 35, who was arrested on a federal firearms
charge.

"I think every American who believes the FBI is fallible would understand
the need to have this case defended, and to have it defended in a way that
will further the search for truth," Tigar told the Dallas Morning News.

Tigar, who couldn't be reached Saturday, lives in Austin, Texas, and teaches
at the University of Texas Law School. His colleagues call him a brilliant
constitutional scholar, who casually quotes from Euripides and Shakespeare.

"There are very few criminal defense lawyers in this country who aren't
familiar with Michael Tigar," says Nancy Hollander of Albuquerque, past
president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Tigar's leftist days are largely, but not totally, behind him: He still
fights death-penalty convictions on behalf of an Austin-based group of
lawyers.

"Sometimes he charges through the office," said an aide there, who wouldn't
give his name. "He has incredible energy."
393.1002ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Tue May 16 1995 12:543
Well, I see I've found a good way to get Chelsea's gander up:-)

Bob
393.1003WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 16 1995 13:001
    dander
393.1004NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue May 16 1995 13:131
No, he wants to wake her male goose.  Or maybe goose her mailman.
393.1005BIGQ::SILVADiabloTue May 16 1995 14:353

	Chelsea has dandruff???
393.1006SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 16 1995 14:47328
              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 4  Num. 90
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
FEDS "FIB" ON OKLAHOMA CITY BOMB SAYS EX-HIGH LEVEL FBI OFFICIAL
 
Evidence Indicates High-Tech Device
 
An expert on security and terrorism says the government isn't 
telling the truth about the bomb that devastated the building in 
Oklahoma City.
 
EXCLUSIVE TO *THE SPOTLIGHT*
 
By Mike Blair
 
A very high tech and top secret barometric bomb was the cause of 
the explosion that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal 
Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, with a loss of life that 
may reach and even exceed 200 persons.
 
That is the conclusion of an FBI veteran with 28 years of 
service, Ted L. Gunderson of Santa Monica, California. He 
dismisses as a cover-up U.S. Justice Department claims that a 
simple bomb, concocted from fertilizer and fuel oil, was 
responsible for the blast.
 
According to Gunderson, the bomb was an electrohydrodynamic 
gaseous fuel device (barometric bomb), which could not have been 
built by former Persian Gulf War Army veteran Timothy McVeigh and 
his rural Michigan farming friends, brothers James and Terry 
Nichols -- at least not without the aid of persons, as yet 
unknown. Those persons would need to possess knowledge of 
research classified at the very highest level of top secret by 
the U.S. government, in addition to access to a vast array of 
chemical and electronic components.
 
Former Army Sgt. McVeigh has been charged as being a key player 
in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building and the 
Nichols brothers stand accused of conspiring with McVeigh in the 
production of explosives...
 
McVeigh, initially charged as "John Doe No. 1" in a federal 
warrant, and as yet, according to the Justice Department and FBI, 
an unknown "John Doe No. 2," the subject of a massive nation-wide 
dragnet, are accused of delivering the bomb to the front of the 
federal building and igniting it.
 
Gunderson, in several lengthy interviews with *The Spotlight*, 
has revealed that he knows the inventors of the type of bomb that 
devastated the Oklahoma City building, one of whom, upon learning 
of details of the blast, told Gunderson, "That's my bomb."
 
Gunderson has obtained from an expert who has knowledge of the 
device an abstract description, including a diagram, of the bomb, 
described in the abstract as "top secret due to the ease in which 
the device can be created."
 
"Technically," according to the abstract, "it is considered an 
'A-neutronic' device, hence the designated 'Q' clearance is 
required for information."
 
"For the sake of security, the electronic detonation sequence 
shall not be described herein" to prevent the process from being 
copied, the abstract indicates.
 
>From sources familiar with U.S. government classification 
methods, "Q" clearance is required to obtain access to, among 
other things, nuclear weapons components, including small -- 
easily transportable by a single person -- portable nuclear 
bombs.
 
Vastly more sophisticated than the fuel oil-fertilizer bomb [CN 
-- "The Mannlicher-Carcano bomb"] now being described by federal 
agents as weighing up to 5,000 pounds, the A-neutronic device may 
have been "the size of a small pineapple," according to the 
abstract.
 
                 -+- Misleading Claims -+-
 
Gunderson, who retired in 1979 from the FBI as the senior special 
agent in charge of the bureau's Los Angeles office, takes a dim 
view of FBI and Justice Department claims that the bomb 
responsible for the Oklahoma City blast was a concoction of 
fertilizer and fuel oil, delivered to the front of the building 
in a large rented moving van.
 
Federal officials started out claiming the bomb weighed 1,000 
pounds, then up-scaled it to 1,400 pounds, then 4,000 pounds and 
now up to 5,000 pounds, with claims of the size of the delivery 
vehicle also being up-scaled from a delivery van to now a moving 
van.
 
"It appears the government keeps up-grading the size of the 
vehicle and the 'fertilizer' bomb to coincide with the damage," 
Gunderson said.
 
The attention of *The Spotlight* was focused on Gunderson when 
this newspaper received a fax sent out by the high-level FBI 
veteran, dated April 26. Headed "To Whom It May Concern," the fax 
message was sent to a number of individuals and organizations, 
including his former employer, the FBI.
 
                -+- Seismographic Report -+-
 
Gunderson included with the fax a copy of a seismograph record 
from the Oklahoma Geological Survey, located at the University of 
Oklahoma at Norman, about 15 miles south of Oklahoma City.
 
The seismograph record indicates that there were two explosions 
involved in the April 19 bombing, which coincides with the 
reports of a number of people in and around the building at the 
time it was devastated.
 
Gunderson stated in his fax message that from the seismographic 
record, Dr. Ken Louzza at the university "advised there were two 
surface waves, one at 9:02 am and 13 seconds and the other at 
9:02 am and 23 seconds on April 19, 1995 (10 seconds apart). He 
stated [the] chart indicates two detonations."
 
Despite this evidence of two distinct blasts and reports of 
people at the scene, the FBI and Justice Department insists there 
was only one explosion, a position which up until now the 
national media has chosen to believe and has ignored the 
university seismographic report.
 
In confronting the university's seismologist with this FBI claim, 
Gunderson was told, "I don't care what the government says. There 
were two events, 10 seconds apart."
 
To make certain of what he had been told, Gunderson, with years 
of interviewing in criminal cases under his belt, said "I wrote 
it down and repeated it back to him and he confirmed that was 
what he stated."
 
It is noted that the FBI, after insisting for several days after 
the bombing that it had occurred at 9:04 am, has now changed the 
official time to 9:02, which conforms to the seismographic record 
from the University of Oklahoma.
 
In any case, it was the two-explosion reports that led Gunderson 
to rule out the fertilizer bomb and to zero in on the more 
sophisticated A-neutronic device.
 
Although the abstract provided to Gunderson is relatively 
technical in nature, it basically states that the bomb consists 
of a cylinder of just "64 ounces or more of ammonium nitrate," 
which surrounds a shaft of aluminum silicate that has at its 
center another shaft of an explosive known as PETN, described to 
*The Spotlight* as a "low volume explosive."
 
The abstract states that when the PETN is detonated the top of 
the canister or tank containing the bomb "flies upwards and the 
bottom of the tank opens up into a flower petal shape. 
Immediately the ammonium nitrate mixes with the shattered micro- 
encapsulated aluminum silicate to create an even more devastating 
explosive fuel cloud. This cloud is then energized with a high 
potential electrostatic field resulting in the creation of 
millions of microfronts."
 
The abstract further indicates that the "cold cloud" is then 
detonated by a charge that "is cushioned from the first blast due 
to a shock absorbing cavity."
 
"This time," the document continues, "the cold cloud ignites, 
creating a shock wave which surpasses the traditional effects of 
TNT. The most astounding effects of this type of detonation is 
the immediate atmospheric overpressure which has a tendency to 
blow out windows [of] any structure within the vicinity of the 
blast."
 
                -+- Building Vulnerable -+-
 
In reporting on the vulnerability of the building to the 
explosion, the *New York Times* in its April 28 edition, page 
A27, reported as follows: "The Federal Building in Oklahoma City 
may also have been vulnerable because of its ground level atrium 
and glass facade. The problem was not with flying glass -- a 
small hazard compared with collapsing concrete -- but with the 
way the blast was able to penetrate the glass easily and push up 
the floors at the lower levels, some experts said."
 
The *Times* reported further: "Anatol Longinow, an engineer at 
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, a firm in Chicago that 
investigates structural failures, said that when a bomb goes off 
at street level, the blast 'expands spherically, and it hits the 
floors up instead of down,' by coming in under them."
 
"'The floors are not intended to go up in any event,' he said. If 
pushed in a direction opposite from normal, he said, the floors 
may break loose relatively easily and crash down in a pancake- 
like pile."
 
It is this "pancake-like pile" of the several stories of the 
building that has caused rescue workers and firemen so much 
trouble in their search for survivors and retrieval of the dead 
from the structure.
 
                 -+- Confirmed At Hearing -+-
 
However, it was reports from a hearing on the charges faced by 
McVeigh held before Federal Magistrate Ronald Howland in El Reno, 
Oklahoma, on April 28, that the final clue to the use of the A- 
neutronic device in destroying the federal building was revealed.
 
*USA Today* of April 28 reported on its page 3A that final clue. 
The paper's editors do not realize that they had inserted in 
their newspaper the final piece of the bomb's mosaic.
 
The article stated: "The decision came after hours of testimony 
from [FBI] Special Agent John Hersley, who said a shirt McVeigh 
was wearing when he was arrested [by an Oklahoma state trooper 
during his alleged get-away] had traces of the explosive PDTN."
 
(This is not a typographical error; there are two kinds of 
explosives with similar names associated with the bomb described 
by Gunderson -- PETN and PDTN. PETN is used in the initial 
detonation which releases ammonium nitrate and aluminum silicate 
to mix in a cloud. PDTN is used to detonate the electrically- 
charged cloud. The reason PDTN is not used in both charges is 
because, if it were used in the first detonation, it would be of 
such a violent explosive nature that it would detonate the 
secondary charge at the same time. -- *Spotlight* Editor)
 
When this was passed on to Gunderson by *The Spotlight* and after 
the veteran FBI boss had consulted with an expert connected with 
the design of the A-neutronic device, Gunderson called this 
newspaper, stating:
 
"You just won the Super Bowl."
 
The explosive PDTN, Gunderson had been told, is the substance 
used to detonate the second explosion, which in turn detonates 
the electrified cloud mixture of ammonium nitrate and aluminum 
silicate, causing the major devastating blast that virtually 
wiped out nearly two-thirds of the federal building.
 
Completing the picture of the A-neutronic device even further, 
the *Arkansas Democrat Gazette*, published in Little Rock, in 
describing the FBI's contention in its April 30 edition that the 
"fertilizer" bomb concoction was detonated by using explosive 
cord wrapped around the barrels, it stated: "The barrels were 
somehow tied together with high-explosive detonator cord, a rope- 
like device that contains the explosive PETN, an official told 
the *Dallas Morning News*."
 
While it is true that the explosive PETN may be used in explosive 
cord, as described, it is also, according to the A-neutronic bomb 
designers, the explosive used in the initial phase of detonating 
the A-neutronic device -- the release and dispersal of the 
ammonium nitrate and aluminum silicate combination.
 
There is no evidence that has surfaced, or [has been] claimed by 
FBI agents, that both explosive substances -- PDTN and PETN -- 
were used in their "fertilizer" bomb story.
 
At 5:45 pm on April 28, Gunderson received a call from the FBI 
office where he had faxed his memo and the material he had 
collected on the bomb.
 
"They asked me if I cared if they faxed my fax to other field 
offices around the country," Gunderson told *The Spotlight*. "It 
was a BS call. They just wanted to know where I am."
 
Gunderson, whose life has been at risk numerous times during his 
long career, said, quite matter-of-factly, "Of course, if 
anything does happen to me, it just confirms what I have 
uncovered."
 
Was a moving van used to transport the bomb to the blast site?
 
"They could have delivered it in a suitcase," the former G-man 
said.
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
LATE-BREAKING NEWS
 
*The Spotlight* received the following message from Ted Gunderson 
on May 4:
 
"I was contacted anonymously on May 3, 1995 by a federal criminal 
investigator who is involved in the [Oklahoma City bomb] case. He 
stated the bombing was an enhanced reflection wave detonation 
with a duplex charge. Had it been ammonia nitrate [of the type 
used in a fertilizer bomb] there would have been nitric acid 
clouds and none of the workers would have been allowed in the 
area without breathing masks."
 
"He stated 'John Doe 2' was vaporized by design. Timothy McVeigh 
is also a throw-away [a term used by the FBI and others for an 
expendable asset]. He advised that the debri(s) field was 
collapsed toward the center. There was something inside the 
building, probably another bomb. It was a 'drop and shear' 
charge."
 
"They looked for signs of ammonia nitrate (fertilizer) and there 
were none. He stated Gunderson is 100 percent right."
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
>From *The Spotlight*, May 15, 1995 issue.
*The Spotlight*, a populist weekly newspaper. To subscribe, call 
1-800-522-6292 (In Maryland phone (301) 951-6292).
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation 
  Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigxc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

 Brian Francis Redman    bigxc@prairienet.org    "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"        
--------------------------------------------------------------
393.1007NASAU::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundTue May 16 1995 15:192
News says it'll cost gov't est. 10 million for defense of accused. Says millions
have been spent investigating case already.
393.1008WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 16 1995 15:213
    >News says it'll cost gov't est. 10 million for defense of accused.
    
     I heard that $10M was for the prosecution.
393.1009NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue May 16 1995 15:252
Defense lawyers are getting $125/hr.  AP article says that high for court-
appointed lawyers, but low for private lawyers in such cases.
393.1010ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Tue May 16 1995 15:275
re: .1003

Whoops.  Fingers must still be asleep.

Bob
393.1011never heard of this 'PDTN' eitherEVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesTue May 16 1995 16:066
.1006 is a load.  Aluminum silicate is basically inert.
Clay is essentially aluminum silicate.

The FBI is likely to have found traces of aluminum silicate
at the site, however.  Clay is used to keep the prills of
some fertilizers from clumping.
393.1012DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 16 1995 16:185
    Am I supposed to take something written in "Conspiracy Nation"
    seriously?
    
    
    
393.1013SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 16 1995 16:3211
    
>    Am I supposed to take something written in "Conspiracy Nation"
>    seriously?
    
    
    	I dunno Ms. Reese, are you? I post it simply to present an article
    of interest. How you take it is your business...
    
    
    jim
    
393.1014MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryTue May 16 1995 16:4329
    Even though _no_ connection has been made to any bomb recipe
    posted to Internet, BC and the media talk about how the
    Internet is bad, and something must be done.

    Even though _no_ connection has been made between those in
    custody for the OKC bombing and the militias, BC and the
    media talk about how the militias are bad, and something
    must be done.

    Even though _no_ connection, other than membership in the
    NRA, has been made between those in custody and gun control,
    BC and the media talk about how guns are bad, and something
    must be done.

    Etc etc.

    There are odoriferous rats at work her. The sand is a comfortable
    place, and most worthy of many fine heads. I choose to take
    everything I read or hear with a large grain of salt, but
    even moreso if BC is on about it... seeing as my opinion of him
    is that he's the worst president in the history of our nation
    and deserving of nothing more but the highest of contempt.

    No, I don't believe the bomb in OKC was set by the government,
    nor do I believe a single thing those hideous snakes Reno or
    Clinton say about it either. The truth lies, I'm sure, somewhere
    in between.

    -b
393.1015DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 16 1995 16:5211
    Brian,
    
    I agree with your last paragraph 100%.  That's the point I was
    trying to make; I DON'T trust the junk Clinton and Reno are
    spewing right now any more that I would believe anything that
    comes out under the title of "Conspiracy Nation".
    
    Taking a wait and see stance does not mean I'm burying my head
    in the sand.
    
    
393.1016SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherTue May 16 1995 16:5316
    re: .1014
    
    I must say I do agree with you.  While the government speaks 
    against the NRA and militias by saying they are taking the spotlight
    away from all the innocent people who died in the OKC bombing, in the
    same breath they are using the incident as a political springboard for 
    all types of restrictive legislation which, under normal circumstances,
    would be extremely unplatable to the American public.  Personally,
    I think this is reprehensible for a body which we fervently hope
    contains some intelligent people.  It amounts to an opportunity to
    hoodwink the American people using fear, propaganda and the
    principles of Three Card Monty.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
393.1017Check out all available sources of infoVMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyTue May 16 1995 17:1813
    Karen,
    
    The article in "conspiracy nation" is from "The Spotlight".
    A newspaper.  Admittedly, "the spotlight" isn't up there with
    "The New York Times" in circulation, but you must admit, it would
    be difficult to dream trash up like this and expect to stay in
    business.
    
    Take both sides of the story, put them together, and somewhere in the
    middle is what happened.  And it stinks.  And we'll never know what 
    REALLY happened.
    
    MadMike 
393.1018NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue May 16 1995 17:202
The Spotlight is published by "The Liberty Lobby," which is right up there
with the KKK and American Nazi Party in respectability.
393.1019SHRCTR::DAVISTue May 16 1995 17:3711
   <<< Note 393.1017 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
                  -< Check out all available sources of info >-

>    The article in "conspiracy nation" is from "The Spotlight".
>    A newspaper.  Admittedly, "the spotlight" isn't up there with
>    "The New York Times" in circulation, but you must admit, it would
>    be difficult to dream trash up like this and expect to stay in
>    business.
    
You're kidding, Mike, right? You just have to go through the grocery 
check-out line as often as GHWB to know that trash *is* big business.
393.1020DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 16 1995 17:3812
    Mike,
    
    I don't think some folks would have any trouble  "dreaming
    up this trash" at all.  Membership in these militias is greater
    than a lot of people ever thought; The Spotlight has its target
    audience (I'm just not one of those among it).
    
    It would be a terrible day indeed if it were proved that my
    government is running amok; it does not give me "warm and
    fuzzies" to think that Mark Koernke and his ilk are my only 
    alternative.
    
393.1021Science is also guiltyOUTSRC::HEISERthe dumbing down of AmericaTue May 16 1995 17:476
    Re: truth is in the middle
    
    I find that's true in many areas of life.  Man-made extremes are
    usually false.  Applies to politics as well as matters of faith.
    
    Mike
393.1022SHRCTR::DAVISTue May 16 1995 17:5619
   <<< Note 393.1014 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>

>    There are odoriferous rats at work her. The sand is a comfortable

It's called politics, Brian. It has a force, a momentum, and a logic all 
its own. Why do you think that both the right and the left have jumped on 
the dangerous anti-terrorist bandwagon? First its the WTC. Then OKC. People 
are getting nervous - or at least the pols think so, so they gotta do 
*something*. They may be powered by ideals, but they're steered by 
political exigency.

As for BC & Co., they're not as evil or incompetent as you say. They have a 
different political philosophy than you, but they're well within the 
political mainstream. BC's also a pure political animal, not unlike most 
other folks on both sides of the isle in DC. He is going to take recent 
events to make his political points; it's the nature of the beast. Even I, 
who am largely sympathetic to his administration, have to cringe at some of 
the crap he says - much as you on the right have no doubt cringed at some 
of Newt's antics. They're a breed apart (as are we, I suppose :')).
393.1023WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 16 1995 17:591
    aisle. /hth
393.1024SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CTue May 16 1995 18:1281
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Newgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: (fwd) LAPD USE OKLA BOMB TO FURTHER ERODE RIGHTS

------------------------
Via Workers World Service
Reprinted from the May 11, 1995, issue of Workers World newspaper
-----------------------


LAPD GETS PERMISSION TO TERRORIZE

By Paul Ahuja
Los Angeles

Using the explosion in Oklahoma City as a pretext to further
erode civil rights, the Los Angeles Police Commission has wiped
out a ruling made in the 1980s that curbed some of the broad
powers so often abused by the Los Angeles Police Department
branch called the Police Disorder Intelligence Division.

The PDID, now known as the Anti-Terrorist Division, has been
given the power to conduct investigations for 120 days using
electronic eavesdropping--bugs and wiretaps--police infiltrators
and civilian informants, without first obtaining a court warrant.

After the 120-day period is up the ATD must go to the Police
Commission to get permission to continue the investigation or
make additional arrests.

"This is clearly a case of overreaction. The American Civil
Liberties Union forced the LAPD to stop conducting investigations
in this manner, with such broad leeway, exactly because the LAPD
was abusing its power," says John Daly, a Los Angeles organizer
against police abuse who works with the National People's
Campaign.

"These new emergency powers, which the police claim are to
investigate groups 'linked' to terrorism, will undoubtedly be
used like they were in the 1980s to harass and infiltrate groups
on the left."

The 1984 lawsuit, which the ACLU brought against the city of Los
Angeles on behalf of religious, civil-rights, environmental, and
political groups and over 100 individuals, was settled by curbing
the broad spying powers of the LAPD. The city also paid a
$1.8-million settlement, according to the Los Angeles Times.

ATD Capt. Joseph Curreri also wants to share intelligence
gathered through the ATD's restored powers with other
law-enforcement agencies and unspecified private organizations.
Curreri also wants the police to infiltrate religious or
educational institutions and gather information on individuals
who participate in nonviolent civil disobedience. The Police
Commission is likely to grant these powers in the near future,
the Times reported on April 21.

Daly says: "The solution to police abuse is to establish
community control of the police. This decision to give the LAPD
even more power to abuse was done behind the backs of the people
in a time of crisis.

"You can't have the cops policing themselves, deciding when to
give themselves more power. We should demand that the Commission
and the LAPD be made up of people who truly represent the
communities the police are supposed to serve."

Daryl Gates, the infamous chief of the LAPD during the beating of
Rodney King and the rebellion that followed, said that allowing
the ACLU to dismantle some of the power of the LAPD was "the
greatest mistake I ever made."


                               -30-

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted
if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World,
55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwp.blythe.org. For
subscription info send message to: ww-info@wwp.blythe.org.)


393.1025SHRCTR::DAVISTue May 16 1995 18:175
          <<< Note 393.1023 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    aisle. /hth

Another Phonic boom...
393.1026What's up his other sleeve?AMN1::RALTOIt's a small third world after allTue May 16 1995 18:2327
    re: .1014
    
    Excellent note, -b, and I agree completely.
    
    Meanwhile, the public sheep have been eagerly slurping up Clinton's
    bile in the wake of OKC, and his "approval ratings" are now at their
    highest levels ever, up around 54% if I recall the number correctly.
    
    I'm not at all surprised to see this.  After all, the average duh
    intellect can only hear "right-wing" connected with this bombing
    so many times before it caves in to the forced connection being
    fed to it constantly by our government/media.
    
    My father-in-law's "significant other", at around age 75, told me
    the other day how much she likes Clinton.  "I don't care what
    everyone says, I still like him, and I like what he says about
    this bombing and all of those conservative nuts out there with
    their right-wing militias and computers."  Her normally-sweet voice
    then took on an ominous edge:  "Do you know that the other day,
    my son, my SON, told me that he was a REPUBLICAN?"  Then this
    normally-pleasant and mild-mannered lady snarled: "I told him,
    'You're a   R e p u b l i c a n ???   F o r r r   W H A T T T ?!?!?!'"
    
    Yum-yum, keep eating it up, lady.  Your vote counts the same as
    mine, unfortunately.
    
    Chris
393.1027OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Tue May 16 1995 18:506
    Re: .1017
    
    >but you must admit, it would be difficult to dream trash up like this
    >and expect to stay in business.
    
    Why not?  Works for the Enquirer.
393.1028how much explosives training did you have?TIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSTue May 16 1995 18:516
>        <<< Note 393.1011 by EVMS::MORONEY "Verbing weirds languages" >>>
>                     -< never heard of this 'PDTN' either >-

That's PETN, main ingrediant of DET-cord

HTH
393.1029WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 16 1995 18:565
    >>                     -< never heard of this 'PDTN' either >-
    
    >That's PETN, main ingrediant of DET-cord
    
     Reread the article, Amos. They did refer to PDTN, near the bottom.
393.1030one major drawback to character cell notesWAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 16 1995 18:5821
    to wit:
    
    *USA Today* of April 28 reported on its page 3A that final clue.
    The paper's editors do not realize that they had inserted in
    their newspaper the final piece of the bomb's mosaic.
    
    The article stated: "The decision came after hours of testimony
    from [FBI] Special Agent John Hersley, who said a shirt McVeigh
    was wearing when he was arrested [by an Oklahoma state trooper
    during his alleged get-away] had traces of the explosive PDTN."
    
    (This is not a typographical error; there are two kinds of
    explosives with similar names associated with the bomb described
    by Gunderson -- PETN and PDTN. PETN is used in the initial
    detonation which releases ammonium nitrate and aluminum silicate
    to mix in a cloud. PDTN is used to detonate the electrically-
    charged cloud. The reason PDTN is not used in both charges is
    because, if it were used in the first detonation, it would be of
    such a violent explosive nature that it would detonate the
    secondary charge at the same time. -- *Spotlight* Editor)
     
393.1031OK I screwed upTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSTue May 16 1995 20:2411
>          <<< Note 393.1029 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    >>                     -< never heard of this 'PDTN' either >-
    
>    >That's PETN, main ingrediant of DET-cord
    
>     Reread the article, Amos. They did refer to PDTN, near the bottom.

Sorry, read too fast I guess

Amos
393.1032MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Wed May 17 1995 15:1912
re: Two remaining missing

I say this not to be uncouth or insensitive, but one has to wonder if the
potential consequences of not continuing to search for bodies have been
fully considered. At some point in time, a front end loader on site is
going to empty it's load into a dump truck, and said dump truck is going
to deposit said load in some area near or in OKC where hard fill is required.
And from the depth of one of those loads is going to spill a human body,
assuming it wasn't blown to bits in the explosion. And whenever that
happens, either the mainstream media or the tabloids are going to be able
spin all manner of new copy regarding this aftermath.

393.1033SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed May 17 1995 15:427
    
    <-----
    
    Jack.... 
    
    It just gives Connie Chung something to talk about...
    
393.1034STAR::PARKETrue Engineers Combat ObfuscationWed May 17 1995 17:598
    Re: .1032 and a few others.
    
    What I was hearing last night, when they interviewed the family of one
    the two presumed "bodies" still left, it sounds like they have
    protected the non searched area and intend to sift through the rubble
    after they drop the building.  The problem is that it is considered too
    unsafe to dig around in there with the building still up.
    
393.1035SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed May 17 1995 18:164
    So are they going to call in CDI to take the building down?  Nooz
    reports suggested that the intended procedure was right up CDI's alley. 
    I couldn't help observing the irony of using explosives to clear away
    the result of someone else's use of explosives.
393.1036Who's been doing the investigating so far?DECWIN::RALTOIt's a small third world after allWed May 17 1995 18:498
    Is CDI that family-owned company that does most/all of the building
    implosions all over the world?
    
    I was going to recommend that they should be the ones who should
    investigate the explosion site.  Who knows more about such things
    than them?  Presumably they'd be good, independent investigators.
    
    Chris
393.1037SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed May 17 1995 19:087
    .1036
    
    > Is CDI that family-owned company...?
    
    Yes.  Controlled Demolitions, Inc.  They know a lot about how to blow
    down a building, but they have no expertise in forensics, and that's
    what is needed to investigatge an explosion site.
393.1038BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Wed May 17 1995 19:105
    
    	Call Quincy!!
    
    	He could wrap this case up in a day or 2!!
    
393.1039SUBPAC::SADINOne if by LAN, two if by CThu May 18 1995 11:2555
Subj:	The Politics of Oklahoma City

Op-Ed Essay BOSTON SUNDAY GLOBE 05/14/95
Author: John Ellis, Consultant, Rasky & Co.

(text excerpt from first paragraph manually entered)

"The April 19th bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City changed 
the 1996 Presidential campaign. It raised the bar for entry into the Oval 
Office. In so doing, it may well prove to be a **** POLITICAL BONANZA ****
(words highlighted for e-mail readers' scrutiny only!) for President Clinton.
It has already **** BOOSTED HIS STANDING **** with the electorate. If he 
**** PLAYS HIS CARDS RIGHT ****, it will **** CONTINUE TO PAY DIVIDENDS 
FOR MONTHS TO COME ****."


Comment: The remainder of Ellis' essay is a standard attack on the NRA 
and on all the causes which Clinton despises. I don't have the time right 
now to manually re-enter the whole essay.

HOWEVER, I wanted noban readers to *** read aloud *** Ellis' words which 
I have highlighted in upper case letters above and then think back to the 
photo of the OK City firefighter holding the deceased one year old girl in 
his arms. Then read Ellis' words, aloud, again!!! "Dividends" paid from 
babies' deaths!!! Yes, you read that right!!!

Folks, if McVeigh committed the crime in OK City, he's a sicko, but is 
Ellis any less a sicko ... given his strategizing on how to get 
political mileage out of horrific death and destruction? We should consider 
getting the word out: Pro-Clinton Consultant Describes Babies' Deaths as 
a "Political Bonanza" ... wow, now that would show Clinton's backers' true 
colors and motives! (Talk about despicable!)

Can somebody *please* extract Ellis' essay (all of it) electronically and
copy it to a wide range of pro-freedom advocates? Ellis' words were so 
recklessly and thoughtlessly used ... let's turn them around on him ... 
and on his pal in the White House. I'd locate the article electronically,
believe me, if I had the net expertise to do so. (I don't.)

This is an opportunity to expose the Clintonistas for what they really are.

BOSTON GLOBE letters to the editor e-mail address:
letter@globe.com


Throwing in a comment such as "I am shocked, but not really surprised, to 
see Clinton and his allies scrambling to regain their political footing 
on the backs of dead Americans." might not hurt. Whatever one writes to 
THE GLOBE, expressing empathy for the OK City victims and their families 
is a must.

Christopher C. Ferris
Litchfield NH
ferriscc@mainstream.com

393.1040The families just want closureDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu May 18 1995 18:0224
    I thought it had already been reported that although Clinton's
    approval rating jumped for 3/4 days after the bombing (including
    his appearance at the memorial); those ratings started dropping
    soon after.
    
    DelBalso,
    
    Quite a number of bodies were recovered after the rescue workers
    were allowed to bring in heavy equipment; there was mention then
    of "sifting through debris".  I think those in charge of the rescue/
    recovery effort have done a tremendous job, they shouldn't be
    criticized if they are unwilling to risk the lives of rescue workers
    to extract the two bodies.  It is my understanding that the decision
    not to go after the two bodies was discussed with the victim's
    families and they agreed they did not want to see any more lives
    endangered.
    
    What I find reprehensible are the efforts of McVeigh's attorney to
    DELAY the demolition of the building so they can "examine the crime
    scene".  He initially asked for a delay of 30 days; that was shot
    down, but a delay was granted.  The two women's families were more
    upset at the delay than they were about the idea that the women's
    bodies might not be recovered.
    
393.1041MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu May 18 1995 18:0814
    Karen,

    So McVeigh (through his attorney) has no right to gather evidence
    that might exonerate him? Only the prosecution has the right
    to gather evidence?

    The building _is_ the crime scene. Once they demolish the building,
    potential evidence is lost.

    It's not reprehensible to vigorously defend the accused. In fact,
    in our system, it's reprehensible not to.

    -b
393.1042Rush to judgement leaves too many questionsTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSThu May 18 1995 18:5616
Karen,

 Under our legal system McVeigh could get off on a technicality due to the
destruction of evidence. Leaving many unhappy people and unanswered questions.

The gov't destruction of evidence played a key roll in the conspiracy theories
around Waco and Ruby-Ridge. should the same thing happen the conspiracy nuts
may find it to be more fuel for the fire. A delay of 30 days maybe too much
but 2 days is certainly too little. Loook how long the fight over evidence has 
lasted in the OJ trial. It would be better to allow the evidence gathering
and have a clean verdict after all facts are known.

(usual disclaimers; he's innocent until proven guilty etc)

Amos 
393.1043MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Thu May 18 1995 19:437
re: .1040

Karen,
   I wasn't criticizing the plans to stop searching nor belittling the
feelings of those whose lives would be at danger, only noting the probable
outcome if the bodies aren't located first.

393.1044DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu May 18 1995 20:167
    I didn't say McVeigh's attorney didn't have the right; good grief
    can't I have empathy for the victim's famililies?
    
    My personal opinion is that the experts ought to take McVeigh with
    them as they meander around the building.
    
    
393.1045BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Fri May 19 1995 18:376
    
    	I think they should fly McVeigh OVER the building and drop him
    	on it.
    
    	Oh, sorry, I forgot ... he has rights.
    
393.1046Is this guy for realSNOFS1::PAUKAGABORMon May 22 1995 07:5148
    
    
    
    Phew, luckily you, Mr Markey, is not the president of the good old
    USA. The last time somebody came up with a bright idea like this it was
    followed by WWII. I suppose you would not fancy yourself standing proudly
    next to Hitler, Pol Pot etc. in the history books...
    
    Gabor
    
    (sorry about the late reply) 
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 393.57                        OKC bombing                        57 of 1045
MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary"    29 lines  20-APR-1995 14:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Tough nuts for the allies. America should take the following
    steps in dealing with this:
    
    1. Tell the UN to <r.o.> off
    
    2. Catch and try the individuals. Give the CIA explicit license
       to break the laws of other nations, if necessary, to detain
       and arrest the individuals.
    
    3. When the EC whines, tell them to see figure one.
    
    4. Apply the death penalty.
    
    5. Use the air base in Iran to launch a strike against
       Tehran. Seven days (to pick a nice Bibical number)
       of sustained B52 carpet bombing.
    
    6. Any attempt by _any_ nation to intefere militarily will
       be answered with a _nuclear_ response.
    
    7. When the bombers have flattened Tehran, on to Damascus,
       and finally Bagdad. Seven days of burning hell for each
       place.
    
    Extreme? You bet your ass. However, if I were president,
    this is exactly what I would order (so be glad I'm not).
    
    -b
                                   
393.1047Latest news reportsCOMETZ::JACQUESVintage taste, reissue budgetMon May 22 1995 16:3519
    There have been several developments in this case over the last several
    days. One person that is described as an old army buddy of McVeigh's
    claims that McVeigh told him of his plans to blow up the OKC building
    and the 2 visited the bld weeks before the explosion. He is supposedly
    cooperating with the Feds and has not been charged with any crime as of
    yet.
    
    In the latest developments, the FBI has announced that it's
    investigation has uncovered a "conspiracy that involves DOZENS of 
    individuals, some as young as 12 years of age". Arrests are expected
    within the next several days.
    
    The federal building has now been rigged with explosives and is
    to be demolished tororow morning. The 2 remaining bodies have not 
    been found and no further effort will be made to locate them. In
    all likelyhood, the site will become a permanent memorial to the
    victims. 
     
    Mark
393.1048a differant view of Waco, from a localCOMETZ::JACQUESVintage taste, reissue budgetMon May 22 1995 17:2337
    In other news, President Clinton has ordered the blvd that runs
    adjacent to the white house be closed. Jersey barriers have been
    put into place to keep traffic a safe distance from the house. This
    is being done in view of the OKC bombing  and increasing hostility
    towards the white house. 
    
    I had an interesting conversation with an older gentleman from Texas
    this weekend. He lives less than 50 miles from Waco Tx. and followed
    the seizure very closely while it was happening 2 years ago. He feels
    that the entire episode was the Branch Dividian's fault. He believes
    that they shot first and instigated the entire stand-off. He also
    believes that the BD torched the place, and not the Government. 
    Although the compound was destroyed the 30 acres of land still belongs
    to the BD and they hold prayer services there every week. Supposedly
    there is some in-fighing between a few individuals that want control
    of the BD sect and the property. They have expressed a desire to
    rebuild but the State and local authorities are fighting it. Supposedly
    there is a great deal of arsenic and other hazardous materials at the
    site that was being stored there by David Koresh and his followers,
    for what, no one seems to know. The EPA and state authorities have
    already spent over $100K cleaning up the mess. Public opinion in the
    local area is that the state should seize the property to help pay
    for the cleanup. This may happen in a few years after things settle
    down. Some fear that if the the state tries to take the property
    it may cause more terrorist activity as retaliation for "continued
    repression" of the BD. 
    
    I thought it was interesting getting a differant viewpoint from a 
    local Texan. His opinions are obviously based on the news reports 
    which all of us saw, but being from Texas (and being a older person)
    gives him a differant point of view.
    
    Mark
    
    
    
    
393.1049SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon May 22 1995 18:134
    
    
    and for those who need that extra emotionalism added to their excess 
    baggage, the demolition will be carried live by the networks...
393.1050CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanMon May 22 1995 18:154


 ...followed by many replays and much analysis, I'm sure
393.1051:-)REFINE::KOMARThe BarbarianMon May 22 1995 18:574
I nominate John Madden for color commentary - Boom!  Look at that building
fall!  I mean, the hole just collapsed.

ME
393.1052SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Tue May 23 1995 13:06231
Subj:	OKC Bombing Urgent

This is a transcription of a letter from Brigadier General
Benton Partin retired USAF dated  May 17,1995 copy in my 
possesion copy available by fax request to 303-986-8597 or 
303-494-3369. I have verified the authenticity of the letter 
and spoken to its author this afternoon May 21 1995 at 
02:00 PM Thi is critical information post widely please
Call your Congressman and Senator if he is on the list of 
recepients. Ask them what they are going to do in light of 
this information.

A copy of this letter was delivered to the following U.S. 
Senators on Thursday May 18
Imhoff, Dole, McCain, Mack, Coverdell, Craig, 
Kempthorne, Coats, Lyle, Cochran, Lott, Burns, Gregg, R. 
Smith, Faircloth, Helms, Thurmond, Hutchison, Gramm, 
Bennett, Warner, and Thompson
A copy of this letter was delivered to the following U.S. 
Representatives on Thursday ,May 18 and Friday May 19
Wolfe, Goodland, Bleily, Davis, Stockman, Army, Hyde, 
Stump, Dornan, Cunningham,Hefley, Young, Gingrich, 
Crain, Bunning, Baker, Bartlett, Nolenberg, Emerson, 
Zarkarkovich,  Paxon, Funderburk, Charles Taylor(NC), 
Bonner, Lucas, Robert Walker, Sam Johnson, Tom Delay, 
James Hansen, Robert Bateman 

Dear Senator Nickles,

	We are all grieved by the bombing tragedy in 
Oklahoma City. The entire nation was assaulted and we may 
never know who the real instigators were or why they did it 
as in the Kennedy assassination.
	I am concerned that vital evidence will soon be 
destroyed with the pending demolition of the Federal 
Building in Oklahoma City. From all the evidence I have 
seen in the published material, I can say with a high level of 
confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced 
concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained 
from the single truck bomb without supplementing
demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases. 
The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the 
fact that either some of the columns collapsed that should 
not have collapsed or some of the columns are still standing 
that should have collapsed and did not.
	An oversimplified analogy will help you see this 
point. It would be as irrational or as impossible as having a 
150 pound man sit in a flimsy chair and the chair collapses: 
then a a man weighing 1500 pounds sits in an identical 
flimsy chair  and it does not collapse- impossible. 
	To produce the resulting damage pattern on the 
building , there would have to have been an effort with 
demolition charges at the bases to compliment or 
supplement the truck bomb damage. A careful examination 
of the collapsed column bases would readily reveal a failure 
mode produced by a demolition charge. This evidence would 
be so critical , a separate and  independent assessment 
should be made before a building demolition team destroys 
the evidence forever. The most critical columns to assess 
would be A9 and B# as later defined. Other failed columns 
may also  have had demolition charges at their base.
	I have attached a brief resume which will amplify to 
establish some measure of credibility for the comments 
above and to follow. I have spent 25 years in research, 
design, development, test  and management of weapons 
development. This included hands on work at the Ballistic 
Research Laboratories: Commander of the Air Force 
Armament Technology Laboratory; Air Force System 
command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense(OSD) management responsibility for almost every 
non-nuclear weapon device in the Air Force I was also the 
first chairman of the OSD Joint service Air Munitions 
Requirements and Development Committee.
	When I first saw the pictures of the truck bombs 
asymmetrical damage to the Federal Building in Oklahoma 
City, my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage 
would have been technically impossible without 
supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforcing 
concrete column bases( a standard demolition technique.)
	First, blast through air is a very inefficient energy 
coupling mechanism against heavy reinforced concrete 
beams and columns. Second, blast damage potential initially 
falls off more rapidly than an inverse function of the 
distance cubed. That is why in conventional weapons 
development, one seeks accuracy over yield for hard targets. 
Columns in large buildings are hard targets for blast. Note: 
The 3-8-93 Time Magazine shows a still standing column in 
the middle of the Trade Center cavity with the reinforced 
concrete floors completely stripped away for several floors) 
The entire building in Oklahoma City could have been 
collapsed with relatively small demolition charges against 
the base of the columns and with even less explosives if 
linear cavity cutting charges had been used, I know of no 
way possible to reproduce the apparent building damage 
without well placed demolition charges complimenting the 
truck bomb damage.
	From published photographs, the basic building 
structure is three rows of eleven columns each. The four 
corner columns have external clamshell like structure for air 
ducts, etc., as revealed in magazine photographs of the 
damage. If we label the column rows A, B, & C, from front 
to back, and number the columns 1 through 11 from left to 
right, then published pictures show columns A2, A3, A4, 
A5, A6, A7, A8, and B3 collapsed , essentially vertically. 
The 5-1-95 u. S. News and World Report and other damage 
photos show a very large re-inforced concrete header at the 
second floor level of column row A. Much larger columns 
extend from the header down fro the odd numbered columns 
i.e. A3, A5, A7, A9. The even numbered columns extended 
down to the header with apparently reinforced concrete 
joints. The heavy, odd, numbered columns were all 
accessible from the sidewalk but collapsed Column B3, is 
well inside the building. If the truck bomb was not nearest to 
column A3 then a single truck bomb thesis would be even 
more questionable. See the figure below

Appearing in this area is a diagram of the information
detailed below. I can not reproduce  with my current 
equipment.
C1   C2   C3   C4   C5   C6   C7   C8   C9    C10    C11


B1   B2  B3   B4   B5   B6   B7   B8   B9    B10     B11


A1  A2  A3  A4  A5  A6  A7  A8  A9    A10     A11
                 *
           truck bomb

	A rough sketch of the Federal Building and its 
columns shown above has superimposed circles of roughly 
equal levels of damage potential which drop rapidly 
(exponentially) as they get farther and farther away from the 
truck bomb. If  we consider the damage potential at column 
A3, the closest column to the truck on the sketch, to be 
damage potential level one at distance one, then moving out 
farther multiples of that distance the destructive potential 
drops off as an exponential function of one over the number 
of multiples. Therefore at circle 1 you have a decisively 
destructive force that brought down column A3 At circle 2 
the destructive potential is marginal for row A, column A5 
came down but the heavier column A1 did not. At circle 3 
level, column B3 came down, but just beyond B3 columns 
B2 and B4 did not come down. Therefore circle 3 is 
marginal for the columns in row B which are much smaller 
than the odd numbered columns in row A. Moreover the 
higher numbered columns in row A are seeing more of a 
lower side on pressure than column row B

	For any odd numbered column failure in row A, the 
adjacent even numbered columns would also necessarily fail 
The still standing, extended , cantilevered header, from A1 
to almost back where A8 was, is probably due to the seesaw 
effect, Over A7 as an instant pivot  point, as the A row 
collapsed sequentially to the right by either the truck bomb 
or supplemental demolition charges. If the header at column 
A8 had survived explosives, cascading floors could have 
caused it to fail. However, one would not expect such a long 
remaining cantilever.
	From what has been stated thus far, and 
considering only the potential damage from the truck bomb, 
there are a number of problems.
	A. If columns A7 was brought down by a truck 
bomb, then there most of the much smaller columns B1, B2, 
B4, B5 and B6 should not be standing but they are.
	B. Conversely, a truck bomb that could not bring 
down columns B1, B2, B4, and B5 could certainly not be 
expected to collapse the lower two floors of a much heavier 
column A7. The columns A7 and A8 should still be standing 
which they are not.
	C. For a simplistic blast truck bomb, of the size and 
composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 
60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of 
column A7 is beyond credulity. Even bringing down B3 at 
its range is highly suspect. Glass and plastic can be broken a 
long way off with explosives but not heavy, reinforced, 
concrete columns.
IF DEMOLITION CHARGES WERE USED TO 
COMPLIMENT THE TRUCK BOMB, THE ABOVE 
PROBLEMS ALL DISAPPEAR. Was it practical? Yes for 
the following reasons:

	A. Columns A2, A5, A7, A9 were readily accessible 
	      from the sidewalk to the curb
	B. Adequate demolition charges could have 
	     easily been put into position.
	C. A simple permacord interconnect would not look 
	     too difficult from a piece of closeline or coaxial 
	     cord
	D. If the bomb attack was desired to do more than 
	     deface the building , then inside help or loose 
	     security may have permitted placement of a 
	     charge at B3( If they can have an Ames in CIA 
	     counterintelligence why can't they have someone 
	     if needed in Oklahoma City?
	E. The payoff to the leftist, internationalist of a  
	      'world commonwealth of independent states' as 
	      a prelude to the withering away of the state 
	       would merit highest level planning and 
	       implementation of the Oklahoma Bombing if it 
	       could result in the new legislation to 	  
	       criminalize the patriotic support of 	    
	       Constitutional rights.

From here the letter continues for two more pages 
and concludes  with the final paragraph.

	Because of the psycho-political operation going on 
at the present time against the "Christian right" bogeyman: 
records in Waco, Idaho, California, and other places, and the 
high level promotion of censured officials. I would strongly 
urge that the U. S. Congress take steps to assure that 
evidence in Oklahoma City be independently evaluated by a 
collection of demolition experts from the private sector 
before the building is demolished. It is easy to determine 
whether a column was failed by contact demolition charges 
or by blast loading. It is also easy to cover up crucial 
evidence as was apparently don in Waco. I understand that 
the building is to be demolished by may 23rd or 24th. Why 
the rush to destroy the evidence?
	I discussed this with your assistant. Lee Morris. 
early in the month.

Sincerely

Signature appears here

Benton K Partin
B/G USAF Ret.


393.1053it's gone...EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesTue May 23 1995 13:345
The building was imploded at 7:01 AM Central time (8:01 Eastern) today.
It was a tricky job with the end wall essentially freestanding (didn't
have the usual gravity assist) but it went down cleanly.

150 pounds of explosives finished what 4000+ pounds started.
393.1054what's this problem with watch synchronization?WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceTue May 23 1995 13:411
    Why the hell didn't they implode it at 7:00?
393.1055CSOA1::LEECHTue May 23 1995 16:161
    Why the rush to down the building?  
393.1056CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanTue May 23 1995 16:244


 re .1055 that has been troubling me as well...
393.1057SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotTue May 23 1995 16:296
    .1055
    
    The rush was because the building was EXTREMELY unstable.  A storm
    bringing high winds could have toppled it - outward - with the
    possibility of serious damage to nearby buildings and passersby, even a
    block or more away.
393.1058Good thing the evidence is destroyed now...VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyTue May 23 1995 17:251
    <--- Oh... ok... if the government says so...
393.1059SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotTue May 23 1995 17:5714
    .1058
    
    The government doesn't say so.  The CDI people, however, do, and they
    were unsure enough about things that they actually cabled the east wall
    to other parts of the building to ensure that it would fall inward
    instead of smashing down on the parking garage, which is still
    structurally secure and was left standing SPECIFICALLY because the
    government investigators think it may contain useful evidence.
    
    But then a master conspiracy theorist such as you can easily see right
    through their expressing a desire to keep an evidence site standing -
    obviously they want to divert suspicion from the place where they sawed
    structural members loose so other conspiracy theorists could write
    letters accusing the gummint of sabotaging its own building.
393.1060VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyTue May 23 1995 19:2121
    I didn't say anything about conspiracy.  I don't think the gov't
    blew up the building.  It's interesting how the bomb kept getting
    bigger.  and then all of a sudden, they found traces of TNT, and
    other noncommon things.  I remember Waco... all the information was
    sanitized for chattle consumption on the nightly snooz.  A couple
    days prior to OK City my wife snapped at me about how "Waco's
    over".  At least now she wants to know why there was a daycare in
    that building.  Let's hang them folks too.  Let's not talk about
    killing kids, when people intentionally put children in jeopardy.
    
    I don't think a fertilizer bomb did all that damage.  I don't
    know, and I'll never know.  Not that I'm going to lose any sleep
    over it... the building is gone now.  I hope they took plenty of
    video and photos.
    
    One thing I do know..,  McVeigh is going to be hung.  You watch.
    This guy is TOAST.  Watch the media.  They're still getting a
    woody over the patriot/militia/rightwing/hategroup/NRA/republican
    "connection".  Whatever.
    
    MadMike
393.1061Experts said a bad storm could topple the bldgDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundTue May 23 1995 23:2219
    I think the retired dude must have stayed out in the sun a little
    too long.  It was interesting to hear quite a number of reporters
    who had spent extensive time in Beirut state to the man that as
    soon as they saw the pictures of what was left of the Murrah
    Building, they all thought of a car bomb.
    
    In this case the building was a bit larger than most found in Beirut,
    so it took a truck-load of explosives rather than a car to inflict
    the damage.  
    
    For those who keep missing it, Mr. Binder was quite correct.  It was
    stated more than a few times that the building was most unstable and
    was considered a hazard to all who might have to go anywhere near it.
    It was the instability of the building that led to the search for
    the last bodies to be called off.  Anyone who has watched a newscast
    from OKC couldn't miss what must be commonplace in OK, i.e. fairly
    strong/brisk winds.
    
    
393.1062SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed May 24 1995 11:3324
Subject: OKC bomb victim implies BATF knew in advance about bomb
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950523100114.16695E-100000@use.usit.net>

Edye Smith, mother of two children killed in the OKC blast, was
interviewed on CNN this morning (5/23/95).  Her comments were
interesting.

I didn't catch it on tape, so these are paraphrases, not exact
quotes:

~"Whenever we ask [the authorities] questions about the bombing,
they tell us to shut up and not ask questions."~

also

~"The BATF had the option not to go in that day and my children
didn't."~





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

393.1063CSOA1::LEECHWed May 24 1995 12:4714
    re: .1061
    
    Yeah, I would certainly take a reporter's opinion over that of a silly
    military guy who spend half his life designing and testing
    explosives/arms. 
    
    Incredible.
    
    [disclaimer: I'm not saying the military guy is right, just that he
    does bring up apparently valid points that are worth looking into.  I'm
    also not saying the government blew up their own building.  Too bad the
    evidence has been destroyed.]
    
    -steve
393.1064paranoia begets paranoiaWONDER::BOISSEWed May 24 1995 14:146
some of you people are so unbelievable...

if they had left the building standing, and someone had gotten themselves
killed accidentally by falling debris, you most likely would immediately
believe that THAT was a government conspiracy too... 

393.1065CSOA1::LEECHWed May 24 1995 15:0518
    re: -1
    
    Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
    
    Tell me what is so "unbelievable" about questioning things as
    presented?  Should we all simply take the government's word for it, in
    light of certain inconsistencies?  
    
    You are free to believe every word that is spoon fed to you via the
    media machine if you like, but do not chastize those who refuse to
    follow such a sheepish instinct.
    
    Now, if you'd be so kind as to list the names of those in this
    conference that have stated that they believe the OKC bombing is a
    government conspiracy.  Thank you.
    
    
    -steve
393.1066SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed May 24 1995 15:1625
    .1062
    
    > "Whenever we ask [the authorities] questions about the bombing,
    > they tell us to shut up and not ask questions."
    
    Translation:  "We are in the middle of investigating a terrorist
    bombing, and we do not wish to give you the information you are
    requesting because making it public could jeopardize our case against
    the suspects."
    
    > "The BATF had the option not to go in that day and my children
    > didn't."
    
    Translation:  "My children didn't have the option to go in because I,
    their mother, chose to send them in.  All BATF personnel had the option
    to take vacation or sick leave or personal time, just the same as any
    other government employee."
    
    Jim, this woman has lost her kids.  Doesn't it occur to you that she is
    NATURALLY looking for excuses, anything she can do to fix the blame for
    their death?
    
    	"Paranoia will destroy ya."
    
    				- The Kinks
393.1067try this...WONDER::BOISSEWed May 24 1995 16:3721
re: -2

What I was trying to get across, is that no matter what action the government
takes, there are those that will cry out CONSPIRACY!!!

If the building had been left standing, I'm sure there are those who would
believe the government was leaving it standing for a purpose to fit their 
agenda.

If the building had been turned over, for example, to some independent group
for safekeeping, there are those that would most likely think the government
were in cahoots with that group. 

If the building had been left to stand for who knows how long, the government 
would be blamed for leaving a hazard in the way of the public, dragging their 
feet on the decision to rip it down, creating an eyesore in downtown Oklahoma 
City, etc, etc...

Point is...ANYTHING that is done will be looked at by some as conspiracy...

Bob
393.1068SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed May 24 1995 16:4718
    
    
>    Jim, this woman has lost her kids.  Doesn't it occur to you that she is
>    NATURALLY looking for excuses, anything she can do to fix the blame for
>    their death?
    
    	I understand that Mr. Binder. Any note I enter is simply something
    interesting that I've run across that I think might fuel some
    conversation. Just because I post it does not mean that I find it to be
    correct.....just interesting.
    
    
    jim
    
    p.s. - I'm not paranoid, just cautious.....:*)
    
    
    
393.1069SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed May 24 1995 16:489
    
    
>Point is...ANYTHING that is done will be looked at by some as conspiracy...
    
    	Good! At least there will be questions asked about government
    actions. Nothing wrong with playing devils advocate....
    
    
    jim
393.1070RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 24 1995 17:1027
    Re .1066:
    
    > Translation:  "We are in the middle of investigating a terrorist
    > bombing, and we do not wish to give you the information you are
    > requesting because making it public could jeopardize our case against
    > the suspects."

    Yeah, making information public might clue in McVeigh that they're onto
    him.
    
    The purported need to keep investigations secret is much overrated and
    is presented more because the investigators don't want to be held
    accountable to the public than because of any investigative need.  The
    NH Attorney General's office withheld an investigative report from me
    AFTER it was completed, in violation of the NH Right to Know Law.  When
    I asked why, they lied and said it was office policy.  When I asked who
    made the policy and how I could petition for a change, they had no
    answer and gave in and ever so graciously allowed me, a mere member of
    the public, to have a copy of a public document of a public government
    formed by we, the people.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1071SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed May 24 1995 17:198
    .1070
    
    > Yeah, making information public might clue in McVeigh...
    
    ...or other members, if any, of a conspiracy.  That individuals in the
    NH state government attempted to withhold from you a public document is
    not ipso facto proof of a conspiracy in all levels of government to do
    the same.
393.1072RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 24 1995 17:3036
    Re .1071:
    
    > That individuals in the NH state government attempted to withhold
    > from you a public document is not ipso facto proof of a conspiracy in
    > all levels of government to do the same.
    
    There was NO mention or suggestion of any conspiracy in my note, and it
    is improper for you to suggest that there was.  The behavior I
    described was indicated as the result of a motivation that recurs
    independently.
    
    >> Yeah, making information public might clue in McVeigh...
    >
    > ...or other members, if any, of a conspiracy.
    
    Oh, yes, all the other members of the supposed conspiracy have
    dismissed it completely, having no reason to believe the government
    just might come to get them.  The very idea of destroying evidence
    hasn't occurred to any of them, so we don't want to tip them off.
    
    How much does this nonsense about secret investigations ever help? 
    What benefit was served by keeping the Branch Davidian search warrant
    sealed AFTER the raid?  What benefit was served by keeping the Steve
    Jackson Games warrant sealed AFTER the raid?  Show me what evidence was
    secured because the warrants remained sealed.  Show me one criminal
    caught because the warrants remained sealed.
    
    Evidence should not remain sealed from investigators -- and the
    citizens are the investigators of the government.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1073OUTSRC::HEISERMaranatha!Wed May 24 1995 20:193
    Did the car bombs in Beirut cause windows to shatter up to a 3 block
    radius?  Fertilizer bombs are said to be low-yield.  Must be why the
    truck and poundage kept getting bigger.
393.1074OUTSRC::HEISERMaranatha!Wed May 24 1995 20:217
>    You are free to believe every word that is spoon fed to you via the
>    media machine if you like, but do not chastize those who refuse to
>    follow such a sheepish instinct.
    
    "Hey what's it like to have a shepherd for a father?"
    
    "Not BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!"
393.1075OUTSRC::HEISERMaranatha!Wed May 24 1995 20:309
>    	"Paranoia will destroy ya."
>    
>    				- The Kinks
    
    So will ignorance.
    
"I may make you feel but I can't make you think."
    
                                  - Jethro Tull
393.1076ODIXIE::ZOGRANLove the poppies in the medianWed May 24 1995 20:5012
    According to two news heads here in Atlanta, the bomb is up to 4 tons. 
    Guess the old divide 4000 by 2000 equation was done by a Pentium chip
    in Atlanta newsrooms.
    
    Also, an accident involving a truck carrying ammoniam nitrate(sp)
    caused the evacuation and closing of airspace today here in Atlanta.   
    Will post further info tommorrow.  
    
    If this stuff is so nasty (fume wise) how come people didn't die of
    inhalation related injuries?  Maybe the explosion renders it harmless. 
                  
    Dan
393.1077Pictures DO speak louder than conspiracy theories for meDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundWed May 24 1995 20:5524
    Heiser,
    
    Several of the reporters (including the guy that was in the M.E.
    when we were bombing Saddam) showed pictures from their archives
    of Beirut.  There was *extensive* damage done; they didn't indicate
    if it ranged 3 blocks, but these were *car* bombs used in Beirut,
    remember?  Large trucks filled with explosives were not used in
    Beirut as the norm.
    
    The point these reporters were making was that the pattern on the
    Murrah Building (what was left standing) looked identical to buildings
    in Beirut; side & rear walls standing, one wall and the middle looking
    as if someone took a scooper to it.  One guy put it this way "it was
    as if cookie cutters were used in Beirut and OKC, only the cookie
    cutter for OKC was a VERY big cookie cutter".
    
    Like it or not, what they showed with actual photos makes a whole lot
    more sense to me than some of the half-baked theories I've read
    here and elsewhere.  The WTC bomb was placed in and under the bulk
    of that building; the damage pattern was much different than OKC.
    IMO if there were other explosives in place in addition to the
    truck bomb, nothing of the Murrah Building would have been left
    standing.
    
393.1078EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesWed May 24 1995 21:3711
re .1076:

>    If this stuff is so nasty (fume wise) how come people didn't die of
>    inhalation related injuries?  Maybe the explosion renders it harmless. 

You get nasty fumes only if the stuff is involved in a fire (I take it the
Atlanta accident involves a fire?)

In an explosion the stuff becomes simple nitrogen, oxygen and water,
although added fuel oil would produce carbon dioxide and probably carbon
monoxide.
393.1079SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Thu May 25 1995 11:28178
                              CNN
                      SHOW: NEWS 8:29 am ET
                          May 23, 1995

HEADLINE: Victims' Mother Asks Why No ATF Were Killed in Bombing

GUESTS: ANDREA ARCENEAUX, Anchor; EDYE SMITH,  Victims' Mother
(LIVE);KATHY GRAHAM-WILBURN, Victims' Grandmother (LIVE);GLEN
WILBURN, Victims' Grandfather (LIVE)

BYLINE: GARY TUCHMAN; ANDREA ARCENEAUX

 BODY:
   BOB CAIN, Anchor: The visible monument to the terror of April
19th disappeared from the Oklahoma City skyline today about half
an hour ago.
 
ANDREA ARCENEAUX, Anchor: Watching among spectators were some of
the victims' family members.  CNN's Gary Tuchman joins us now from
Oklahoma City with an update as well as some interviews we
understand, Gary, with some of the victims'family members.
 
GARY TUCHMAN, Correspondent: That's right, Andrea and Bob.  You
know, for 34 days we've been standing in front of the federal
building here in Oklahoma City,and now, for the first time, we
can't be doing that.  The federal building is gone, imploded.  
And you talk with people here at the scene, people who are
family members- members of the victims, people who were trapped
inside the building when this happened, people who have just come
out to watch.  And although this wasn't a surprising thing,
everyone knew it was going to be imploded today.
 
There was a lot of shock, because the fact was it was very loud,
it was very smoky and eerily reminiscent of what happened here
April 19th, 34 days ago, whenthe building exploded, when 4,800
pounds of TNT blew up in front of the building.
 
With us right now is  Edye Smith.   Edye was the mother of three-
year-old Chase and two-year-old Coulton, two little boys who
perished when this building exploded.  And standing next to Edye
are Chase and Coulton's grandparents.  Thank you, all three of
you, for joining us.
 
Edye, when you watched that building go down, as I was just
saying, it was no surprise, but it was so loud - wasn't it? - and
so reminiscent of what happened last month.
 
 EDYE SMITH,  Victims' Mother: It- it sure was.  Of course, last
time, whenever the bomb went off, we didn't know then at that
point that it was this building. So this to me, watching it go
down, I can just- it's like reliving that day, you know.  But the
building's not there anymore.

GARY TUCHMAN: I mean, the instant it went down, I was watching
your face, I was watching faces of other family members standing
there, and it was almost a look of disbelief, even though you knew
it was going to go down.
 
 EDYE SMITH:  Oh, it was.  I mean, who's ever seen anything like
that before.  We've- I'm here not only as a tribute to my kids but
just- I'm curious, like everybody else.  I wanted to see what it
was going to be like and it- it was certainly a sight.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: You're two little boys, such beautiful children.
It's very hard for anyone to figure out how someone likes- like
you copes with the situation.  How do you manage to cope?
 
 EDYE SMITH:  I've- my strength comes directly from God.  I am-
I've been raised in a Christian home, very fortunate.  He keeps
me going every day.  I don't see how anybody could go through
anything like this without Him.  I just can't even imagine.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: Do you talk to Chase and Coulton?
 
EDYE SMITH:  Oh, I sure do.

GARY TUCHMAN: What do you say to them?
 
 EDYE SMITH:  I just- I tell them I miss them, and I just pretend
sometimes - I probably look like an idiot - I pretend like they're
right there with me, you know, at home, and I'll talk to them.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: Edye, I can assure of you that no- assure you no one
would think you're an idiot for doing that.-
 
 EDYE SMITH:  -I receive letters and cards from people all over
the place saying 'talk to them.' You know, 'Talk to them - tell God
to say 'hi' to them,' you know.  My kids will always be alive in
my heart, you know.  And, you know, they might have died in that
building, but they're not dead to me, they're not.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: Grandparent Glen and Kathy Wilburn.  Kathy, I
looked- when I looked at your face it was just an incredible sight
when you saw that building go down.  It was like you had never
imagined something like that would happen.  How did you feel?
 
KATHY GRAHAM-WILBURN, Victims' Grandmother: Well, it startled me.
I was expecting to hear sirens and to be warned, and I didn't hear
'em.  And when- when it happened, it was just like being back in
my office again.  And it did-

GARY TUCHMAN: -Where was your office?
 
KATHY GRAHAM-WILBURN: Four blocks down.  Edye and I work at IRS
and-
 
GARY TUCHMAN: -Oh, so you work together, you and-
 
KATHY GRAHAM-WILBURN: -Yeah.  And we ran down the street together
and found the-the building devastated, and it- it was startling.
It broke my heart.  It was sad.  It- it dawned on me just a few
days ago that while I was sitting there on the phone placing an
order that when I heard that noise that our babies were just 
being blown to bits.  It was- instant replay.  It was sad.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: There actually was a warning system put in place
here - police sirens going up.  But they were very faint, two
blocks away.  It was hard to hear-
 
KATHY GRAHAM-WILBURN: -I see.-
 
GARY TUCHMAN: -those police sirens here.  So that's what increased
the shock value that we actually-

KATHY GRAHAM-WILBURN: -Yeah.-
 
GARY TUCHMAN: -didn't know right away that was going down.  Glen,
how are you managing?  How's the family holding up?
 
GLEN WILBURN, Victims' Grandfather: Pretty good, pretty good.
We- we're close, and we- we talk about it.  We talk about our
feelings, and we discuss- what's consumed our [unintelligible].
Our [unintelligible] took 180 degree turn that day, and it
probably will never be the same again.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: Edye, at this point you're very busy.  You've 
been talking to people like us, you've been talking to police
officials, you've been with your family.  But in the next couple
of months when things start to get quieter here in Oklahoma City,
do you think it will begin getting tougher for you?
 
 EDYE SMITH:  Yeah, but I don't think things are going to start
getting very quiet, you know?  There's a- there are a lot of
questions that have been left unanswered, a lot of questions we
don't have answers for, we're being told to keep our mouths shut,
not talk about it, don't ask those questions, and I think things
are going to get a lot busier.
 
GARY TUCHMAN: What kind of questions have people been telling you
to keep your mouth shut about?
 
 EDYE SMITH:  Well, we've- just from the very beginning, we, along
with hundreds and thousands of other people, want to know just- and
we just innocently ask questions, you know - where was ATF?  All
15 or 17 of their employees survived, and they live- they're on
the ninth floor.  They were the target of this explosion, and
where were they?  Did they have a warning sign?  I mean, did they
think it might be a bad day to go in the office.  They had an
option to not go to work that day, and my kids didn't get that
option, nobody else in the building got that option.  And we're
just asking questions, we're not making accusations.  We just want
to know, and they're telling us 'Keep your mouth shut, don't talk
about it.'
 
GARY TUCHMAN: Well,  Edye Smith  and the Wilburns, thanks for
joining us.  Obviously, there are still a lot of questions that
have to be answered about this investigation, and I'm sure you'll
be seeking the answers to those questions.
 
Very important thing to point out.  There is still work to be done
at the site. There are the bodies of two victims still inside the
building, and it's believedthe body of a third man is also there.
They will immediately start looking for those victims.  This is
Gary Tuchman, CNN live, in Oklahoma City.

BOB CAIN: Thank you, Gary.

393.1080CSOA1::LEECHThu May 25 1995 12:495
    re: .1075
    
    Good song.
    
    [okay, so I'm off topic- sue me  8^)]
393.1081Marines died by TNT in BeirutTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSThu May 25 1995 16:3314
RE:Beirut car bombs

The car bombs used by the misguided-of-islam are usually C4, Semtex, or TNT.
All being high-yeild explosives. ANPO is low yield, that is why the questions 
keep arising.

Low yield = pressure wave of 10,000 feet/second
high yield = 20k fps

Increasing the quantity does not increase speed of yield.

HTH
Amos
393.1082I wasn't referring to the Marine massacreDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu May 25 1995 17:0232
    Amos,
    
    The point I was trying to make is that the patterns carved out by
    the explosions, whether Beirut or OKC were identical; i.e. fill a
    vehicle with any one of a number of explosives, park near a building
    and see what is left of the building after it explodes.
    
    The fellows comparing notes with Beirut have all spent a good deal
    of time there, they had colleagues killed there.  I'd said their
    first-hand experiences warrant consideration; they all said they
    were struck by the vision of what was left of the Murrah Building.
    One reporter said he was working when the first reports flashed
    across the monitor; he said he didn't have the sound up, all he saw
    was the remains of the building and he immediately thought "car bomb".
    
    Obviously I don't have any first-hand knowledge of explosives, but 
    if there were other explosives set in that building, considering the
    size of the truck-bomb I don't think any other explosives would have
    turned out to be duds.
    
    Just as in OJ's case, there were too many rescue workers involved in
    the OKC effort to cover up evidence via conspiracy.  Most of the men
    (from all parts of the country) were firefighters and medical rescue
    personnel; they were not federal agents for the most part.  When you
    have that many people involved in a common cause I would think it
    would be impossible to be sure everyone would keep a dirty secret to
    protect those involved in a government conspiracy.
    
    IMHO the only conspiracy will be that of McVeigh and some of his
    sicko buddies.
    
    
393.1083CSOA1::LEECHThu May 25 1995 17:109
    re: .1081
    
    Not only that, but the architectural differences may play a role as
    well.  Knowing nothing about architecture, I merely bring this up as a
    possibility that hasn't been brought up yet.
    
    Are US buildings made better than those in Beirut? 
    
    -steve
393.1084OUTSRC::HEISERMaranatha!Thu May 25 1995 17:292
    The problem is that the appearance of the damage is only a part of the
    complete story.  remember: don't judge a book by its cover.
393.1085I'm not looking for a grassy knoll bomber. just curiousTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSThu May 25 1995 19:0347
>   <<< Note 393.1082 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>
    
>    The point I was trying to make is that the patterns carved out by
>    the explosions, whether Beirut or OKC were identical; i.e. fill a
>    vehicle with any one of a number of explosives, park near a building
>    and see what is left of the building after it explodes.
 
The point is the only patterns in Beirut were "fast" explosives The
locals don't use ANFO.


>    The fellows comparing notes with Beirut have all spent a good deal
>    of time there, they had colleagues killed there.  I'd said their
>    first-hand experiences warrant consideration; they all said they
>    were struck by the vision of what was left of the Murrah Building.
>    One reporter said he was working when the first reports flashed
>    across the monitor; he said he didn't have the sound up, all he saw
>    was the remains of the building and he immediately thought "car bomb".
 
I have heard reports by two experts in the explosive field that "slow" 
explosives can not do this type of damage.

   
>    Just as in OJ's case, there were too many rescue workers involved in
>    the OKC effort to cover up evidence via conspiracy.  Most of the men
>    (from all parts of the country) were firefighters and medical rescue
>    personnel; they were not federal agents for the most part.  When you
    have that many people involved in a common cause I would think it
>    would be impossible to be sure everyone would keep a dirty secret to
>    protect those involved in a government conspiracy.
 
Rescue workers would not have seen anything. To properly test requires that
rubble from the base of columns be analyzed for traces of nitro-glycerin or 
C4/C5 compound. The defense asked for 30 days to look for evidence. they were 
given 2. Why the rush? why not allow the defense a week as a compromise.
I heard that the gov't took a lot of rubble to their labs but wouldn't allow 
the defense to take any to send for independant testing at some place  like 
H.P. White labs.

   
>    IMHO the only conspiracy will be that of McVeigh and some of his
>    sicko buddies.
    
That is "ALLEGED" Conspiracy :-} :-} and "ALLEGED" sicko :-}  NNTTM

Amos    

393.1086SHRCTR::DAVISThu May 25 1995 20:2812
   <<< Note 393.1085 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>
          -< I'm not looking for a grassy knoll bomber. just curious >-

>Rescue workers would not have seen anything. To properly test requires that
>rubble from the base of columns be analyzed for traces of nitro-glycerin or 
>C4/C5 compound. The defense asked for 30 days to look for evidence. they were 

Is there any reason these tests can't be performed after the building was 
brought down? I mean, if they can figure out what caused the PanAm 
flight to go down over locherby (sp?), they shouldn't have any problem with 
extracting evidence from the rubble that remains at OKC.

393.1087TROOA::COLLINSOn a wavelength far from home.Thu May 25 1995 20:337
    
    .1086:
    
    Well, I would imagine that since the remainder of the building was
    brought down with the same method as is being alleged, the evidence
    in the rubble would be pretty much useless.
    
393.1088SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotThu May 25 1995 20:384
    .1087
    
    The chemical signature of the dynamite used by CDI is readily
    distinguished from the chemical signature of any other explosive.
393.1089SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasThu May 25 1995 20:406
    
    
    It'll be interesting to see if the defense will be able to take samples
    and do an independent study and if, when trial time comes around,
    they'll be able to use any of the evidence....
    
393.1090re: .1088TROOA::COLLINSOn a wavelength far from home.Thu May 25 1995 20:413
    
    Ah.  Oh well, just a thought.
    
393.1091SHRCTR::DAVISThu May 25 1995 20:4511
    <<< Note 393.1087 by TROOA::COLLINS "On a wavelength far from home." >>>

>    Well, I would imagine that since the remainder of the building was
>    brought down with the same method as is being alleged, the evidence
>    in the rubble would be pretty much useless.

Ah, but it's not. A very small quantity of explosives were used and the 
placement is well known. It should be pretty easy to differentiate it's 
residue, even if it is the same type of explosive is used. And can't they 
"tag" the stuff they use?     

393.1092TROOA::COLLINSOn a wavelength far from home.Thu May 25 1995 20:496
    
    Tom,
    
    According to Dick, I'm wrong.   (...of course, Dick's been known to be
    wrong from time to time, too...  :^)
    
393.1093SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotThu May 25 1995 21:018
    Well, the Loiseaux brothers are said to have used dynamite, whose
    active ingredient is nitroglycerine.  The stabilizing agent is ammonium
    nitrate or cellulose nitrate, or fuller's earth.
    
    If the bomb was a fertilizer bomb, there will be easily identifiable
    traces of a chemically dirty petrochemical residue.  If the bomb was a
    plastic explosive, the residue will contain the manufacturer's unique
    assigned signature.
393.1094TROOA::COLLINSOn a wavelength far from home.Thu May 25 1995 21:127
    
    What should we expect to find if the bomb was an electrohydrodynamic
    device (as has also been alleged)?
    
    (FWIW, I don't believe for a minute that the gov't was involved in
    perpetrating this crime.)
    
393.1095PCBUOA::KRATZThu May 25 1995 21:1410
    re .1079
    Maybe it wasn't obvious to the victim's mother, but the offices
    of the ATF being on one of the upper floors probably helped a
    great deal.  Witness the apartment complex in Northridge quake
    where the victims were from the ground floor; those in the
    upper floors that came crashing down basically walked away.
    The ATF offices were also in the rear of the building.  Had one
    of the ATF members been doing business in the credit union,
    they'd be history now too.
                  
393.1096Hard to believe, thoughDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu May 25 1995 21:299
    And to put Joe's fears to rest, one of the demolition experts 
    indicated that the area where rescuers  felt the remaining bodies
    were had special protection put in place (they didn't detail exactly
    what).  It said with the additional shoring of that area, even though
    there will again be an enormous amount of debris to clear away
    initially, the demolition expert was confident that the final remains
    would be recovered.
    
    
393.1097EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesThu May 25 1995 22:3128
re .1096:

From what I heard the debris over where the remaining bodies are
expected to be was spraypainted fluorescent orange and covered in
plastic before the implosion, and the contractor removing the debris
was told to stop digging when they reached this area.

re .1085:

>I have heard reports by two experts in the explosive field that "slow" 
>explosives can not do this type of damage.

I think when they have the amount estimated I think it could. (aren't
they saying 4 tons now?)

My personal guess why the damage was so bad:   The explosion essentially lifted
up on the lower floors, the support columns became detached at the top and
fell/were pushed over (they weren't designed for tension!), and when the floors
moved back down there was no support and the whole front collapsed. 

Also from what I've heard the difference in effect between a "slow" explosive
like ANFO and something like TNT is the ANFO tends to heave/throw while
fast explosives shatter.  Kind of like in a gun, a rather slow explosion
heaves (shoots) a bullet while a high explosive as the propellant would
produce a pipe bomb.

ANFO is widely used in quarrying where they want the mined rocks to remain
fairly large. 
393.1098VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri May 26 1995 12:4611
    re: Note 393.1086 by SHRCTR::DAVIS
    
    The tests need to be done on the non demo'd building because that way you
    can determine what happened, and where.  Specifically.
    
    On an airplane, they physically rebuild it, like a puzzle.  And then
    test parts and pieces and find the cause of failure.
                              
    Once you have a pile of rubble, it's tough to rebuild a building.
    It's hard to say "these specific columns were cut, and they all show
    traces of nitro-glycerin.
393.1099VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri May 26 1995 12:5711
    In addition to my 1098,
    
    (If I recall correctly of the lockerbe air crash)
    An autopsy on one person showed he has seat cushion imprint on his 
    behind.  The seat cushion showed traces of c4.  The c4 showed it
    was obtained in libya.  The seat, cushion and victim showed up as
    being seat nnn.  Seat nnn had a "specific named" person sitting in
    it.  "specific named" person was....
    
    There's a trail that can be followed.  In a building, with a pile of
    rubble all over the place, it's different. 
393.1100CSOA1::LEECHFri May 26 1995 13:091
    bomb SNARF!
393.1101We might be surprisedDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri May 26 1995 16:4717
    MadMike,
    
    I'm not saying they can totally recreate/rebuild in OKC, but they
    were putting whatever they felt was pertinent in a LARGE warehouse
    a couple of blocks from the bomb site.  I don't think the press
    was being allowed IN the warehouse, but on CNN I caught a clip of
    them putting damaged office furniture etc. on trucks saying the
    furniture was being treated as evidence.
    
    When all is complete, some folks might be very surprised as to what
    they can determine from what was left after the blast.  One of the
    guys outside the warehouse said the WTC taught them what to look
    for and what was really important with this kind of crime scene.
    It's going to be a long a pain-staking process but I'm confident
    the investigators will pull it all together.
    
    
393.1102or rather goverNmentCSOA1::LEECHFri May 26 1995 19:171
    Would they by chance be goverment investigators?
393.1103Surprise me.VMSNET::M_MACIOLEKFour54 Camaro/Only way to flyFri May 26 1995 20:2431
>    I'm not saying they can totally recreate/rebuild in OKC, but they
>    were putting whatever they felt was pertinent in a LARGE warehouse
>    a couple of blocks from the bomb site.  

You know they can't rebuild the building in OKC, but "they" who's "they"?
Gov't investigators?  I'll bet they're from the BATF.  "They" take what
they "felt" (think) is "important".  Makes sense.  I wonder what they'll
find.  Probably a fertilizer bomb, delivered via Rental truck.

>    I don't think the press
>    was being allowed IN the warehouse, but on CNN I caught a clip of
>    them putting damaged office furniture etc. on trucks saying the
>    furniture was being treated as evidence.
 
The press shouldn't be allowed in the warehouse.  Who told CNN this
information.  Did "they" tell CNN?  The Furniture has bomb residue on
it.  That's nice.  Why are "they" leaking information.  If witnesses
and damaged parties are being told to "shut up", why is CNN being
told anything.  Why did CNN stop running the story on the mother who
lost 2 children?
   
>    It's going to be a long a pain-staking process but I'm confident
>    the investigators will pull it all together.
    
Yup, sanitized for your protection.  It'll be just like they said it
was.  Fertilizer bomb, roughtly 5000lbs.  Traces of TNT.  McVeigh
did it, accomplises are military buddys with access to these types
of explosives.  Ta-da...  case closed.  

Now... if McVeighs defense comes up with the same conclusions, I'll
buy whatever's being sold. Until then, I'm very skeptical.
393.1104You surprise me, first!DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri May 26 1995 23:213
    Oh Mikey, you're getting sooooo predictable!!
    
    
393.1105RIPSALEM::MREXTue May 30 1995 10:252
    
    Last of the victims found, may they all rest in peace.
393.1106SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed May 31 1995 11:30301
==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- June 12, 1995
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

==================================================================

ARTICLE: Nation
TITLE: Were There Two Explosions?
AUTHOR: William F. Jasper

==================================================================

Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing The New American received
a fax of a seismogram purporting to be the seismic recording of the
blast as recorded on an Oklahoma Geological Survey seismometer. The
seismogram was of particular interest because it seemed to indicate
that there were two explosions of similar magnitude just seconds
apart on the morning of April 19th.

It did not take long before wild stories were streaking across the
Internet and various fax networks, citing the seismogram as proof
positive that the FBI, ATF, or some other government agency had
actually perpetrated the crime. Linda Thompson, Mark Koernke, and
other self-styled "patriot" leaders notorious for pumping out a
steady stream of sensationalistic propaganda combined the
seismogram with various hearsay "evidence" to advance their own pet
theories about the bombing.

"Official" Interpretation

As might be expected, the liberal media cartel responded with
disbelief and ridicule -- which is understandable with respect to
Thompson, Koernke, et al, who have amply proven themselves
unbelievable and ridiculous (or worse) with their past escapades
and false alarms. All of the media accounts that we have seen
concerning the seismic record for Oklahoma City on April 19th have
linked it to these disreputable sources, thus discrediting by
association both the evidence and any interpretation of the
evidence that may run counter to the official explanation.

The "official" interpretation of the seismogram most frequently
cited is that the two seismic events recorded on the morning of
April 19th are best explained not as two explosions, but as one
explosion followed by the collapse of the building. As we shall
see, there are serious problems posed by this scenario which
appears to have been accepted without question by the major media.

The expropriation of (and "tainting" of) the seismic evidence by
the "right wing loonies" on the one hand, and the complete
discounting of it by the official investigators and the
Establishment media on the other, is doubly unfortunate, since it
is one of the most troubling pieces of forensic evidence in the
case and deserves to be thoroughly examined on its own merits --
regardless of who may be wrongfully exploiting it.

There are actually two seismograms of the explosion(s) recorded by
two separate seismometers in the Oklahoma City area, and both
recordings show essentially the same thing for the time of the
blast. (See illustration below.) One of the seismometers is located
at the Omniplex Museum 4.34 miles northeast of the site of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, while the other is located 16.25
miles to the southeast of the blast site at the Oklahoma Geological
Survey on the campus of the University of Oklahoma-Norman.

The New American contacted the Oklahoma Geological Survey by
telephone and talked with OGS geophysicist Dr. Raymon L. Brown. Dr.
Brown was very helpful and patiently explained, in both scientific
and layman's terms, the technical and interpretive aspects of the
seismograms. However, as wonderful as the miracle of modern
telecommunications may be, there were too many details which did
not lend themselves to easy and clear understanding at a distance.
So, on our recent week-long investigation in Oklahoma City, we
journeyed to Norman, Oklahoma to visit Dr. Brown at the University
of Oklahoma campus for a thorough "hands-on" explication.

Examining the Data

In a conference room on the first floor of the impressive Sarkeys
Energy Center, Dr. Brown carefully went over the two seismograms,
explaining the various wave signals, and then illustrated on a
white board the problems inherent in the five explanations that he
and others have considered for the events. The seismogram from the
Norman station shows three signals between 9:02 and 9:03 a.m. on
April 19th. The first signal has a high-frequency character very
much like traffic noise (possibly a passing train). The second two
events have a low-frequency character much like the signals
associated with quarry blasts around the state. They begin with
low-frequency signals (the larger wavy lines) and then degrade into
high-frequency signals (the smaller waves). The first of these two
signals, called Rayleigh waves (or Lg surface waves), was recorded
shortly after 9:02 and lasts for about ten seconds. The second
event begins about 12 seconds after the onset of the first event
and after a quiescent interlude of about two seconds.

The seismogram from the Omniplex Museum looks significantly
different but points toward similar conclusions. First of all,
because it is located in a noisy city environment with a
considerable amount of traffic, the Omniplex seismometer is set at
a reduced "gain" to avoid picking up ambient signals. In spite of
this reduced gain, the signal amplitude of the April 19th event was
large enough to cause the loss of the high amplitude portions of
the signals. The heat-sensitive pens on the seismometer were moving
so fast that the details of the signal were lost during the highest
levels of ground movement. "The two large events on the Omniplex
recording," says Dr. Brown, "are represented by the white portions
of the record where the signal trace disappears because of the pen
movement." Because it was closer to the blast and in the
directional path that the main force of the explosion traveled, the
Omniplex seismometer also picked up much surface- and air-wave
energy that did not reach to the Norman station.

Five Theories

The first three of the five explanations Dr. Brown has considered
view the two Rayleigh signals captured on both seismograms as
caused by different types of energy wave phenomena associated with
the one blast. The fourth and fifth scenarios consider the
possibility of two separate events causing the signals:

1) SURFACE WAVE VELOCITY DISPERSION. This phenomenon that occurs
with surface waves is due to the fact that low-frequency energy
travels faster than higher frequency energy. Surface wave
propagation can therefore give the appearance of signaling two
events even though there has been only a single seismic source.
This phenomenon, says Dr. Brown, "is very much like a car race in
which a group of cars has one velocity and another group has a
different velocity. If you look at them early in the race they look
like one collection of cars, but if you look later in the race the
faster cars develop a separate group or package. And that same
phenomenon -- called velocity dispersion -- can result in the
appearance of two wave forms for a single event. That difference in
frequency I don't see here, so I don't feel that is a likely
explanation." The seismogram, says Brown, shows two separate
signals, each beginning with "a low frequency signal degrading into
a high frequency signal."

2) AIR WAVE. This might possibly explain the second event recorded
at the Omniplex Museum. "However," says Brown, "it is difficult to
describe the second event at the Norman station as an air wave
because the speed of travel would far exceed the speed of sound in
air [which is] 1,100 feet per second. Admittedly, the velocity of
the air wave must be supersonic for a certain distance away from
the explosion," but it would be impossible for the air wave to
reach the Norman seismometer in the ten seconds recorded between
the two signals.

3) AIR-COUPLED RAYLEIGH WAVE. This phenomenon, says Brown, occurs
when "the motion of the air induces a type of motion identical to
the Rayleigh wave that we observe in the subsurface and causes the
appearance of a second event. So you could have the first Rayleigh
wave from the seismic explosion and then an air wave pushing and
inducing a Rayleigh wave which would come trailing in behind." That
did not seem a plausible explanation in Brown's opinion, "because
most of the felt accounts of the air wave [from the explosion] are
out to the north, so most of the air wave was going from south
[from the federal building downtown] to the north, not to the
south" toward the Norman seismic station.

4) THE BUILDING COLLAPSE. This explanation holds that the seismic
signals portray two separate events, the first being the bomb
explosion and the second being caused by the collapse of a portion
of the federal building following the blast. "If you're trying to
explain the second event as a collapse," says Brown, "you're saying
the collapse of the building actually has a shorter duration than
the explosion itself," since the Omniplex seismogram shows a
shorter duration pulse for the second signal. This scenario also
suggests that the falling of the tons of building debris would send
the same kind of mix of high frequency and low frequency waves as
the explosion, which Dr. Brown also finds highly unlikely. Still
another problem with that version is the time involved between the
blast and the collapse under this scenario: ten seconds would seem
far too long a delay.

5) TWO EXPLOSIONS. His analysis of both seismograms, says Dr.
Brown, leads him to the logical conclusion that there were "two
separate seismic events" and that the simplest explanation is "two
separate explosions."

As befits a scientist, Dr. Brown is cautious and admits that his
conclusions are far from "conclusive" and require "more thorough
investigation." He states, for example, that it is not possible at
this time to say with "absolute" certainty that the seismograms in
question are related to the Oklahoma City explosion. However,
because of the timing at both locations and the absence of any
other known phenomenon to explain the seismic signals, it is
reasonable to identify the seismograms with the blast.

A Troubling Question

In order to evaluate Raymon Brown's analysis, we submitted the
seismograms and Dr. Brown's explanations to other experts in the
field. One of the most highly regarded authorities in the field of
observational seismology is Professor Keiiti Aki, a seismologist
and geophysicist at the University of Southern California-Los
Angeles. Dr. Aki agreed with Dr. Brown's analysis and conclusions.
However, he asked a question that also troubled us. "It certainly
looks like there were two explosions," he said, "but I have this
question: If there were two explosions that far apart, wouldn't
there have been many thousands of people in the area who would have
heard two explosions? But I have not heard of any."

We had heard of a number of witnesses who reported hearing more
than one explosion, but, as Dr. Aki noted, if there were two
explosions of similar magnitude one would expect many thousands to
report a double event. As we interviewed people in the Oklahoma
City area we found a variety of "ear witness" accounts. This was
not entirely surprising, considering the uniqueness and traumatic
magnitude of the event. Even with more "ordinary" traumatic
occurrences -- car accidents, homicides, robberies, etc. -- eye-
witness accounts of the same incident are notorious for widely
divergent and sometimes opposite descriptions.

Many of the people we interviewed preferred not to be identified.
Some were within a block of the blast, while others were several
miles away. Those we talked with who were closest to the blast
provided some of the most confusing and contradictory testimony.
This is understandable when one takes into consideration that the
sensory stimuli overload caused by the explosion was very
disorienting. Many people who worked within a few blocks of the
federal building were knocked from their chairs or from their feet,
or had ceilings, walls, furniture, and broken windows crashing into
them. Some could not even recall hearing a specific sound, but were
simply overwhelmed by the "impression" of a massive explosive
event. One young man who works as a parking garage attendant one
block north of the federal building told The New American that he
was test driving a new pickup truck in the street in front of the
parking structure when the bomb went off. "It seemed like one, big,
long explosion," he said, "but I can't say for sure. My ears were
ringing and glass and rocks and concrete were falling all over and
around me."

A manager of a loan company on Hudson Avenue two blocks west of the
Murrah building told us he was fairly sure he heard only one blast.
It blew out his office's plate glass windows just a few feet from
his desk and knocked down the false ceiling, but no one was
injured. Two secretaries who were at the office at the time of the
explosion also recalled hearing only one blast. At the corporate
offices of a department store two blocks northeast of the federal
building, the receptionist on the ground floor was thrown out of
her chair and against the wall by the force of the blast. She could
not recall actually hearing the explosion, but had more the
impression of feeling it.

Three construction workers who were on a job just south of the
federal building and who were among the first rescuers to arrive on
the scene recounted that they remembered hearing only one
explosion. However, they said, everything was in pandemonium, with
numerous car and building alarms set off by the blast, people
screaming and "an incredible amount of noise" from numerous
sources.

One reliable witness we interviewed who heard more than one
explosion is Lieutenant Colonel George Wallace, a retired Air Force
fighter pilot with 26 years experience in the service (1952-78). On
the morning of the explosion, Colonel Wallace was at his home nine
miles northwest of the federal building. It sounded to him like "a
sustained, loud, long rumble, like several explosions." "I was
pouring a cup of coffee and saw it jiggle and shake and immediately
ran outside" to see what might have caused it, he recounted to The
New American. To this combat pilot who has had much experience with
explosives it sounded very much like the familiar sound of a
succession of bombs being dropped in the distance by B-52s. It was
a sound he had heard often in Vietnam and one he didn't think he
would be likely to misread.

Another ear witness who is "positive" that he heard two explosions
was in his car five blocks north of the federal building. It
sounded to him, he said, like two distinct blasts several seconds
apart.

Another highly qualified military expert who questions the single-
explosion premise offers a possible explanation for the conflicting
testimony. Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired), one
of the world's foremost explosive experts and the guiding genius
behind the development of many of today's precision guided weapons
systems, suggests that if a second bomb or series of bombs were
detonated in the parking structure below the Murrah building, and
if smaller charges were used, the sound waves from the later
event(s) may have been much smaller than the original truck blast
and greatly muffled by the floor and the debris above it. In the
confusion and trauma of the moment they might not have been
discerned by many people as a separate event.

As stated earlier, no conclusive answers can be drawn from Dr.
Brown's research, the conjectures of other experts, or the
recollections of those who heard the blast(s). There is much still
to investigate, and The New American will continue to provide
updates on this and other aspects of the bombing.

END

==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- June 12, 1995
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated P.O.
Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

SUBSCRIPTIONS: $39.00/year (26 issues)

393.1107Scheduled demolition seismic graphs...GRANPA::FDEADYWe'll make great pets... P4PWed May 31 1995 17:2113
    re. -1 
    
    It might be interesting to compare the same seismic readings the day
    of the scheduled demolition. The blasts should be smaller,
    considerably, however, the effect of the building coming down might
    eliminate/strengthen some of the arguments regarding multiple blasts
    etc. Also the time delays in the different locations of the seismic
    counters might eliminate/strengthen some of the multiple blast
    theories.
    
    I wonder if this will be done/reported/discussed.
    
    Fred Deady
393.1108MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Fri Jun 02 1995 22:4255
Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Politics of the Right.

I received the following today as the first response to my letters to all four
of my congresscritters regarding my concerns for over-reaction on the part of
the administration due to the tragedy in OKC in April. Charlie Bass is our
Freshman rep, having gone to DC to take the place of Dick (what a name) Swett
whom we put away, er, "brought home" last November. Any errors are from
scanning  -



Dear Mr. Del Balso:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the recent events in
Oklahoma City. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter.

     This event has deeply saddened and angered the entire nation and our
prayers go out to the families of all the victims of this senseless tragedy.
I am confident that all of the parties responsible for this attack will be
apprehended by our law enforcement agencies. Further, I hope the guilty parties
are successfully prosecuted by our judicial system and punished to the fullest
extent of the law.

     The bombing in Oklahoma City has raised some concerns about our law
enforcement establishment's ability to protect the nation from terrorist
attacks. As a result, many people have proposed increasing the surveillance
and arrest powers of federal law enforcement agencies. I do not believe that
the attack in Oklahoma City warrants this move. We currently have a very
effective law enforcement establishment that is fully capable of protecting
our countIy. Broad new police powers are not necessary at this time. Therefore,
I do not support H.R. 896 offered by Congressman Schumer (D-NY), commonly
known as the "Counterterrorism" bill.

      However, it is my intention to support a constructive Congressional effort
aimed at preventing a tragedy like the one in Oklahoma City from ever happening
again. This review will revolve around the many legislative initiatives now
being examined by the House Judiciary Committee, such as immigration reform and
tighter control of nuclear materials. I have already voted for a bill, H.R. 729,
which will make the death penalty an effective tool in fighting crime by
imposing strict but fair time limits on appeals in capital cases. This bill has
been sent to the Senate and, if signed into law, may eventually apply to those
individuals convicted in connection with the Oklahoma City atrocity. Finally, I
can assure you that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislative
review process continues.

     Again, thank you for conveying your thoughts on this matter. Please do not
hesitate to contact me in the future with any other concerns.

Sincerely,


Charles F. Bass
Member of Congress


393.1109hard to keep the dolts out of D.C.25058::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSMon Jun 05 1995 17:5610
RIGHT!  Tighter controls on Nuclear weapons/material would have prevented
the OKC bombing as would controlling immigration!

I don't remember hearing about the nuclear blast there I thought it was ANFO.

and the "suspects" don't look cuban/peruvian/asian/haitian/pick-a-favorite :-}

Jack, your rep is off base on this one(as are all mine :-( ).
Amos

393.1110MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Tue Jun 06 1995 02:285
True, Amos. But at least he isn't chasing after the militias or defending
the FBI/BATF's right to terrorize the populace. I think I'd rather have most
of DC worrying about personal nukes, phasers and warp drive propulsion systems
right now than what Slick would like them to be concerned with.

393.1111posted for informational purposes only.SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Tue Jun 06 1995 14:06533
OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
 
Truth among casualties, buried under mountain of lies
 
By William Cooper
Exclusive - CAJI News Service
 
The Albert Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City collapsed into a
pile of rubble and torn bodies after explosions ripped its supports
from the foundation at approximately 9:02 am, Wednesday, April 19,
1995, the second anniversary of the Waco massacre. Timothy McVeigh, a
Gulf War veteran has been arrested and charged with the crime. James
and Terry Nichols, brothers, have been arrested and charged with
conspiracy to build explosive devices at James' farm in Michigan.
McVeigh and Terry Nichols were army buddies. Casualties as of May 5th
stand at 164 dead. Fifteen of them children. Seventeen remain
unidentified. The total number of injured is in excess of 400. There
are still 2 adults unaccounted for; and it is feared that they will
never be found. Assistant Firechief Hansen has announced that the
clean up of the bombsite is officially over. Rescuers wept silently at
the announcement. The reason for the bombing is still unknown.
 
Use of the term "heartland" to describe Oklahoma is right on the mark.
Oklahomans are American to the core. They are deeply religious, avid
gun owners, believe in a strict moral code, and have provided more
than their fair share of cannon fodder for the nations wars. They are,
for the most part, honest and hard-working people from pioneer stock.
Many live on land their grandparents staked out in the great Oklahoma
land rush. These people are extremely loyal to their state and to
their country. Oklahomans knew all along where we were headed, and
true to form, they tried to stop the march toward globalism. These
traits may have sealed Oklahoma's fate on March 28, 1994 when the
Oklahoma State Legislature passed a resolution which struck out at
Clinton's socialist world government agenda. They were the first and
maybe the only state to pass such legislation.
 
* Resolution Nov 1047, 'A Resolution relating to United States
  military forces and the United Nations; memorializing Congress to
  cease certain activities concerning the United Nations; and
  directing distribution.'
* WHEREAS, the constitutional role of the United States military is to
  protect the life, liberty and property of United States citizens and
  to defend out nation against insurrection or foreign invasion; and
* WHEREAS, the United States is an independent sovereign nation and
  not a tributary of the United Nations; and
* WHEREAS there is no popular support for the establishment of a "new
  world order or world sovereignty of any kind either under the United
  Nations or under any world body in any form of global government;
  and
* WHEREAS, global government would mean the destruction of our
  Constitution and corruption of the spirit of the Declaration of
  Independence, our freedom, and our way of life.
* NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
  THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 44TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
* THAT the United States Congress is hereby memorialized to
 
  1. Cease the appropriation of United States funds for any military
  activity not authorized by Congress;
  2. Cease engagement in any military activities under the authority
  of the United Nations or any world body;
  3. Cease the rendering of aid to any activity or engagement under
  the jurisdiction of the United Nations or any world body; and
  4. Cease any support for the establishment of a "new world order" or
  to any form of global government.
* THAT the United States congress is hereby memorialized to refrain
  from taking any further steps toward the economic or political
  merger of the United States into a world body or any form of world
  government.
* That copies of this resolution be distributed to the Clerk of the
  United States House of Representatives, the Secretary of the United
  States Senate, and to each member of the Oklahoma Congressional
  Delegation.
* Adopted by the House of Representatives the 28th day of March, 1994.
 
The resolution passed by the Oklahoma State Legislature had the
support of all the citizens of Oklahoma. It was a slap in the face to
the Clinton administration and all those who promote the Socialist
Internationale. Those murdered at Ruby Creek and Waco cried out for
justice. Americans echoed those cries. Everyone knew that something
was terribly wrong. A police state was emerging before our eyes.
Militias were forming. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in
their history at the polls in November. The hidden agenda of the
communist/socialist Internationale was being exposed to the public
through talk radio and a thriving underground autobahn of information.


This story really began on February 26, 1993 when the World Trade
Center was bombed in New York City. I had predicted terrorists would
detonate a bomb in New York City since 1989. It is on record, on video
tape, and in my book. I predicted that it would be blamed upon Islamic
fundamentalists but that the real perpetrators would be the U.S.
Intelligence Community and specifically the Central Intelligence
Agency. I did not know or venture to guess the target.
 
Those arrested were linked directly to the CIA and the FBI was
implicated in the bombing. The perpetrators used two megabombs carried
in a yellow Ryder rental van. The bombs exploded in the parking garage
of the World Trade Center, prematurely, before being properly placed.
The result was substantial damage. Five people were killed and over
1,000 were wounded. If the bombs had been placed in position next to
the main structural supports the result would have been exactly what
we see in Oklahoma City only much worse.
 
Fragments of the yellow van were quickly found in the rubble. A paper
trail traced the vehicle to an outlet in New Jersey where it was
rented four days before the explosion. "A lucky breakthrough" led
federal agents to arrest a suspect, 26 year old Mohammed Salameh at
the Jersey City rental agency at which he attempted to reclaim a $400
deposit on the van.
 
In a surprise revelation Tony Lang, a staff columnist for 'The
Cincinnati Enquirer' (Gannett chain) in Cincinnati, Ohio, has
uncovered court documents to support the direct involvement of the FBI
in the World Trade Center bombing. The papers, filed in May, disclose
that a government informer, an employee of the FBI, accompanied the
accused bomber, Mohammed Salameh, to a New Jersey apartment they used
as a bomb factory... and proceeded to INSTRUCT Salameh in how to drive
the famous van two days before the explosion!
 
In another surprise development, reported by Louis Beam in the
'Jubilee', tapes made secretly by an FBI informant of conversations
between him and his agency handlers linked the nation's largest law
enforcement agency directly to "the most destructive terrorist act in
U.S. history". Unfortunately that title now rests with Oklahoma City.
Emid Ali Salem, an FBI informant used hidden microphones given to him
by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to record his conversations
with agents of the bureau. A Los Angeles Times article on October 28,
1993 revealed to shocked readers details of FBI involvement in the
terrorist act. FBI spokesmen in Washington refuse comment.
 
The tapes became public knowledge when they were ordered released by a
federal judge presiding over the case of the indicted suspects. The
Justice Department fought hard to prevent their release.
 
The tapes which have been published by the New York Times reveal that
Salem warned his FBI bosses that the World Trade Center was soon to be
bombed and urged them to prevent it. Speculation is now rampant in
political circles that certain factions within the government may have
desired the bombing in order to speed passage of new "anti-crime
legislation." This suspicion was further fueled by the startling
revelation that the FBI denied Salem's request to use phony explosives
in the bomb he was helping to build under FBI supervision - the bomb
ultimately used in the World Trade Center explosion.
 
Former Watergate associate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste warned that
these tapes pose "an absolute nightmare for federal prosecutors." One
high-ranking law enforcement officer who insisted on secrecy said that
in less than a years time the FBI has been linked to criminal abuse of
power and the mishandling of cases in three different instances.
"First we had Weaver, where an HRT member shot a mother with a baby in
her arms, then Waco, where mishandling led to the deaths of a hundred
people, and now the World Trade Center, where it appears the bombing
could not save happened unless the agency let it."
 
All of this comes on the heels of an Internal affairs report by the
Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, linking
FBI agents to everything from drug abuse to shoplifting. OPR's annual
report provided further startling proof that the agency formally most
respected for it's law enforcement skills - "has gone bad."


This contention is backed up by J.B. Campbell of the 'National
Educator'. If the bombs had been placed properly, it could have
toppled one tower into the other and brought them both down along with
the 50,000 people inside. The New York Times now reports that the FBI
could have thwarted the bombing by simply calling it off, or by
building the bomb with harmless powder. One of the FBI conspirators, a
former Egyptian army officer, secretly taped his meetings with his FBI
handlers. Emad Ali Salem recalls in the tape recorded meeting that the
FBI had planned on building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing
the people who had been entrapped in the plot. But the informer, who
is heard lecturing his FBI handlers, said the powder scheme was called
off and "we didn't do that."
 
We remember the FBI crowing about its investigative prowess after its
remarkably swift nabbing of the suspects, based on debris found in the
bomb's crater.  This was never true, for later we were to learn that
the FBI's informant, Emad Ali Salem, had to teach the suspects how to
make a proper bomb. Not only did the FBI know the suspects all along,
but it gave them a bomb. The FBI could have ordered Salem to make a
harmless bomb but, for some reason, it decided to provide a real bomb
which had the power to kill 50,000 people and to let the suspects go
ahead and explode it. Our conclusion is that my prediction was 100%
right on the mark.
 
It gets worse ... The San Francisco Chronicle reported on September
25, 1993 that observers from 11 counties watched as the U.S.
Department of Energy performed what it called the largest detonation
of non-nuclear explosives ever conducted. The blast beneath the Nevada
desert resulted from the ignition of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel,
which produced a force equivalent to a one-kiloton nuclear bomb. The
test was designed to allow scientists to distinguish between nuclear
and non-nuclear blasts should a permanent worldwide ban on nuclear
testing be established.  Gee, all these years and they still don't
know the difference.
 
Rumors began circulating in January of this year that meetings were
being held among federal law enforcement agencies for the purpose of
planning a move against the militia in April. Most ignored these
rumors. On February 18th I spoke at a Constitution Party rally in
Ferndale, Michigan. A federal agent in the audience held his badge and
identification up to the crowd stating clearly that the federal
government had held meetings among several agencies for the purpose of
making an all out assault against patriots and the militias in April.
His statement was videotaped and is on record. I verified his
credentials. Such an attack would be political suicide unless some
great tragedy turned the public against the militias
 
It was shortly after Michigan that we obtained a copy of the 'Omnibus
Counter Terrorism Act of 1995' introduced on February 10th by Joe
Biden in the Senate (S-390) and Charles Shumer in the House (HR-896).
I remembered the random shooting that always occurred just before
anti-gun legislation came up for a vote. I predicted a wave of
terrorism directed against the United States would begin in the near
future. I had already made this prediction in my book 'Behold a Pale
[AHorse' and during many lectures. It is all recorded. I knew this would
happen if all other attempts to destroy patriotism and disarm the
American people failed. I stated in the book that patriots would be
labeled terrorists.
 
A warning was contained in a memo issued by the U.S. Marshals Service
on March 15th. The memo expressed fear that the terrorist attacks
would be designed to attract worldwide press attention to an Islamic
religious vendetta through the mass murder of innocent victims." The
warning stated that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to launch
suicide attacks against federal courthouses and government
installations throughout the United States. The memo was sent to
federal facilities nationwide. Authorities reviewed the security at
Oklahoma city's Alfred P. Murrah federal building, nothing was
changed, and one guard was left to patrol a four building complex.
Representative James Saxton (R), a senior member of the House Task
force on Terrorism, said his group had alerted law enforcement and
intelligence personnel on February 27th that there was an increased
threat of terrorism.
 
Another rumor flew through the grapevine. This one alleged that the
federal government would make an all out attack upon patriots and the
militias on March 24th and 25th. The rumor came from many sources and
was published in 'Strategic Investment' lending credibility to the
story.


*  Strategic investment/March 22, 1995, behind the lines, by Jack
   Wheeler - The slaughter of dozens of women and children in Waco by
   government stormtroopers under the command of Field Marshall Reno
   may pale in comparison to what has been planned for late March: a
   nationwide BATF/FBI assault on private militias as the prelude to a
   possible declaration of martial law throughout the United States.
   All leaves and vacations have been canceled for BATF/FBI personnel,
   and for various State Police and national Guards such as
   California's. The Army's infamous Joint Task Force Six (which did
   the training for Waco) has been training BATF jackbooters with
   Bradley Assault Vehicles at Ft. Bliss, Texas. Government agent
   provocateurs are set to plant fully automatic and heavy weapons
   like rocket launchers, on the property of militia leaders. Every
   militia in the country - and there are dozens, many of which are as
   well-armed and well-led by former or even active-duty officers - is
   on a state of Red Alert. Should Reno be stupid enough to actually
   attack them militarily, there is going to be a lot of blood. The
   establishment media is programmed to immediately thereafter
   thunderously bellow for nationwide gun confiscation and even
   martial law. The Senate Armed Forces Committee has been alerted and
   is questioning key Defense and Justice people behind closed doors.
   Hopefully, Reno's Waco 2 can be stopped in time. But that it was
   plotted in the first place should be a sobering lesson as to what a
   horrifying extent liberalism, the political philosophy of the
   administration and the Democratic Party, has been converted into a
   close cousin of fascism.
 
Three Congressmen believed these stories to be true and wrote letters
to Janet Reno asking for an explanation. They cited law enforcement
sources. No answer was forthcoming. Nothing could happen unless
something were to occur that would turn the public against the
militia. I put out feelers through our people across the nation and
the answer came back the same. We could not identity any patriot or
militia organization that would do anything of the nature that would
be required to justify an all out assault upon patriots and the
militia. We knew only that the March dates were bogus. April
approached. I had no hard evidence that anything would occur in April,
only reports from many credible sources, and fearing this could be an
attempt to discredit the Intelligence Service the 'Hour of the Time'
and 'Veritas', we maintained silence. Ordo Ab Chao...
 
On Monday, April 17th the Orange County Register reported that the FBI
will open an international police training academy in Budapest. In an
incredible admission of the socialist agenda Clinton announced that
American law-enforcement agencies are rapidly expanding overseas,
deploying agents to dozens of countries in scores of joint
investigations. This followed on the heels of the recent announcement
that the FBI had opened an office in Moscow and what used to be the
KGB had opened an office in the United States. These facts herald the
formation of a nucleus for a world police/investigative body. David
Johnston of the New York Times reported, "Last year, Freeh opened an
FBI office in Moscow, one of an overseas network of 24 such offices,
forward command posts for an increasingly global detective agency. He
has also been a driving force behind the Budapest training academy."
 
My worst fears became reality on Wednesday morning, April 19, 1995.
One of our agents woke me from a sound sleep shortly after 7 am,
Arizona Standard Time, to report that a bomb had gone off at the
federal building in Oklahoma City. I ran to the phone and began to
contact our agents. Responsibility for the on-scene supervision of the
investigation was assigned to our Oklahoma Station Chief. Information
began to flow. It became obvious within hours that what had happened
and what was being reported by the media were two, completely
different, events. The event reported by the news networks must have
taken place in China because it sure didn't happen in Oklahoma City.
The official investigation of the Intelligence Service and CAJI News
Service produced the following:
 
1. Witnesses reported hearing two distinct explosions, seconds apart,
   then the ominous rumbling of the building falling in upon itself.
 
2. Survivors who were in the building near the front wall reported
   being hurled out of the front of the federal building through
   cinder block walls into the street.
 
3. The front of the federal building was thrown out, away from the
   federal building, and into the building across the street.


4. A large crater was blown into the street immediately in front and
   slightly to the left of center when facing what had been the front
   of the federal building.
 
5. The first video tape of the disaster shows two large columns of
   black smoke, one rising from the crater area in the street, and the
   other rising from the center of the federal building.
 
6. Undetonated plastic explosives were found on the scene by the first
   rescue workers. A rocket launcher was also found. This was reported
   then later denied. Witnesses stick to the original story.
 
7. Officials reported that a second bomb had been found and police
   began an immediate evacuation of the entire down town area. Radio
   buffs and Intelligence Service agents monitoring scanners confirmed
   that radio traffic indicated that a second bomb had been found.
   Explosives experts were called in along with a bomb disposal truck.
   This was seen on television and those monitoring scanners confirmed
   that the disarming of the bomb was in progress. The following was
   intercepted by scanner and reported by 3 different people. We did
   not hear it and we have not been able to obtain a tape. The
   speakers are unknown. Except for minor differences all 3 people
   reported exactly the same conversation. First voice - "Boy, you're
   not gonna believe this!"  Second voice - "Believe what?" First
   voice - "I can't believe it... this is a military bomb!"  After
   several hours the bomb disposal truck left and the report of a
   second bomb was denied.
 
8. Two people identifying themselves as firemen, but refusing to give
   their names, reported that the second bomb was in fact several
   bombs, olive drab colored cans of fulminate of mercury, clearly
   labeled as such, with MilSpec numbers, which were found intact on
   separate floors next to the elevator shaft. Officials denied these
   allegations.  The following day an elderly gentleman who identified
   himself as the father of one of the firemen called to confirm that
   his son had reported the same findings to him.  He refused to give
   his name.
 
9. Initial examination of the bomb scene revealed that a minimum of
   two bombs were needed to inflict the damage that presented.  The
   steel reinforced concrete pillars that held up the building were
   sheered off at ground level clear back to the third pillar
   throughout the building. Explosives experts have confirmed that
   this is impossible with the one bomb scenario being presented by
   the government and the media. The reports of the survivors who were
   blown out of the front of the building into the street and the
   front of the building blown outward across the street support their
   findings. A Retired General who had spent over 25 years in
   explosives research and ultimately commanded the explosives
   research facility for a branch of the military informed us that the
   pillars could only be taken down at ground level by satchel charges
   or shaped charges placed upon each pillar. His mathematics are
   impressive. We do not have the expertise to understand what he is
   talking about, but with his credentials someone had better listen.
 
After the brief but painful accusations against the Islamic community
and the arrest of several people of mid-eastern descent including one
traveler at London's Heathrow Airport, the accusations swung right
around as I had predicted to patriots and the militias. The most
incredible hate campaign in the history of the world was directed
toward Islamics, Christians, whites, males, patriots, militias, anyone
using diesel fuel, anyone using fertilizer, anyone from the state of
Michigan, all who support the Constitution for the United States of
America, and people who live in Arizona, especially talk radio hosts.
 
The New York Post dubbed me a "white supremist". Jesse Jackson in the
Los Angeles Times called me a "white supremist". My wife is Chinese
and I am part American Indian. My daughter is half Chinese, part
American Indian, English, Scotch and Irish.
 
The standard Ryder rental truck reared its ugly head and within hours
the FBI not only had enough parts to identify the type of truck but
had already traced it to the rental agency. (Incredible)
 
The FBI quickly produced what appeared to be drawings of near
photograph quality of two suspects. When I commented, during my
broadcast, upon the photographic quality of the drawings, the FBI
issued a new drawing of John Doe #2 the following morning which looked
more like a drawing. Since McVeigh had already been captured they left
his alone.


The man who is accused of bombing the federal building was caught
speeding in a car, his own, without license plates. He was arrested,
without resistance, for carrying a concealed weapon and jailed. (How
convenient) A CBS feed on the KU satellite band reported that the
initial report that the concealed weapon was a gun was in error. The
commentator (a woman) reported that the concealed weapon for which
McVeigh was jailed was a knife. This report was never aired to our
knowledge.
 
The FBI and the media reported that McVeigh lived in Kinsman, Arizona
at Canyon West Trailer Park. He was described as having lived in
trailer #19. under the name of his girlfriend. They reported that he
was evicted after a stormy nine months in which the man played loud
music, left piles of beer cans and a wrecked car by the trailer and
belligerently refused to obey camp rules. It was also reported that
McVeigh fired automatic weapons frequently into the desert. When our
agents questioned these same people they stated that McVeigh had lived
in trailer #11 from June 1993 until early September 1993. They
described Tim McVeigh as a nice man quiet and neat. "He was a nice
guy, a model tenant.
 
The pawn-shop owner, William Stumpp, killed in Texarkana by Richard
Wayne Snell was not a Jew and the press knew this all the time they
reported that he was a Jew. Stumpp was an Episcopalian not Jewish.
 
Alacia Adams Esquivios has signed an affidavit stating that she saw
John Doe #2 on April 19th in a white government van traveling south on
highway 44 at 5:15 pm. She called the FBI on the morning of the 21st
and reported what she saw. She was told an agent would contact her for
an interview. No one showed. She called again on Monday the 24th. The
person who answered the phone said and agent would come out and
interview her. She is still waiting.
 
Members of the St. Lucie-based second regiment of the Florida State
Militia report that Timothy McVeigh attended a local militia rally
last year as a bodyguard for Mark Koernke. Koernke denies any
knowledge of McVeigh.
 
On April 21st our Station Chief obtained the seismograph report from
Oklahoma University which can be found in this issue. Dr. Luza
informed us that it shows two unmistakable "events" that happened in
the Oklahoma City area, the first at 9:02 am followed by the second 10
seconds later. Both are surface events similar in signature to a
quarry blast, both of approximately the same duration and magnitude.
No other disturbance occurred the morning of the 19th of April in the
Oklahoma City area. The seismograph confirms witness reports of two
explosions. In our interview Dr. Luza said the second event could not
have been an echo or bounce back because the seismograph would have
shown a distinctly separate pattern if it had been either of those two
things, and geologists are easily able to recognize the secondary
pattern when such an echo or bounceback occurs. When asked if the
second event could have been caused by the crashing of the building as
it collapsed, Dr. Luza said no, and explained that had the seismograph
recorded the collapse of the building, the second markings would have
been of a much lesser magnitude, and it did not take the building ten
seconds after the explosion to begin to collapse. In his closing
remarks, Dr. Luza stated that the two events were of identical
magnitude, as if the same bomb had gone off twice, and that if the
second event had been caused by an echo or anything else, the
seismographic record would not have shown such perfect consistency
between the two events. His conclusion was that there were definitely
two separate explosions in the Oklahoma City area separated by only 10
seconds.
 
The official interpretation of the seismograph record from the
Oklahoma Geological Survey Seismograph Station in Norman, Oklahoma is
that they recorded a large surface-wave "train" at 9:02:13 a.m.
(140213 UTC) shortly after the explosion at the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The seismometer is located
approximately four miles north of Norman and sixteen miles from
downtown Oklahoma City. A second large surface-wave was recorded at
9:02:23 a.m. (140223 UTC). The location and source of the second
surface-wave recording is unknown. The record is read from top to
bottom and from left to right.
 
The small vertical offsets of the horizontal lines are minute marks.
Hour marks are twice as long as the minute marks.

We obtained a second seismographic reading from the Oklahoma City
Omniplex. The station is very close to the federal building and the
seismograph reflects that fact. The two explosions are registered on
this graph, as blank spaces where the needle literally jumped off the
sheet. The events are separated by a 10 seconds of ink. No experts
exist at the Omniplex station. The employee who gave us our copy said
it was miraculous that the Omniplex had any records at all because the
seismograph had not been working up until 40 minutes prior to the
explosions. The Omniplex is located at the Kirkpatrick Center, at 50th
and Martin Luther King Blvd. The FBI seized the original seismographic
record. Our copy is a copy of a copy made before the seizure by an
employee.
 
One of the federal agents who died in the blast was the former head of
President Clinton's Secret Service team of bodyguards. How many does
that make?
 
Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating is an ex-FBI agent.
 
Anti-terrorism bill is now on the fast track.
 
In a "Bullet Poll" conducted by KTBS-TV Channel 3, Shreveport,
Louisiana and reported on April 20th the following question was asked
... "Would you be willing to give up some of your freedom for a little
security?" 74% reportedly fell into the category bracketed by
"some-most-all".
 
On April 28th the tape of James Nichols hearing was released by court
order and it was blank. Nothing whatsoever could be heard on the tape.
It was the only record of the proceedings.
 
Office workers state that almost all of the FBI and BATF agents and an
unbelievable number of supervisory personnel did not arrive at work at
their usual time on Wednesday, April 19, 1995 and were not in the
building when the bomb went off.
 
A card was sent to the hospital for the survivors by a 3rd grade boy.
It reads: "Hello, I hope you feel better from the explosion in
Oklahoma. I wish it never had happened. I felt sad when it happened. I
felt bad for the people who died and the people who got hurt. That's
only the beginning of what's going to happen to America. Hope you feel
better, Jonathan Roden"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Transcribed from Veritas, May 9, 1995 issue.
 
For subscription write Veritas Publications
c/o P.O. Box 3390
St. Johns, Arizona
Postal Zone 85936
 
393.1112COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Jun 12 1995 12:5786
    AP 10 Jun 95 18:35 EDT V0647
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
                                                             
    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Bombing victims lashed out Saturday at a company
    they believe made the fertilizer used in the deadly attack, saying a
    hunger for profit cost lives. 

    "I was on the seventh floor when the bomb exploded and the building
    disappeared in front of my desk, and I'm mad," said Robyn Parent, who
    lost sight in one eye. 

    Parent and 82 other victims of the blast are suing ICI Explosives USA
    Inc., which makes ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosives. The
    4,800-pound bomb that killed 168 people and injured 500 more on April
    19 was made of an explosive mixture of fuel oil and the fertilizer,
    authorities say. 

    The federal court lawsuit claims that ICI supplied fertilizer to the
    Mid-Kansas Co-op in McPherson, Kan., where authorities believe the
    fertilizer used in the bomb was bought. Lawyers filing the lawsuit
    include O.J. Simpson lawyer Johnnie Cochran. 

    The lawsuit also claims the company didn't add chemicals that make
    ammonium nitrate harmless because that would cut profits. 

    "These products should be used for fertilizing crops, not for making
    bombs," Cochran said. "When somebody makes money on these products, we
    think they should be held responsible." 

    Joe Brawner, president of ICI, said after the lawsuit was filed Friday
    that the company had no confirmation its fertilizer was used in the
    bomb. 

    He said there are "no known ammonium nitrate additives that could have
    prevented this unthinkable bombing." 

    However, a process developed by chemical consultant Samuel Porter in
    the late 1960s adds a small amount of diammonium phosphate, another
    fertilizer, to the ammonium nitrate to make it insensitive to flames
    and detonation. 

    John Merritt, one of the attorneys filing the lawsuit, said that ICI
    had access to test results that show that the method is effective. 

    But ICI spokesman Neal Mednick said Saturday that Merritt has
    misinterpreted those tests. 

    "There are a lot of people that have been deceived into thinking that
    there is an additive that might have done the job," Mednick said. 

    In some European countries, pure ammonium nitrate is sold as an
    explosive under strict regulation. In the United States, it can be
    purchased easily at garden stores. 

    The lawsuit does not seek a specific amount, but attorneys said a jury
    could award more than $1 billion. 

    LaDonna Madkins, a plaintiff whose parents were killed in the blast,
    said putting a price tag on lives is shameful. 

    "April 19 at 8:15 was the last time I saw my Mom and Dad. My sisters
    and I, and the grandkids, do not have our parents any more," Madkins
    said. 

    Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols are the only two people charged in
    the attack. They are being held without bail and could face the death
    penalty if convicted under a federal anti-terrorism law. 

    The last bombing survivor to move off the critical list is 22-month-old
    P.J. Allen, who suffered burns, injuries to his eyes, lungs and
    eardrums, and a broken leg. 

    Dr. Morris R. Gessouroun upgraded the boy's condition Friday to serious
    at Children's Hospital of Oklahoma, and said he hopes to have him out
    of intensive care by July 4. 

    His grandmother, Deloris Watson, said she was worried about the child's
    personality. 

    "But from the time they started taking him off the sedation he started
    doing more," she told The Daily Oklahoman for a story in Saturday's
    editions. "Now he's blowing kisses, giving high fives and smiling." 

    
393.1113WAHOO::LEVESQUEluxure et suppliceMon Jun 12 1995 13:461
    Positively shameless.
393.1114GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberMon Jun 12 1995 13:534
    
    
    You've got that right, doc.
    
393.1115CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanMon Jun 12 1995 13:5310


 Are they going to sue Ryder for making a profit on the rental of the truck?
 (assuming the rental was paid for).




 Jim
393.1116TROOA::COLLINSAt the fingertips of gravity...Mon Jun 12 1995 13:573
    
    Sue the Federal Gov't!  The building should have been bomb-proof!
    
393.1117BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Mon Jun 12 1995 14:034
    
    	Or maybe the truck should have been equipped with a "fertilizer
    	detector".
    
393.1118ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Mon Jun 12 1995 15:053
There's more fertilizer in those suing than in the fertilizer company.

Bob
393.1119that should be 'precedent', I believeCSOA1::LEECHMon Jun 12 1995 15:3711
    It's no worse that suing gun manufacturers for homicides.  Forget those
    who actually committed the crimes, blame it all on inanimate items and
    their manufacturers.
    
    Incredibly irresponsible on the part of those suing, for lashing out in
    this way.  I don't think they realize the precident this sets, and the
    damage it does to common sense in litigation (if there is any left
    these days).
    
    
    -steve
393.1120OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Jun 12 1995 17:237
    Apparently someone invented a process or additive that would have made
    it impossible to use the fertilizer as an explosive.  This was long
    enough ago that the patented process is now public domain.  He formed a
    company to market the process to fertilizer companies, but they weren't
    interested because it would raise costs (something like 5 cents per
    ton).  So one could argue that the fertilizer companies are to some
    degree liable, since they could have prevented that particular bomb.
393.1121SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotMon Jun 12 1995 17:4310
    .1120
    
    > So one could argue that the fertilizer companies are to some
    > degree liable, since they could have prevented that particular bomb.
    
    Oen could argue that the automobile manufacturers are liable for all
    traffic deaths because the technology does actually exist to build a
    car that will protect its occupants from injury in any accident up to
    and including a head-on tangle with an 18-wheeler coming the opposite
    direction.
393.1122OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Jun 12 1995 18:389
    Re: .1121
    
    Sure, they could build such a car, but could anyone afford to buy it? 
    It's not at all the same as adding $.05 to the cost of a ton of
    fertilizer; even if they ratchet up the price per bag by a penny,
    they'd more than cover their costs.
    
    Regardless of whether the fertilizer company is liable, they should
    render their fertilizer useless for bomb-making.
393.1123TROOA::COLLINSAt the fingertips of gravity...Mon Jun 12 1995 18:403
    
    So...who's suing the fuel oil manufacturer?
    
393.1124SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Jun 12 1995 18:424
    
    
    Ryder should install fertilizer sensing devices in all their trucks...
    
393.1125SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotMon Jun 12 1995 18:5321
    .1122
    
    > Regardless of whether the fertilizer company is liable, they should
    > render their fertilizer useless for bomb-making.
    
    Regardless of whether the petroleum company is liable, they should
    render their Diesel oil useless for bomb-making.
    
    Regardless of whether the rat poison company is liable, they should
    render their rat poison useless for poisoning humans.
    
    Regardless of whether the ammunition company is liable, they should
    render their shotgun shells useless for making antipersonnel grenades.
    
    Regardless of whether the cutlery company is liable, they should render
    their kitchen knives useless for slashing husbands and wives.
    
    Regardless of whether the tobacco company is liable, they should
    render their cigarettes useless for use as time-delay bomb fuzes.
    
    Get a clue.
393.1126NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Jun 12 1995 18:542
393.1127BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Mon Jun 12 1995 18:556
    
    >Ryder should install fertilizer sensing devices in all their trucks...
    
    
    	See .1117 ... and please try to keep up.  8^)
    
393.1128POLAR::RICHARDSONAntihistamine Free BaloneyMon Jun 12 1995 18:573
    re: .1126
    
    I think that's a question the Trilateral Commission could answer.
393.1129SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasMon Jun 12 1995 18:5812
     RE: .1127
    
    
    
     I dunno....
    
     Let's ask Mr. Richardson if "fertilizer sensing devices" is the same
    thing as ""fertilizer detector"...
    
    
     :) :)
    
393.1130POLAR::RICHARDSONAntihistamine Free BaloneyMon Jun 12 1995 20:193
    Well, my nose is a good fertilizer sensing device, and I suppose my
    hands would be able to sense fertilizer, and the skin in between my
    toes.
393.1131BSS::DSMITHA Harley, &amp; the Dead the good lifeMon Jun 12 1995 20:196
    
    
    I read the article about this "additive" and the rebuttal was that this
    additive did not live up to the claims of the manufactor!
    
    
393.1132POLAR::RICHARDSONAntihistamine Free BaloneyMon Jun 12 1995 20:301
    So, how about the ones who made it though?
393.1133OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Jun 12 1995 20:359
    Re: .1125
    
    If the cost of modifying all those products to make them safe is
    minimal and does not interfere with the functioning of the product,
    then yes, they should.
    
    I'm quite surprised at your position on this.  You're probably against
    companies making sure their toys don't have little detachable parts
    that children can easily choke on, as well.
393.1134Re: .1133TROOA::COLLINSAt the fingertips of gravity...Mon Jun 12 1995 20:384
    
    ...the failure of your analogy being that the guilty party didn't
    `accidentally' blow up the building.
    
393.1135OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Jun 12 1995 20:451
    The analogy has nothing to do with accidents; it has to do with safety.
393.1136Personal responsibility - what a concept!SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotMon Jun 12 1995 20:468
    .1133
    
    There's a difference between children, who do not necessarily know or
    understand the consequences of their actions, and adults, who do.  All
    of my analogies were of instances in which the perpetrators are aware
    of what they are doing and what the results would be.
    
    Hell, why don't we just people-proof the world and have done with it??
393.1137OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Jun 12 1995 20:514
    Rendering fertilizer useless for bomb-making in no way nullifies
    personal responsibility.  It makes it a little harder for those who
    have decided to act irresponsibly to harm others, and it in no way
    infringes on those who have decided to act responsibly.
393.1138SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotMon Jun 12 1995 20:565
    .1137
    
    There is a difference between "could" and "should."  To posit that
    "should" is the proper verb is to push an agenda that many, including
    me, do not wish to have forced on us.
393.1139BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Mon Jun 12 1995 21:1010
    
    	It makes it a little harder?  Or impossible?
    
    	If this process makes it impossible to use fertilizer as a
    	bomb, then I say they should implement the process ... even
    	though they shouldn't be held responsible anyways.
    
    	But if it makes it "a little harder" to make a bomb, then
    	what's the use?
    
393.1140TROOA::COLLINSAt the fingertips of gravity...Mon Jun 12 1995 21:3117
    
    .1135:
    
    It has to do with the fact that there are many items, some of which 
    Dick listed, that are dangerous when deliberately misused.  Are we
    planning to safety every household item or substance against possible
    deliberate misuse?
    
    If the fertilizer could have been safetied for five cents a ton, then
    fine.  Somehow, it seems odd to me that a large company operating in
    the Litigious States Of America would have chosen not to spend that
    extra five cents if the danger had been made apparent to them.
    
    Now then...how do we safety gasoline and fuel oil?
    
    jc
    
393.1141OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Mon Jun 12 1995 21:5430
    Re: .1138
    
    >To posit that "should" is the proper verb is to push an agenda
    
    Correction:  What you assume to be an agenda.  You cannot state with
    any accuracy what my intentions are, beyond what I have explicitly
    spelled out.
    
    
    Re: .1139
    
    It would make it impossible, not simply harder, to build a bomb using
    fertilizer -- which would make it harder, but not impossible, to go out
    and build a bomb.
    
    
    Re: .1140
    
    >Are we planning to safety every household item or substance against 
    >possible deliberate misuse?
    
    I have no idea what your intentions are, but I'm not.
    
    >If the fertilizer could have been safetied for five cents a ton, then
    >fine.
    
    So, you're saying they SHOULD make it safe.  Perhaps you'd better ask
    yourself the same questions about intentions.  I'd hate to think that
    you'd allow accept something as okay for you to believe, but not for
    me.  Makes you seem so -- well, inconsistent, shall we say.
393.1142old twist renewedOUTSRC::HEISERMaranatha!Tue Jun 13 1995 00:009
    KFOR-TV in OKC broke the story last Wednesday that the original APB for
    a middle-eastern man was correct and that they and the FBI have had
    the person under surveillance since the bombing.  They also have
    several witnesses see this man with McVeigh and these same witnesses
    have all picked the middle-eastern man out of mug-shot books.

    Major networks are sitting on the story pending confirmation.
    
    Mike
393.1143TROOA::COLLINSAt the fingertips of gravity...Tue Jun 13 1995 11:586
    
    .1141:
    
    Let's just say that I'm skeptical that five cents a ton will make
    everything all better.
    
393.1144WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Jun 13 1995 12:004
    let's just say that they're going after a category of commodity
    that cannot be regulated. simply PC motivated.
    
    
393.1145CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenTue Jun 13 1995 12:028
    The pain and suffering of the victims and their families is truly
    horrendous.  This does not justify a suit against ICI or anyone else
    for that matter because their products were used irresponsibly.  If it
    wasn't fertilizer, it most likely would have been something else.  This
    IMO only adds insult to injury and underscores part of what is wrong in
    the country.  
    
    Brian
393.1146GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberTue Jun 13 1995 12:539
    
    
    I can't help but think that the $0.05 a ton thing is BS.  There has to
    be more to it than we are hearing here.  The 5c a ton thing sounds real
    great in making the "evil corporation" seem real greedy which suits the
    suers real well.
    
    
    
393.1147SUBSYS::NEUMYERLove is a dirty jobTue Jun 13 1995 13:407
    
    
    	I would believe that it is more than 5 cents a ton. Hell, it would 
    cost more than that just to store the taggant in the warehouse before
    it is used.
    
    ed
393.1148Any chemists out there?STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityTue Jun 13 1995 15:3217
            <<< Note 393.1112 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>   However, a process developed by chemical consultant Samuel Porter in
>   the late 1960s adds a small amount of diammonium phosphate, another
>   fertilizer, to the ammonium nitrate to make it insensitive to flames
>   and detonation. 

It would appear from this portion of the article that the chemical additive 
may help to prevent disasters such as the imfamous Texas City explosion,
where an accident caused a shipload of ammonium nitrate to explode.  However,
making the material "insensitive to flames and detonation" may not mean very
much when talking about making bombs.  After all, the material was mixed with
a flammable liquid and detonated with TNT.  Just how "insensitive" is it?
Furthermore, couldn't the bomb-maker continue to use the amonium nitrate as 
a source of nitrates to manufacture other explosive compounds?  Wouldn't it
be possible to dissolve the fertilizer in water, precipitate out the phosphate
compound, and dry to recover the pure ammonium nitrate?
393.1149This could get interestingDECWIN::RALTOSpanky &amp; Alfalfa in '96Tue Jun 13 1995 16:367
    Has it indeed even been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that
    it was a "fertilizer bomb" that was exploded?  Is it possible
    that the fertilizer companies will try to prove that it wasn't
    a fertilizer bomb at all, given the various "conspiracy theories",
    seismic readings, and other information?
    
    Chris
393.1150EVMS::MORONEYVerbing weirds languagesTue Jun 13 1995 16:4112
re .1148:

That makes sense.  The AN that went up in Texas City was coated with wax to
keep it from clumping.   Unfortunately this is very close to ANFO so a bad
fire led to detonation.  I can see how ammonium phosphate may have helped in
this case (it's used in fire extinguishers) but can't see it stopping a
deliberate attempt to detonate it, as detonation involves a different
mechansism.  However the best way to stop a Texas City type accident is not
to ask for trouble by using wax, and nowadays we don't.

Regardless, it should be fairly easy to purify the AN (although doing so for
4 tons or so is a lot of effort...)
393.1151DEVLPR::DKILLORANM1A - The choice of champions !Tue Jun 13 1995 17:0712
    re 1150

    > (although doing so for
    > 4 tons or so is a lot of effort...)

    These people are committed to what they believe in, so it takes them a
    little bit longer to build the bomb, bit deal.  Even if we make it
    impossible to build a bomb with fertilizer, there are other chemicals
    available in retail stores that would accomplish the same destruction. 
    What do you propose, making them all illegal, or inert?
    
    Dan
393.1153POWDML::LAUERLittle Chamber of PasshionTue Jun 13 1995 17:373
393.1154OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Tue Jun 13 1995 20:253
    The five cent figure was never firm, anyway.  Since I was doing it from
    memory, I naturally included the requisite qualifiers.  However, I
    recall it was supposed to be quite inexpensive.
393.1155CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenTue Jun 13 1995 20:348
    Fire retardants are quite common place and used in plastics like Noryl
    and other acrylics for computer housings etc.  The additives are
    inexpensive though demand for that type of material artificially
    inflates the price.  Brominated compounds are often used as fire 
    retardant agents which causes other environmental issues making them
    undesriable for widespread use.  
    
    Brian
393.1156EVMS::MORONEYGreen Cards and SpamWed Jun 14 1995 00:087
re .1151:

I agree.  Any additive would only be to prevent lawsuits like
the current one, not prevent any explosions.  A determined terrorist
will purify the stuff, and AN fertilizer is very unlikely to explode
without deliberate effort.  I don't think such an additive exists anyway,
particularly not at 5 cents/ton.
393.1157SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 14 1995 11:59421
==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- June 26, 1995
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated 
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

==================================================================

ARTICLE: Nation
TITLE: OKC Bombing: Expert Analysis
AUTHOR: William F. Jasper

==================================================================

For most of us, the first images of the enormous damage done to
Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in the April 19th
bombing were overwhelming. Besides the terrible toll of death and
suffering, the news photos and live video recordings of the
physical destruction of the blast to the building itself showed a
devastation completely beyond the ken of Americans unaccustomed to
the ravages of war and terrorism. Lacking mental reference points
to frame the enormity of this destruction, and recoiling from the
barbarity of the deed, our primary reactions were visceral,
emotional.

Beyond Emotion

However, for many men accustomed by profession to dealing with
explosives, the aftermath of the explosion brought troubling
cerebral reactions as well. When the smoke cleared to reveal the
now-familiar gaping cavity, they were faced with severe cognitive
dissonance: The reported "facts" did not match observable reality.
For Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, Ret.), the "facts"
contradicted not only the laws of physics but a lifetime of
experience as well.

As one of the world's foremost experts in both the theoretical and
practical applications of explosives technology, General Partin
possesses virtually unparalleled qualifications to authoritatively
evaluate the public-source information available on the bombing.
When we contacted General Partin shortly after the explosion, he
expressed very strong misgivings about the official story -- that
the horrendous damage to the federal building had been caused
solely by the reported truck bomb. Too many facts, he said, "simply
just don't add up" to support that convenient explanation. However,
unlike other "experts" who were offering instant analyses and
publicly speculating about various bombing scenarios, he had a
great deal of investigating to do before presenting a definite
opinion. After three weeks of intensive examination of the
evidence, he was ready. However, a major problem loomed:
Authorities were planning to demolish the still-standing remains of
the building.

In a letter to Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, which he personally
delivered to the senator's Washington office on May 18th, General
Partin appealed for action to delay destruction of the Murrah
building until a full, independent forensic examination of the site
could be conducted. In that letter, which was also personally
delivered to the offices of 23 other senators and some 30 members
of the House, the general wrote:

"I am concerned that vital evidence will soon be destroyed with the
pending demolition of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. From
all the evidence I have seen in the published material, I can say
with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the
reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been
attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing
demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases. The
total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact
that either some of the columns collapsed that should not have
collapsed or some of the columns are still standing that should
have collapsed and did not."

General Partin offered what he called an "oversimplified analogy"
to illustrate his point. The pattern of damage to the reinforced
concrete columns was so totally at odds with the laws of physics
and explosives experience, he said, that it "would be as irrational
or as impossible" as a situation in which a 150 pound man sits in
a flimsy chair causing the chair to collapse, while a man weighing
1,500 pounds sits in an identical flimsy chair and it does not
collapse.

"To produce the resulting damage pattern on the building," wrote
Partin, "there would have to have been an effort with demolition
charges at column bases to complement or supplement the truck bomb
damage. A careful examination of the collapsed column bases would
readily reveal a failure mode produced by a demolition charge. This
evidence would be so critical, [that] a separate and independent
assessment should be made before a building demolition team
destroys the evidence forever."

Sterling Credentials

Another "wacko conspiracy theory"? Absolutely not. What makes
General Partin's position so noteworthy and compelling is his
methodical, scientific analysis combined with his sterling career
and credentials. Twenty-five of his 31 years of active service in
the Air Force were involved in intensive research, design, testing,
and management of weapons development at all levels. This included
extensive hands-on work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories and
field testing of all types of explosive devices on a broad spectrum
of structures and targets. He served as commander of the Air Force
Armament Technology Laboratory and was the first chairman of the
joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This committee was
responsible for the harmonization of air munitions requirements and
development for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

General Partin is recognized as a long-time guiding force behind
our modern precision-guided weapons and related target acquisition,
target designation, and guidance systems. He initiated, fought for,
and helped get into service many weapons now in our nation's
munitions inventory. As the Air Force System Command's Special
Assistant for Advanced Weapons, he started the earliest focused
energy weapons program in 1957, wrote the first contract for a
coherent optical frequency generator (i.e. laser) in 1958, and
pushed for development of a functional "Star Wars" missile system
decades before it became  the hotly debated issue in the 1980s. 
General Partin was a Command Pilot and Command Missileman, a
Distinguished Graduate of the Air War College, a recipient of the
Distinguished Service Medal and thrice a recipient of the Legion of
Merit. He received a B.S. degree in chemical engineering, an M.S.
in aeronautical (armament) engineering, and completed academics for
a Ph.D. in operations research and statistics.

In short, General Ben Partin is not just your average "expert," and
his reasoned analysis deserves a careful examination, instead of
snide dismissal as "just another Elvis sighting" -- a response
typical of the media elites and "sophisticated" political savants.

Single-Bomb Problem

"When I first saw the pictures of the truck bomb's asymmetrical
damage to the Federal Building in Oklahoma City," Partin wrote in
his letter, "my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage
would have been technically impossible without supplementing
demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete column bases
(a standard demolition technique)."

Partin then explained some of the basic physics problems associated
with the single-truck-bomb scenario: "First, blast through air is
a very inefficient energy coupling mechanism against heavy
reinforced concrete beams and columns. Second, blast damage
potential initially falls off more rapidly than an inverse function
of the distance cubed. That is why in conventional weapons
development, one seeks accuracy over yield for hard targets.
Columns in large buildings are hard targets for blast."

This principle was very well illustrated, he noted, in the bombing
of the World Trade Center. In that case, General Partin told The
New American, a similar truck bomb blew a large cavity through
several floors above and below the bomb but caused very limited
lateral damage. "The floor areas directly above and below the bomb
were accelerated by the blast force and completely stripped away,
but you can see in the published photos [as, for instance, in Time
magazine of March 8, 1993] that the column is still standing there
in the middle of the cavity."

"The entire building in Oklahoma City could have been collapsed
with relatively small demolition charges against the base of the
columns and with even less explosives if linear cavity cutting
charges had been used," General Partin wrote in his letter to
Senator Nickles. "I know of no way possible to reproduce the
apparent building damage without well-placed demolition charges
complementing the truck bomb damage." As the final demolition of
the Murrah building on May 23rd demonstrated, a very small amount
of explosives is required to bring down a building -- if the
demolition charges are strategically placed within, or in direct
contact with, the key structural points of the building.

Detailed Account

Partin provides a careful look at the Murrah building's structure
in the following description and accompanying diagram:

"From published photographs, the basic building structure is three
rows of eleven columns each. The four corner columns have external
clamshell like structure for air ducts, etc., as revealed in
magazine photographs of the damage. If we label the column rows A,
B, & C, from front to back, and number the columns 1 through 11
from left to right, then published pictures show columns A2, A3,
A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and B3 collapsed, essentially vertically. The
5-1-95 U.S. News and World Report and other damage photos show a
very large re-inforced concrete header at the second floor level of
column row A. Much larger columns extend from the header down for
the odd numbered columns i.e. A3, A5, A7, A9. The even numbered
columns extended down to the header with apparently reinforced
concrete joints. The heavy, odd-numbered columns were all
accessible from the sidewalk, but collapsed Column B3 is well
inside the building. If the truck bomb was not nearest to column A3
then a single truck bomb theory would be even more questionable.

"A rough sketch of the Federal Building and its columns shown [on
page 16] has superimposed circles of roughly equal levels of damage
potential which drop rapidly (exponentially) as they get further
and further away from the truck bomb.* If we consider the damage
potential at column A3, the closest column to the truck on the
sketch, to be damage potential level one at distance one, then
moving out further multiples of that distance, the destructive
potential drops off as an exponential function of one over the
number of multiples. Therefore at circle '1' you have a decisively
destructive force that brought down column A3. At circle '2' the
destructive potential is marginal for row A; column A5 came down
but the heavier column A1 did not. Inside circle '3' level, column
B3 came down; but columns B2 and B4 did not come down. Therefore
circle 3 is marginal for the columns in row B which are much
smaller than the odd numbered columns in row A. Moreover, the
higher numbered columns in row A are seeing more of a lower side-on
pressure than column row B.

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

*NOTE: Assuming the damage potential falls off as an inverse
function of the distance cubed, then the damage potential at circle
two would be one-eighth that at circle one, the damage potential at
circle three would be one-twenty-seventh that at circle one, etc. -
- Editor.

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

"For any odd-numbered column failure in row A, the adjacent even
numbered columns would also necessarily fail. The still standing,
extended, cantilevered header, from A11 to almost back where A8
was, is probably due to the seesaw effect, over A7 as an instant
pivot point, as the A row collapsed sequentially to the right by
either the truck bomb or supplemental demolition charges. If the
header at column A8 had survived explosives, cascading floors could
have caused it to fail. However, one would not expect such a long
remaining cantilever."

Beyond Credulity

From what has been stated thus far, and considering only the
potential damage from the truck bomb, Partin notes, there are a
number of irreconcilable problems:

*  If column A7 was brought down by the truck bomb, then most of
the much smaller columns B1, B2, B4, B5, and B6 should not be
standing, but they are.

*  A truck bomb that could not bring down columns B1, B2, B4, and
B5 could certainly not be expected to collapse the lower two floors
of a much heavier column A7. Columns A7 and A8 should still be
standing, but they are not.

*  For a truck bomb of the size and composition reported, to be
able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced
column base the size of column A7 is beyond credulity. Even
bringing down B3 at its range is highly suspect. Glass and plaster
can be broken a long way off with explosives, but not heavy,
reinforced, concrete columns.

However, he observes, if demolition charges were used to complement
the truck bomb, the above problems disappear. But is such an
explanation practicable? Yes, he answers, for the following
reasons:

*  Columns A3, A5, A7, and A9 were readily accessible from the
sidewalk or the curb.

*  Adequate demolition charges could easily and quickly have been
put into position.

*  A simple primacord interconnect (fuse) would not look too
different from a piece of coaxial cord.

*  If the bomb attack was intended to do more than deface the
building, then inside help or loose security may have permitted
placement of a charge at column B3.

Corroborating Opinions

Seven other explosives experts we interviewed endorsed General
Partin's analysis as the most coherent and logical explanation of
an otherwise unexplainable dilemma. These included professional
civilian demolitionists, scientists, and bomb specialists who
currently serve, or previously served, in military and police
units.

Sam Gronning, a licensed, professional blaster in Casper, Wyoming
with 30 years experience in explosives, told us the Partin letter
"states in very precise technical terms what everyone in this
business knows: No truck bomb of ANFO [ammonium nitrate fuel oil]
out in the open is going to cause the kind of damage we had there"
in Oklahoma City. "In 30 years of blasting, using everything from
100 percent nitrogel to ANFO, I've not seen anything to support
that story."

Gronning notes that he recently detonated an ANFO charge more than
three times the size of the one reportedly responsible for the
Oklahoma destruction. "I set off 16,000 pounds of ANFO and was
standing upright just 1,000 feet away from the blast," and even a
bomb that size would not have caused the extent of, or pattern of,
destruction experienced in the April 19th explosion, he said.

Dr. Rodger Raubach, who took his Ph.D. in physical chemistry and
served on the research faculty at Stanford University, says,
"General Partin's assessment is absolutely correct. I don't care if
they pulled up a semi-trailer truck with 20 tons of ammonium
nitrate; it wouldn't do the damage we saw there."

Raubach, who is the technical director of a chemical company,
explained to The New American that "the detonation velocity of the
shock wave from an ANFO explosion is on the order of 3,500 meters
per second. In comparison, military explosives generally have
detonation velocities that hit 7,000 to 8,000-plus meters per
second. Things like TNT have a detonation velocity of about 7,100
meters per second. The most energetic single-component explosive of
this type, C-4 -- which is also known as Cyclonite or RDX -- is
about 8,000 meters per second and above. You don't start doing big-
time damage to heavy structures until you get into those ranges,
which is why the military uses those explosives."

Dramatic Drop-Off

Several very qualified experts we interviewed, however, took issue
with the general's assessment. Jim Redyke of Dykon Inc., a
demolition outfit in Tulsa, Oklahoma, has imploded hundreds of
buildings and was a consultant at the Oklahoma City bomb site.
Redyke told The New American that "this was consistent with the
kind of damage (one would expect) from this size of bomb. This was
a huge bomb!"

An Army Special Forces officer with explosives experience seconded
this opinion, mentioning that nearly identical damage was done in
the two 1983 Lebanon incidents, in which truck bombs were used to
collapse the U.S. Marine barracks and the U.S. embassy.

Responding to these critiques, General Partin observed that it is
not surprising that even many people with a professional knowledge
of explosives might be unduly impressed with the size and explosive
wallop of the bomb and fail to reckon with the fundamental laws of
physics. "Yes, this was a big bomb with a big blast," agreed
General Partin. "But most people fail to appreciate how inefficient
a blast is in air and how dramatically its destructive potential
drops off just a few feet from the explosion. In the Lebanon
barracks bombing, the truck was driven directly under the building
so that the explosion had maximum effectiveness against a much
lower building with much smaller columns."

Demolitionists, Partin pointed out, rarely deal with the size of
explosive charge used in the Oklahoma City truck bomb. "They use a
couple hundred pounds of explosive that may be distributed among
dozens -- or hundreds -- of small charges detonating microseconds
or milliseconds apart." Those charges placed directly on, or in, a
structure, "propagate a wave of deformation nearly a million pounds
per square inch that pulverizes concrete, which has a yield
strength of only about 50,000 pounds per square inch." But if you
put just a few feet of air between the explosive and the target,
the blast wave quickly drops from millions of pounds per square
inch to thousands of pounds per square inch. It still makes an
impressive boom, but has very little effect on heavy reinforced
concrete.

It was this fact of physics which occupied much of Partin's
attention in weapons development for the U.S. Armed Forces and made
him an untiring crusader for the development and deployment of
precision-guided munitions. General Partin cites accounts of the
many laboratory and field tests he ran using large-yield bombs on
numerous structures and targets. That experience, he says, together
with all the known history of modern warfare shows that bombs can
detonate close to a hard structure without causing severe
destruction.

Advice to Congress

In his letter Partin strongly urged "that the U.S. Congress take
steps to assure that evidence in Oklahoma City be independently
evaluated by a collection of demolition experts from the private
sector before the building is demolished. It is easy to determine
whether a column was failed by contact demolition charges or by
blast loading." The counsel for the defense did obtain a temporary
delay of the demolition in order to have a team of experts examine
the sight, but they have, as yet, revealed none of their findings.
According to news coverage of the inspection by the defense team,
it was a very brief examination and much of the most important
evidence had already been removed or was still covered by rubble.

The most critical evidence that has to be assessed, said Partin,
would be the collapsed column bases, especially those of columns A9
and B3. "If a satchel charge or linear cavity cutting charge or
other explosive were used on the columns," he explained to The New
American, "you would find a very distinctive signature." Is it
likely that the defense team would have been able to make that kind
of visual examination during its inspection? "Unfortunately, it
doesn't look like the investigators had the time or opportunity. It
is doubtful that they had access to the critical points."

Because of the care taken by the demolition team to cover the
remaining debris, and the use of minimal demolition charges,
verification of General Partin's analysis should still be possible
-- if the evidence has not been deliberately destroyed. In
addition, there are still many other related pieces of evidence to
consider. As reported in the June 12th issue of The New American
("Were There Two Explosions"), the seismograms recorded
independently by two seismometers in the Oklahoma City area on the
morning of April 19th provide strong evidence of more than one
blast.

There is also the matter of conflicting accounts concerning the
discovery of other explosive devices at the Murrah building. Those
who were present at the blast site during the early hours of the
rescue, as well as the millions of viewers watching on television,
remember the fear and horror they experienced when police and fire
authorities announced that an additional bomb (or bombs) had been
discovered in the still-smouldering building. Rescuers were forced
to leave trapped victims and run for safety. Official accounts vary
as to what object (or objects) actually were found to cause this
alarm. Some say nothing was found. Others claim that it was a case
of false alarm caused by a "dummy" bomb used as a teaching aid by
the ATF. Still other reports assert that a military bomb squad
removed an unexploded, but live, device (or devices). The New
American is continuing to investigate these and many other still-
unresolved and conflicting "facts" in this "worst terrorist attack
on American soil."

END

==================================================================

393.1158Ya got anything from Stormfront?????PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 14 1995 13:465
    
    It's so nice to see the John Birch Society is alive and well and still
    putting out so much unadulterated [can't say that].
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1159RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 14 1995 14:199
    It's so nice to see Bill Licea-Kane is alive and well and still putting
    out so much unadulterated [can't say that].
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1160SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed Jun 14 1995 15:0813
    .1141
    
    >> To posit that "should" is the proper verb is to push an agenda
    >
    > Correction:  What you assume to be an agenda.  You cannot state with
    > any accuracy what my intentions are, beyond what I have explicitly
    > spelled out.
    
    You have spelled out that you think fertilizers SHOULD be adulterated
    so that they cannot be made into bombs.  The words "should be" tell
    the reader that you consider this adulteration a desirable thing, i.e.,
    a thing to be done.  The definition of "agenda" is "things to be done."
    Hence, you are exposing an agenda.
393.1161SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Jun 14 1995 15:125
    
    re: .1158
    
    Ya got anything from Mother Jones????????
    
393.1162OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Wed Jun 14 1995 17:096
    Re: .1160
    
    >Hence, you are exposing an agenda.
    
    I thought that was "pushing an agenda."  And you needn't make it sound
    so sinister, like I'm a junior member of the Trilateral Commission.
393.1163SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed Jun 14 1995 17:136
    I didn't say "pushing an agenda" because I didn't really think you
    were.  But you were making it plain that there exists such an agenda,
    so I used "exposing."
    
    Shall we quibble further over semantics?  Or shall we try to discuss
    something substantive?
393.1164From the Congressional Record....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 14 1995 17:17252
AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER (House - May 22, 1995) 

[Page: H5371]

    The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
    12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is recognized for
    60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

    Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I take this special order this afternoon to
    report to you and to the American public on a hearing that was just
    completed by the Commerce Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, a
    hearing designed to explore the possibility that may have existed as
    long as 25 years or more ago to render ammonium nitrate fertilizer
    insensitive to its use as a bomb material in America.

    I hold in my hand a patent that was issued by the U.S. Patent Office on
    January 20, 1968, a patent developed by Mr. Sam Porter in Arlington,
    VA, here, that literally details how a simple addition of diammonium
    phosphate to ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the manufacturing process
    could, in fact, desensitive the product so that it cannot be turned
    into a bomb, much like the bomb which may have been used to detonate
    the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

    My interest in this subject matter goes back a long time. It was in
    1970 that a Mr. Bob Colbert of Kansas was in Louisiana, building, in
    fact, or helping in the construction of an ANFO plant. An ANFO plant is
    a plant that takes industrial grade ammonium nitrate and converts it
    into blasting material.

    He was in the State on behalf of his company, and my father and uncle
    were doing electrical work for him in the construction of that
    facility. I came to know him. As a young practicing attorney in the
    State then many years ago, he requested and I performed for him an
    incorporation of a company known as DEFGAN for desensitizing fertilizer
    grade ammonium nitrate.

    The company was incorporated, in fact, to own and to market the Sam
    Porter process that was patented in the patent I just described to you.

    As a result of that incorporation, Mr. Colbert and Mr. Porter and their
    colleagues tried in Louisiana and Wisconsin and other places to
    interest the fertilizer industry in using that process. They did so
    because they were concerned, as we should all be concerned, with the
    ease in which ammonium nitrate fertilizer in large quantities available
    very cheaply on the marketplace can and has been converted into bomb
    material used in terrorist acts and the ease in which in fact under
    some improper storage conditions ammonium nitrate can cause a great
    accident and damage to people and property.

    In 1947, for example, a shipload of ammonium nitrate fertilizer being
    loaded aboard a ship in Texas City exploded accidentally, killing over
    500 people and I believe injuring as many as 3,000 people as it almost
    devastated the entire community.

    Similar accidents in Europe, leading to the deaths of not hundreds but
    thousands of people, have led many European countries to require that
    ammonium nitrate fertilizer be desensitized with certain additives
    before it is put on the marketplace.

    The Sam Porter process is simple, the simple addition of about 5- to
    10-percent diammonium phosphate, which is another fertilizer, the
    simple addition of that fertilizer to ammonium nitrate fertilizer in
    the manufacturing process. When the stuff is trilled down in granular
    form, it creates a single fertilizer process and product with the
    integrated crystaline structure that is not easily separated, we are
    told, may not be easily separated, we are led to believe, and may, in
    fact, produce a process for making sure that ammonium nitrate
    fertilizer, sold commonly in feed stores and garden stores across
    America, cannot be turned by a terrorist into bomb or blasting
    material.

    Now, how much of this ammonium nitrate fertilizer is on the marketplace
    today? We are told that in

    1993, 2.2 million tons, that is 4.4 billion pounds, of ammonium nitrate
    fertilizer grade product was sold commonly in America, across the
    counter in fertilizer, farm, and garden stores. The bomb material used
    in Oklahoma City lightly comprised about 5,000 pounds out of this 4.4
    billion pounds that is sold and marketed in our country.
    
    That does not include another several million tons of industrial grade
    ammonium nitrate that is produced and is unregulated by any Federal
    agency until it is converted into ANFO for blasting material purposes.

    What a huge volume of ammonium nitrate is manufactured and sold in
    America, unregulated, not desensitized as it is in other foreign
    countries and available for terrorists or anyone to turn into a bomb. I
    do not have to remind Americans that today the Internet is filled with
    kitchen formulas for turning that material into bombs, that in Ohio
    today on the AP wire two children were, in fact, suspended for 3 days
    for carrying to school formulas for changing this ammonium nitrate
    fertilizer into a bomb. The material is widely distributed today,
    widely understood and known today. The material is easily available and
    easily converted into a bomb.

    So we had this hearing today. We had Mr. Sam Porter there. We had Mr.
    Colbert there. They told the story how in the late 1960's they tried to
    encourage one chemical company after another to get interested in this
    process only to be turned down at every turn. They told a story how in
    1970, I was able to get a bill introduced in the State legislature by a
    Senator friend of mine who is now deceased, Senator Harvey Belchate,
    Jr. How that bill was easily defeated in the State senate in Louisiana.
    How a similar bill introduced in Wisconsin had a hearing but was also
    easily defeated by the chemical lobby who had decided to spend whatever
    it took to make sure that they were never required to use this process.

    Let me tell you what we learned today in the hearing. We learned, one,
    Mr. Porter's patent has to be studied further and that it deserves
    additional study. We learned from the Office of Technology Assessment
    that a study lasting no more than 3 to 4 weeks could determine for us
    whether or not this process was, in fact, as good as it appears to be
    and whether or not, in fact, the process could be easily reversed. Mr.
    Porter tells us he thinks it cannot be easily reversed. We need to
    study it to find out.

    We do know that Mr. Porter conducted enough research to obtain a
    patent. We do know that Atlas Chemical produced several tons of his
    product and did some tests that confirmed Mr. Porter's primary claims
    that his process desensitized ammonium nitrate fertilizer so that it
    could not be made into a bomb.

    We do know that all of the witnesses testifying today, all of them,
    including Mr. Porter, Mr. Colbert, representatives of the ATF, and the
    OTA, as well as the fertilizer institute, which communicated with us
    via letter, have all indicated support for more study on the Porter
    process as required, by the way, in the President's domestic
    anti-terrorism bill, H.R. 1635, which has been filed in this House.

    Statistics indicate to us, we have also found out, that the number of
    fertilizer bombs used in the United States has been relatively small,
    but the numbers are increasing, as many as 27 in the last 6 years, and
    that the Oklahoma City bombing where ammonium nitrate fertilizer was
    probably used was the most extensive use of that material in a bombing.

    We were also told that the size of that bomb could easily be doubled
    and tripled and multiplied with exponential results as easily as that
    bomb was likely produced.

    We do know that it is easy to obtain information on how to make these
    bombs and that in other European countries, particularly Spain and
    Northern Ireland, homemade fertilizer bombs are the preferred option
    for terrorists. According to OTA's testimony, studying Mr. Porter's
    product is important for no other reason than it may hold some promise
    for decreasing the possibility of accidental detonations of large
    stores of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and industrial grade ammonium
    nitrate.

    Large amounts, indeed, are being sold in America as we speak. Large
    amounts are out there in storage in America as we speak. We were told
    that it would take as much as 10 years to get rid of the shelf life of
    all the ammonium nitrate fertilizer that is currently available in
    nondesensitized form.

    There are economic and technical issues about Mr. Porter's product that
    deserve study today. Certainly the cost of manufacturing the product is
    important. We were told today that the cost of ammonium nitrate
    fertilizer is about $180 a ton; the cost of diammonium phosphate is in
    the range, we think, of about $250 a ton. The addition of 5- to
    10-percent diammonium phosphate to the ammonium nitrate fertilizer
    would not likely increase the cost of the product desensitized by more
    than about 2 or 3 percent.

    Is that extra cost worth the margin of safety? Is that extra cost worth
    having a product that cannot easily be turned into a terrorist bomb? I
    suggest to you we ought to know those answers.

    We need to know if there are any agricultural or agronomic reasons why
    Mr. Porter's product would not work. He has told us and others have
    confirmed to us that the addition of diammonium phosphate to the
    ammonium nitrate fertilizer may product a better product, not, indeed,
    a product in any way less important as the fertilizer to America's
    farmers.

    Finally, there are other technical issues that deserve serious
    analysis, such as whether the process can be reversed chemically and if
    so, how easily it could be reversed and whether the effectiveness of
    the Porter process can be circumvented by simply coming up with one of
    these reversal processes.

    We know there is no silver bullet for preventing terrorist attacks in
    America, but we also know that there is something fundamentally wrong
    about closing off Pennsylvania Avenue, about going into a bunker
    mentality here in America. How many more streets will we have to close
    up? How many more public buildings will we turn into virtual bunkers
    because of this product out there that is so easily converted into a
    major bomb?

    How far do we go out of fear into this bunker mentality? How will
    Americans, in fact, resist this temptation to be held hostage to that
    kind of fear? We suggest that America will not be hostage to that fear,
    that solutions such as the Porter process may, in fact, be available,
    may have been available for 27 years and certainly cannot be ignored
    today.

    Even if Mr. Porter's process is completely effective, as he intended,
    we know that ammonium nitrate can be chemically produced relatively
    easily instead of purchased. There are many other ways to make an
    explosive, other than using fertilizer in our country. In fact,
    according to ATF statistics, most criminal explosives in the United
    States involve something other than fertilizer and there would need to
    be effective compliance by fertilizer manufacturers worldwide if we are
    going to get control of this problem.

    So I do not want to leave the impression that

    ammonium nitrate fertilizer is in and of itself a present and clear
    danger to the public. It can safely be used and stored; in fact, it is.
    The bottom line is that experts have concluded that it should be
    relatively easy to look at the technical and economic issues regarding
    Mr. Porter's patent developed and issued in 1968 and that it is highly
    desirable for us to conduct those studies not in the near future but in
    the very near future.

    [TIME: 1615]

    In light of the commonly available information on fertilizer, its low
    cost, the commonly available information on how this common fertilizer
    can be converted into this huge bomb material, as well as the tragic
    incidents we have seen, when, in fact, someone has become so insane as
    to do what we saw in Oklahoma City, it would be irresponsible for us to
    fail to follow up on the work Mr. Porter conducted 30 years ago.

    Thirty years ago, 28 years ago, 25 years ago, this Nation and the
    fertilizer industry were asked to take this issue seriously. Today, can
    we fail, after having seen what happened in Oklahoma City, after having
    seen how easy it is for that to happen again anywhere in America, if
    someone is insane enough to conduct that kind of terrorist attack upon
    public or private buildings, can we not take it seriously today? Do not
    Mr. Porter and Mr. Colbert deserve our attention to that issue today?


    Mr. Porter appeared today after his patent has long expired, after he
    has no financial interest whatsoever in this process, he appeared today
    to urge us to take it seriously.

    Mr. Colbert came from Kansas City on his own nickel to fly to
    Washington, DC, without a financial interest left in this issue, to
    come and tell us to take it seriously. Can we not heed their advice?
    Can we not heed, I am sure, the message of Oklahoma City and take
    seriously what may be one of the answers, not all of the answers, to
    making this country a little more safe, to ending some of this fear
    which causes us to close down avenues like Pennsylvania, and to shut
    ourselves up into some kind of bunker mentality?

    Mr. Speaker, I urge those within near reach of this special order to
    encourage this Congress, to encourage all who have something to say
    about what may be done in the next several weeks or months, to study
    this issue to make sure that it is not ignored in 1995 the way it was
    ignored in the late 1960's, the way it was ignored in 1970 and later on
    in Wisconsin when lawmakers had a chance then to visit this issue
    seriously and do something about the problem.

393.1165SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed Jun 14 1995 17:2615
    .1164
    
    Ya gotta love the way a congresscritter can lie while telling the
    truth:
    
    > doubled
    > and tripled and multiplied with exponential results as easily as that
    > bomb was likely produced.
    
    The exponential results in question are the *inverse* of the cube
    (remember the cube-square law?).  Which means that twice as much
    explosive will have the same damaging effect over a volume of space
    only 1.2599 times the diameter affected by the original bomb.  To
    damage a volume twice the diameter of the original, you'd need *EIGHT
    TIMES* the explosive.
393.1166OOTOOL::CHELSEAMostly harmless.Wed Jun 14 1995 17:3013
    Re: .1163
    
    >I didn't say "pushing an agenda"
    
    From your .1138:
    
    |is to push an agenda
    
    You shouldn't set yourself up like that; it's irresistible.
    
    >Shall we quibble further over semantics?
    
    If you want.
393.1167WAHOO::LEVESQUEMr BlisterWed Jun 14 1995 17:323
    >Shall we quibble further over semantics?
    
     You might as well axe Leech if he wants to snarf.
393.1168NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 14 1995 17:333
re .1165:

Dick, you've never heard of hyperbole?  You musta missed math class that day.
393.1169That's a lot of phosphate!STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityWed Jun 14 1995 17:3516
  <<< Note 393.1164 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
                     -< From the Congressional Record.... >-

>   The Sam Porter process is simple, the simple addition of about 5- to
>   10-percent diammonium phosphate, which is another fertilizer, the
>   simple addition of that fertilizer to ammonium nitrate fertilizer in
>   the manufacturing process.

Oh, boy.  5% to 10% -- not $0.05.

The chemistry sounds interesting, but the EPA may not like it at all.
For years the Federal government has told us that we have to reduce the 
amount of phosphates in the water supply (e.g. those in laundry soap) 
because they destroy eco-systems by causing rapid growth of algae and some 
bacteria.  Now we are going to put them into fertilizer?

393.1170NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 14 1995 17:371
Most fertilizers already contain phosphates, bright-eyes.
393.1171WAHOO::LEVESQUEMr BlisterWed Jun 14 1995 17:431
     The answer is simple: ban fertilizer.
393.1172STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityWed Jun 14 1995 17:4410
  <<< Note 393.1170 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

> Most fertilizers already contain phosphates, bright-eyes.

Very true, especially the stuff you put on your front lawn.

However, the use of phosphates on an industrial scale is a different
matter.  Since farmers appear to use ammonium nitrate by itself, it may
be that introducing phosphates -- particularly in amounts like this -- 
may not be a good idea.
393.1173SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Jun 14 1995 17:4520
  <<< Note 393.1164 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

   	Well with this data, assuming that it is accurate, we can see
	that the cost is $12.50 to $25.00 per ton of AN, not $0.05.
	Note that this is NOT 2-3%, the Congressman needs help with 
	his math. 5% of a more expensive additive does not increase the
	cost by 3% no matter how much you manipulate the numbers.

	The total cost to the industry, per year, would be about $25 to
	$50 Million.
	
	Not an insurmountable sum, but a direct cost increase to food prices
	nonetheless.

	I would also question the "10 years worth" on the shelf. If this is
	true, whose is buying the 2.2 Million Tons that are being produced
	every year?
	

Jim
393.1174BSS::DSMITHA Harley, &amp; the Dead the good lifeWed Jun 14 1995 17:476
    
    re:1170
    
     So! Does this mean we should add even more?
    
    
393.1175GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberWed Jun 14 1995 17:548
    
    
    No, Geral, not true.  Most fert does not contain phosphorous.  Just cuz
    the stuff we put on our front lawns contains it, most of the fert used
    is straight urea. 
    
    
    
393.1176STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityWed Jun 14 1995 17:5415
              <<< Note 393.1171 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Mr Blister" >>>

>    The answer is simple: ban fertilizer.

Or at least assault fertilizer -- the "weapon of choice" for terrorists.

I'm still curious to see if you can get the adulterated ammonium nitrate
to explode if you use enough TNT.  My guess is that you can.  As I recall,
the accident in Germany involved an old stockpile of ammonium nitrate.
It had clumped together into a solid mass.  Someone had the bright idea of 
using a bit of dynamite to break it up.

(Maybe in the future they'll be a market for the "pure" ammonium nitrate.  
Buy a couple of hundred tons, store it [!?], and wait for the price to go up.
I'll have to rent a truck, though.)
393.1177STAR::OKELLEYKevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE SecurityWed Jun 14 1995 18:001
    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how ammonium nitrate is made?
393.1178DEVLPR::DKILLORANM1A - The choice of champions !Wed Jun 14 1995 18:0211
    re: .1173
    
    Jim, Don't forgot to add these costs:
    
    1) Developing a new manufacturing procedure.
    2) Environmental impact studdies.
    3) Increased cost of the additive. 
          (you know increased demand, increased cost, etc.)
    4) Additional transportation costs.
    
    Dan
393.1179NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 14 1995 18:096
>    No, Geral, not true.  Most fert does not contain phosphorous.  Just cuz
>    the stuff we put on our front lawns contains it, most of the fert used
>    is straight urea. 

The feed store guy said he thought it was strange that McVeigh wanted straight
nitrogen.
393.1180GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberWed Jun 14 1995 18:128
    
    
    Could depend upon time of year that the fert was bought.  For certain
    times of year, you want certain product to produce certain results.  A
    plant can only use so much of a nutrient and the rest is wasted.  
    
    
    Mike  
393.1181OUTSRC::HEISERMaranatha!Wed Jun 14 1995 18:313
    >Dick, you've never heard of hyperbole?  You musta missed math class that day.
    
    not to be confused with a hyperbola.
393.1182SUBSYS::NEUMYERLove is a dirty jobWed Jun 14 1995 19:0314
    
    re .1173
    
    Its just a little over 3%.
    
    	Assuming 10% additive
    
    	25.00 added to the base cost of 180 = 205.00
    	You now have 1.1 ton of material = 205.00
        1.1 ton of original material = 198.00
    
    	an increase of 7.00/198.00 = 3.5%
    
    ed
393.1183SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Jun 14 1995 19:128
         <<< Note 393.1182 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Love is a dirty job" >>>

>    	an increase of 7.00/198.00 = 3.5%
 
	It's actually $6.35 on $180, but the percentage comes out the
	same. My apologies to the Congressman.

Jim
393.1184SMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotWed Jun 14 1995 19:1726
    .1182
    
    That'd be great, if 1 ton of the adulterated stuff had the same
    fertilizing effect as 1 ton of the plain nitrate.  It doesn't.  To get
    the same amount of nitrate for the plants being fertilized, the farmer
    must spread 1.1 ton, meaning that his cost has increased by 8.78% for
    ZERO gain in productivity.  The farmer loses.  And, being unwilling to
    lose out, the farmer raises his prices to cover the cost.  Which means
    that the distributor raises his prices enough to cover the farmer's
    price rise and perhaps a little more.  Which means that the grocer
    raises his prices enough to cover the distributor's price rise and
    perhaps a little more.  Which means that you pay the whole amount out
    of your pocket.
    
    Well, that's not entirely accurate.  You see, the farmer is now faced
    with the problem of figuring out how to get the phosphate to go away
    without polluting the streams and irrigation ditches on his farm or
    passing to a river where they'll go god knows where, because we don't
    want said watercourses choked with algae.  Extracting the phosphates
    from runoff water is, for all practical purposes, impossible.  So the
    farmer loses a lot more.  And you get to pay for that, too, out of the
    goodness of your little black heart.  When the dust settles, you cam
    probably figure an average of, say, 15% added to your weekly food bill.
    
    So, in the end, EVERYBODY loses.  Except those who make political hay
    out of their concern for coddling us all from cradle to grave.
393.1185GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberWed Jun 14 1995 19:214
    
    Actually the story could have different endings, Dick.  The farmer
    could price himself out of the markrt and go belly up, or the EPA could
    shut him down because of the phosphates.
393.1186NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 14 1995 19:336
Binder, plants use phosphates.  Note also that it's diammonium phosphate that's 
being added, so some of that is nitrogen.  Therefore the farmer doesn't need
to use 1.1 ton instead of 1 ton of straight ammonium nitrate.

I'd be interested to see how commonly straight ammonium nitrate is used as
fertilizer.  From my casual reading of news articles, the answer is "not very."
393.1187SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Jun 14 1995 19:438
    
    re: .1185
    
    Or the government can just pay the farmer to NOT grow anything, thereby
    eliminating that whole nasty scene of phosphates, nitrates and all that
    yucky stuff bureaucrats don't understand much about but want to
    control...
    
393.1188CSOA1::LEECHWed Jun 14 1995 19:503
    re: .1167
    
    Why yes, I do.  Thanks for asking.  8^)
393.1189GIT GUMMINT OF ARE BACKS, BESIEDS, THEIR LIEING!PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 14 1995 20:256
    Gerald -
    
    Please stop confusing these poor people with facts, there's ranting
    to be shouted from the hilltops.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1190SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Jun 14 1995 21:3111

	The one thought that came to mind with all the "analysis" of
	why an ANFO bomb couldn't have brought down the building was that
	I didn't see any reference to the fact that this was a FEDERAL building,
	probably built by the lowest bidder.

	The General's computations are probably based on structures that
	were competently assembled.

Jim
393.1191EVMS::MORONEYGreen Cards and SpamWed Jun 14 1995 22:4029
re .1177:

Well the government can't exactly control the raw materials used to make
it (air & water!) but the process isn't easy.  The Haber process reacts
nitrogen and hydrogen directly with a catalyst under extreme pressure.
Half of the ammonia is oxidized with air with a catalyst to form nitric
acid, which reacts with the other half of the ammonia to form AN.

re fertilizer usage:

Corn for one just loooves loads of nitrogen and doesn't have all that much use
for other elements.  Sometimes you can see this in a farmer's cornfield in
August.  Most of the corn is dark green and 6' high, but the stuff in the
corners of the field which didn't get the nitrogen fertilizer is yellowish and
2' high. 

I don't know what an excess of P will do for corn fields but too much of the
wrong type of fertilizer can be as bad as not enough.  If you give your tomato
plants loads of high N fertilizer you'll get very lush dark green bushy plants
- and not many tomatoes.  Diammonium phosphate is VERY high in P (its
fertilizer numbers should be 21-54-0).  P tends to encourage root growth (bulb
food is high in it).  It also encourages algae so you'll see more water
pollution near cornfields.  N encourages leafy growth. 

Also it should be easy for anyone with a little chemistry to remove the
ammonium phosphate from the adulterated ammonium nitrate, so this adulteration
will not stop a determined terrorist from using it.  I have a pretty good
idea of a possible method using something else sold at the same garden
supply shops.
393.1192Damn the truth, there's conspiracy theories to weave...PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Jun 15 1995 12:4842
|   The General's computations are probably based....
    
    A free clue for Percival.
    
    The "General" is a nut, making SWAGS minus the first S that simply
    aren't supported by the facts.  Using facts made up out of thin air,
    this crap gets forwarded off across networks and *GEEKS* *BUY* *THIS*
    *AS* *TRUTH*.  And of course, the demolition of the building is just
    evidence of a massive conspiracy by the government to hide the true
    facts.
    
    
    The Birchers forward his ravings in their "publication," complete
    with two graphs included for "balance" that two experts said gee, whiz,
    the "General" isn't right at all.  Of course, these experts are "experts"
    while the "General" is "*ONE OF THE WORLD'S FOREMOST EXPERTS". 
    (Uh-huh.)  These two short buried paragraphs are followed of course
    by several paragraphs of rebut by the "General".
    
    
    Speculation by this "General" that the several columns of the building
    were wired for demolition and the truck bomb was just cover, are well,
    simply amazing.  (I am being much too kind.)
    
    Your speculation that this building came down because of faulty
    construction is without merit.  (I am being kind.)
    
    
    THE BUILDING CAME DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS BLOWN UP BY A BIG TRUCK BOMB!
    
    
    (And for the various questionable parts of the noting community,
    no, nobody I am related to was murdered in that building that day.)
    
    ----
    
    Finally, the "personally delivered to the senator's Washington office
    on May 18th..." is such a nice touch.  This nut is so important, that
    even FedEx won't do.  (Probably because FedEx is part of this *FEDERAL*
    conspiracy.)
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1193CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenThu Jun 15 1995 12:511
    Well that blows my UFO theory right away now doesn't it.  :-/
393.1194RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 15 1995 13:0625
    Re .1192:
    
    > The "General" is a nut, making SWAGS minus the first S that simply
    > aren't supported by the facts.  Using facts made up out of thin air,
    > this crap gets forwarded off across networks and *GEEKS* *BUY* *THIS*
    > *AS* *TRUTH*.
    
    Similarly, the "militia expert" that the networks put on is a nut,
    making SWAGS minus the first S that simply aren't supported by the
    facts.  Using facts made up out of thin air, this crap gets broadcast
    and repeated by other media and *SHEEP* *BUY* *THIS* *AS* *TRUTH*.
    
    > And of course, the demolition of the building is just evidence of a
    > massive conspiracy by the government to hide the true facts.
    
    And of course, the Congressional action on anti-terrorism and pending
    hearings on militias is just evidence the government will not infringe
    upon the freedom of citizens in any way whatsoever.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1195SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Jun 15 1995 13:3010
  <<< Note 393.1192 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    A free clue for Percival.
 
	Bill, send me your address. I would like to send you a dollar
	so that you may purchase a sense of humour.

	It was a joke, son!

Jim
393.1196SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Thu Jun 15 1995 16:2117
    
    	Bill has no sense of humor.
    
    	Ya know, most folks would take the time to point out
    inconsistencies in someones story WITHOUT whipping ridicule and insults
    at the people. Most folks enjoy passing along information to others
    without pulling a high and mighty stance. Most folks have a little
    common courtesy when engaging in discourse with others.
    
    	But not our Mr. Bill....hooo no. He knows EVERYTHING and makes sure
    that EVERYONE understands they are beneath him. Praise allah for Mr.
    Bill being here to set us all straight. He is the truth, the light, the
    way.....
    
    {barf}
    
    jim
393.1197DECWET::LOWEBruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910Thu Jun 15 1995 16:262
Why do you call him Mr. Bill?
Why does he call himself Mr. Bill?
393.1198SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Thu Jun 15 1995 16:387
    
    
    	I call him Mr. Bill because every time I see him I go "Ooohhhh
    nooo....." :*)
    
    
    jim
393.1199PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Jun 15 1995 16:424
 .1197	a word to the wise - don't ask any questions about 
	hyphenated names or mr. bill will practically have an
	aneurysm.  trust me.

393.1200CSOA1::LEECHThu Jun 15 1995 16:431
    SNARF!
393.1201NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Jun 15 1995 16:442
You mean like "What happens when Fiona Rabbit-Vacuum marries Bartholemew
Throatwarbler-Mangrove and they have children?"
393.1202DEVLPR::DKILLORANM1A - The choice of champions !Thu Jun 15 1995 16:476
    > ... or mr. bill will practically have an aneurysm.
    
    I never seen somebody do THAT before.... this should be good !
    
    :-)
    Dan
393.1203PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Jun 15 1995 16:472
.1201  yes, very much like that. ;>

393.1204Obligatory aneurysm.PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Jun 15 1995 17:0528
|You mean like "What happens when Fiona Rabbit-Vacuum marries Bartholemew
|Throatwarbler-Mangrove and they have children?"
    
    You should probably ask Fiona Rabbit-Vacuum and Bartholemew
    Throatwarbler-Mangrove.
    
    What happened when William Worden Kane, Jr. married Erica Licea is
    that we became William Worden Licea-Kane and Erica Licea-Kane.  When
    we had a child, we named him Marsden Licea-Kane.  You can extrapolate
    from there.
    
    If you want to know what happens if Marsden ever gets married, you
    might have to wait a few years to get a good answer.
    
    
    But if you are interested in hearing him "read" "Where The Wild Things
    Are, by Maurice Sendak" or play the "Green Eggs and Ham Game" or
    listen while he categorizes every truck in existence ("That's an
    articulated front-end loader"), I think he might enjoy that.
    
    ----
    
    (And for you young-uns in 'boxland, my first basenote in the first
    soapbox was "De-hypenated!", because one day my check came to
    "LICEA KANE" because somebody filtered the personell master file
    and removed all hyphens and apostrophies.)
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1205NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Jun 15 1995 17:086
>    (And for you young-uns in 'boxland, my first basenote in the first
>    soapbox was "De-hypenated!", because one day my check came to
>    "LICEA KANE" because somebody filtered the personell master file
>    and removed all hyphens and apostrophies.)

I hope your spelling was better then.
393.1206liesPENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Jun 15 1995 17:094
 .1204  So that old saying "Once a Junior, always a Junior." just
	ain't true.  Interesting.

393.1207Something I have in commen with Newtons....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Jun 15 1995 17:104
    
    No, it wsa worse.
    
    								-m.r bill
393.1208Mr_Act ?GAAS::BRAUCHERThu Jun 15 1995 17:126
    
      Ectually - the hypen does make him sound like a personnified bill,
     you know, like Gramm-Rudman.  Following the usual convention, it
     would mean Licea is from the majority faction.
    
      bb
393.1209NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Jun 15 1995 17:131
There _are_ more women than men.
393.1210SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Thu Jun 15 1995 17:13113
Those interested in contacting Sen. Duke directly may do so at: 

cduke@csn.org

************************************************************************
*** Check out our ftp site at rmii.com:/ftp/pub2/constitution **********
************************************************************************


                                               June 12, 1995
                                                 SENATOR DUKE
                                                 (719) 481-9289
           
                            By Senator Charles R. Duke
                                    District 9

                           INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW

              The Oklahoma City bombing incident continues to generate 
         more questions than answers.  As of this writing, more than 
         seven weeks have elapsed since both the incident and the arrest 
         of Timothy McVeigh.  Still, no indictment has been entered 
         against anyone by the grand jury, whose hearings are secret, 
         investigating the case.  We may say with some certainty that if 
         the case so far warranted an indictment, one would already have 
         been issued.  The fact that it has not, suggests the case 
         against McVeigh is not nearly as strong as the government would 
         have us believe. 
              There are many issues pointing away from McVeigh and still 
         more directly challenge the position that the incident was a 
         single truck bomb filled with ammonium nitrate fertilizer.  This 
         writer has been watching for media coverage anywhere in the 
         country for the airing of some of these issues.  No such 
         coverage has been put forth by mainstream media, despite very 
         credible experts offering to us the benefit of their knowledge.  
         The silence is nearly deafening. 
              One such expert is Ted Gunderson, a now retired 28 year 
         veteran of the FBI.  In his former capacity, Mr. Gunderson 
         served the FBI from 1950 to 1979, serving mostly as chief 
         inspector and special agent.  His locations covered Memphis, 
         Dallas and Los Angeles, where he headed up those three offices.  
         Today, Mr. Gunderson runs Ted L. Gunderson and Associates, an 
         international security consulting and investigation firm. 
              Mr. Gunderson states, "Now, the reason that I do not 
         believe, nor do my two technicians believe ... that this was a 
         fertilizer bomb is because there is not enough 'breisance' in an 
         explosion of fertilizer to cause the shock wave that destroyed 
         the building."  He goes on to agree that, "That type of blasting 
         device is a low-yield, low-frequency (device), not capable of 
         doing the type of damage that was witnessed upon that federal 
         building."  In testimony which was to have been presented to a 
         special hearing in Congress, Mr. Gunderson goes further to 
         suggest a type of military device that would be capable of 
         producing such damage. 
              His opinion, based on his considerable experience, is 
         nonetheless still only his opinion.  His position that it could 
         not possibly be a fertilizer bomb is, however, corroborated by 
         other completely independent sources. 
              Enter now retired Brigadier General Barton K. Partin.  
         General Partin spent 31 years on active duty with the United 
         States Air Force.  His credentials are extensive and impressive.  
         In a letter dated May 17, 1995, to Oklahoma U. S. Senator Don 
         Nickles, General Partin stated, "From all the evidence I have 
         seen in published material, I can say, with a high level of 
         confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete 
         superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the 
         single truck bomb without supplementing detonation charges at 
         some of the reinforced column bases." 
              General Partin goes on to present an extensive analysis of 
         the blast based on photographs and videos made shortly after the 
         incident.  He points out that the damage potential from a source 
         such as a truck bomb "falls off more rapidly than an inverse 
         function of the distance (from the center of the blast) cubed."  
         He points out that building columns near the crater are still 
         standing while columns relatively far away were blown down.  He 
         states, "I know of no way possible to reproduce the apparent 
         building damage without well placed demolition charges 
         complementing the truck bomb damage." 
              Now a third expert has offered his observations to further 
         corroborate the earlier positions.  Gary McClenny served in the 
         regular army as a Combat Engineer, Explosives and Demolition 
         Specialist from 1972-1979.  His training in explosives is 
         extensive, including "both conventional and atomic explosion 
         devices, to include, but not limited to, AMMONIUM NITRATE/FUEL 
         OIL breathing charges, TNT, dynamite, Det-cord and plastics."
              In a letter to Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, dated May 
         16, 1995, McClenny presents a mathematical analysis to show why 
         the claim of a fertilizer bomb is not valid.  His analysis, 
         using standard military formulas, leads him to say, "To breach 
         concrete (the columns) at 80 feet would require 3 1/4 million 
         pounds of TNT!!!"  Thus, using TNT, a much more powerful 
         explosive than fertilizer, the math yields no way the truck bomb 
         could be the total source.  He goes on to show that, to produce 
         a crater of the size that did happen, more than 38,000,000 
         pounds of ammonium nitrate would be necessary.  These 
         mathematical absurdities suggest the original thesis, that a 
         single truck filled with fertilizer was the weapon, is 
         incorrect.  McClenny's letter was an attempt to ask Director 
         Freeh for a delay in the destruction of the building for a short 
         while to permit a technically sound investigation.  Of course, 
         we all know his request was denied as the building was very 
         quickly destroyed, under court order, before data could be 
         gathered. 
              This column has aired these views on the basis that the 
         three sources are totally independent of each other and reach 
         essentially the same conclusion.  The contents of each letter 
         have been verified by this writer with the experts themselves.  
         We are all still waiting the acknowledgement of their 
         contribution by the government.  
                                        End



393.1211Seems you can even become O(+> if you want to....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Jun 15 1995 17:246
| .1204  So that old saying "Once a Junior, always a Junior." just
|	ain't true.  Interesting.
    
    Everything *they* tell you is a lie, don't you know that by now?
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1212POWDML::LAUERLittle Chamber of PasshionThu Jun 15 1995 17:293
    
    I have a first edition of _Where the Wild Things Are_.
                              
393.1213BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Thu Jun 15 1995 18:005
    
    	The truth is out there.
    
    	Trust no one.
    
393.1214By P.D. Eastman (And I'm still not tired of them)....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Jun 15 1995 19:535
    
    My generation got high on _Go Dog Go_ and _Are You My Mother_.
    
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1215MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Fri Jun 16 1995 05:17127
As a followup to my .1108, here's the (rather disconcerting) response to
my mail from my NH Republican Senator, Bob Smith. One begins to wonder why
one cast their vote for this man -


June 9, 1995


Jack Del Balso
60 Tater St.
Mont Vernon, New Hampshire 03057

Dear Jack:

     Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns in the
wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to your concerns.

      On April 24, 1995, I joined my Senate colleagues in voting
for Senate Resolution 110. On behalf of the United States Senate,
S. Res. 110

	condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the
	heinous bombing attack against innocent children
	and adults at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
	in Oklahoma City.

     S. Res. 110 went on to send condolences to the friends and
families of those killed in the bombing, to express hope that the
search for survivors would be successful, to applaud the courage of
rescue workers, to support the President's call for the swift
application of the maximum available penalty, including the death
penalty, to those found responsible, to commend the President for
his swift actions on behalf of the victims and his rapid initiation
of an investigation, to urge the President to use all necessary
means to pursue this effort until the perpetrators are found and
punished, and to affirm the Senate's determination to approve
legislation to strengthen the authority and resources of all
Federal agencies involved in combating terrorism.

     The terrorist attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City
serves as a reminder of what still unites us. We have all shared
in the pain that death and injury have visited upon the families
torn asunder by that cowardly and senseless act of wanton violence.
We all want to hold those responsible accountable. And we all want
to do whatever we can to ensure that such an outrage does not
happen again.

     I believe that we must react to the Oklahoma City bombing, but
we must not overreact. I believe that we must take appropriate
steps to insure that law enforcement agencies have all of the tools
that they need to thwart those whom law enforcement officials have
reason to believe may be conspiring to commit terrorist acts. At
the same time, however, let me assure you that I do not believe
that we should do anything to compromise the constitutional rights
of law-abiding citizens.

     The questions raised by the growth of private militias are
complex. Militia groups, like all Americans, must be held
accountable to the law. At the same time, however, law-abiding
citizens' constitutional rights to bear arms and to assemble freely
should not be compromised in any way. For its Fart, the militia
movement must take pains to make sure that bigots and sociopaths
are excluded from its ranks.

     Our effort to resist terrorism must also address threats that
originate beyond our borders. The Senate is currently considering
a bill that includes changes I had proposed in separate legislation
before the bombing. My proposal provides for a new procedure to
enable the Justice Department to secure the deportation of
terrorist aliens through the use of classified information.

     I would also like to comment on the political controversies
that have broken out in the aftermath of the bombing, A number of
commentators have begun the search for "root causes" and "purveyors
of hate." Our media culture has a sad habit of shifting
responsibility for outrageous actions from the individuals directly
involved to larger "social forces." I think it is important to
remember that individuals are responsible for their own actions.
Blaming groups with which such individuals may or may not have
associated is unfair. As a hypothetical example, when a clergyman
confesses to embezzling church funds, we do not blame every member
of his denomination.

     In particular, i believe that the attempt by President Clinton
and various officials in his administration to link conservative
talk radio hosts to this crime typifies a worrisome trend in our
politics: According to the Clinton Administration's "spin," any
public figure who questions the size of government is a "right-wing
extremist." So are those who oppose the nomination of Dr. Henry
Foster. So are those who raise questions about the environmental
agenda pushed by the Vice President. It seems to me that the all-
purpose "extremist" label should not be used to short-circuit
candid discussion of controversial issues.

     It is my hope that in the coming months, we will see more
honest discussion of issues that trouble large numbers of
Americans. For that reason, I hope and expect that Congress will
investigate the events that transpired at the Branch Davidian
compound in waco, Texas so that lingering questions about exactly
what went wrong there can be put to rest.

     Another area where we would benefit from honest discussion is
gun control. Some seek to use the Oklahoma City atrocity as a
pretext to avoid reconsideration of last year's ban on so-called
"assault weapons." I find no link between these two matters. No
guns of any type were used to kill the innocent people who were
murdered by the terrorists who bombed the Federal Building in
Oklahoma City. There could be no more dramatic illustration of the
folk wisdom that "Guns don't kill people; People kill
people." Let's make firearms policy based on constitutional and
public policy considerations, not emotional illogic.

     Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any
further concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I value
your input.


Sincerely yours,


Bob Smith, U.S.S.

RCS/nls



393.1216Like something from a Mel Brooks movie :^)SPEZKO::FRASERMobius Loop; see other sideFri Jun 16 1995 08:367
        ...
should not be compromised in any way. For its Fart, the militia
movement must take pains to make sure that bigots and sociopaths
are excluded from its ranks.
        ...
        
        eg. Mongo, from the campfire/beans scene
393.1217WAHOO::LEVESQUEMr BlisterFri Jun 16 1995 12:011
    What made Smith's response disconcerting, Jack?
393.1218MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Fri Jun 16 1995 12:1312
> and to affirm the Senate's determination to approve
> legislation to strengthen the authority and resources of all
> Federal agencies involved in combating terrorism.

I guess this was the part that I found most troubling, Mark. Specifically
as my letter to him had called for restraint in extending further powers
to any Federal agencies.

re: Andy

Hey - not a bad mark for the scanner - one error in the lot!

393.1219Blofeld ?GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Jun 16 1995 14:457
    
      Senator Arlan Specter (R-Pa) kicked off his militia show in his
     committee yesterday.  It started with a panel of cops, then a panel
     of militia leaders.  I have decided that after all those James Bond
     movies, I could never vote to have a President Specter.
    
      bb
393.1220MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Jun 16 1995 15:377
    Spector took exception to the notion that by the militia that He
    (Spector) is part of the problem.  
    
    Funny how we seem to forget that the Constitution was written by angry
    white males with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other!
    
    -Jack
393.1221it made for good radioSMURF::WALTERSFri Jun 16 1995 15:5419
    

    Spector only really took exception to the allegation that he was
    corrupt, which he took as a personal affront, although it set the tone
    for the rest of the exchange.
    
    The whole testimony exchange was very dynamic. Most interesting was
    Diane Feinstein's attempts to get the various agency officials to
    request additional laws.  Each one of them said that the current laws
    were adequate.  
    
    The notion of groups of people living totally outside the law and
    untouched by state or federal agencies was also interesting.  It
    seems that since their recent cock-ups, the ATF and the FBI have been
    told to hold off on existing arrest warrants.
    
    C
    
    
393.1222PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Jun 16 1995 15:556
    
>>    Funny how we seem to forget that the Constitution was written by angry
>>    white males with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other!

	what, no pen?

393.1223BUSY::SLABOUNTYTrouble with a capital 'T'Fri Jun 16 1995 16:066
    
    	That was in their teeth.
    
    	I used to think they just had horrible handwriting, until I fig-
    	ured that out.
    
393.1224DASHER::RALSTONcantwejustbenicetoeachother?:)Fri Jun 16 1995 19:506
    >Funny how we seem to forget that the Constitution was written by angry
    >white males with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other!
    
    Rathole Alert! It always happens at the flinging of BS!!
    
    ...Tom
393.1225Nation Criminal Justice Reference Service on OKCSUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Sat Jun 17 1995 21:26278
In response to the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma city yesterday, NCJRS  
has gathered the following information for the criminal justice  
community.  Some of the information was produced by the Office of Justice  
Programs, some was garnered from other Federal agencies and private sources.
Please feel free to call or email NCJRS with any questions regarding this  
incident, and we will respond to the best of our abilities.   


To inquire about information relating to terrorism and terrorist  
activities, you may contact the following Federal agencies:


Department of Justice

        Public Information 202-514-2000
        FBI Press Office 202-324-3000

Department of State

        Office of the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism 202-647-6575
        Overseas Advisory Council 202-663-0533

Department of Treasury
         
        Public Information 202-622-2960
        Fax-on-Demand 202-622-2040 (select report #225 for ATF press release)

Federal Emergency Management Association

        Office of Emergency Information and Pubic Affairs
        202-646-4600
        http://www.fema.gov/homepage.html

Department of Labor
        Office of Occupational Safety and Health
        202-219-6091
        http://www.crossnet.org/


The following tables appear in the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice  
Activities, 1993.   

Table 3.164
____________________________________________________________
Explosive incidents reported to or  
investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms


By Type of Incident, 1976-80             

Type of incident                1976     1977    1978     1979     1980      
              
Total                           2,706    3,177   3,256    3,093    2,875     

Bombings                          870    1,058     963      901      922     

Recoveries and
seizures of explosives            579      853     987    1,167      908     

Incendiary bombings               352      339     446      346      368     
                                                                                           
Thefts of explosives              327      227     362      335      349     

Attempted bombings                319      319     287      179      163    

Attempted incendiary bombings     101       81      71       44       68

Hoax devices                       67      105      47       26       11

Noncriminal accidents              47       62      71       60       64

Threats to U.S. Department                                                         
of the Treasury facilities         44       33      22       35       22


By Type of Incident, 1981-85             

Type of incident                1981     1982     1983     1984     1985     
              
Total                           2,338    1,762    1,690    1,828    2,226     

Bombings                          805      597      575      648      720     

Recoveries and
seizures of explosives            637      503      499      566      828      

Incendiary bombings               329      235      164      155      151    
                                                                                           
Thefts of explosives              243      201      208      212      219      
  
Attempted bombings                152      127      131      144      169   
    
Attempted incendiary bombings      99       41       40       34       63   
     
Hoax devices                       12        8       15       10       17         

Noncriminal accidents              37       40       49       52       51       
  
Threats to U.S. Department                                                         
of the Treasury facilities         24       10        9        7        8          



By Type of Incident, 1986-90             

Type of incident                 1986     1987     1988     1989     1990    
               
Total                           2,432    2,228    2,507    2,960    3,541      

Bombings                          842      816      912    1,065    1,275      

Recoveries and
seizures of explosives            879      740      684      769      896      

Incendiary bombings               204      169      196      319      389    
    
Thefts of explosives              170      122      191      126      138      
  
Attempted bombings                167      157      189      268      298   
     
Attempted incendiary bombings      58       45       35       47      100  
      
Hoax devices                       75      127      253      317      404       

Noncriminal accidents              31       42       40       44       36       

Threats to U.S. Department                                                         
of the Treasury facilities          6       10        7        5        5          


By Type of Incident, 1991-92             

Type of incident                 1991     1992
              
Total                           3,961    4,638

Bombings                        1,585    1,911

Recoveries and
seizures of explosives            848    1,066

Incendiary bombings               414      582
                                                                                           
Thefts of explosives              127       93

Attempted bombings                380      384

Attempted incendiary bombings     111      112

Hoax devices                      438      448

Noncriminal accidents              56       39

Threats to U.S. Department                                                         
of the Treasury facilities          2        3


Note:  These figures are from reports to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (BATF) and other law enforcement agencies; these reports
may not include all explosives incidents.  "Explosives incidents" are any
explosives-involved situations that have an impact on BATF jurisdiction.  
"Bombings" are any incidents in which a device constructed with criminal
intent and using high explosives, low explosives, or blasting agents
explodes. This includes incidents where premature detonation occurs
during preparation, transportation, or placement of a device so
constructed.  "Attempted bombings" are incidents in which a device
designed or purposely contrived to detonate/ignite fails to function.  Intent
of activity was criminal in nature.  This pertains to malfunctioning,
recovered, and/or disarmed devices.  "Incendiary bombings" are
criminally-motivated bombing incidents in which an incendiary/chemical
device that induces burning is used "Hoax devices" are inactive or
"dummy" devices designed to appear as bombs or explosive materials.  
(Source, 1992, pp. 89, 90.)
        Bombing figures for the years 1976 and 1977 include 30 and 21
criminal accidents respectively, that were separately enumerated by the
Source.

Source:  U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms.  Explosives Incidents Report 1985, p 9; 1990, p. 11; 1992,
p. 13 (Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of the Treasury).  Table
adapted by SOURCEBOOK staff.  Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Stastics, 1993.

************************************************************



Table 3.174
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorist incidents  

By type of incident and target, United States, 1982-92 (aggregate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                         165


Type of incident                               
Bombing attacksa                              130
Malicious destruction of property             4
Acts of sabotage                              2
Hostile takeover                              4
Arson                                         8                 
Kidnapping; assaults; alleged          
  assassinations; assassinations;             11                       
Robbery; attempted robbery                    5
Hijacking                                     1        

Type of target
Private residence/vehicle                     18
Military personnel/establishments             33        
Educational establishments                    6
Commercial establishments                     60
State and United States government                     
   buildings/property                         31
Diplomatic establishments                     17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  See Note, table 3.173.

a  Includes detonated and undetonated devices, tear gas, pipe, and
firebombs.

Source:  U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Terrorism in the United States, 1982-1992 (Washington, DC:  U.S.
Department of Justice, 1993), p. 10. Table adapted by SOURCEBOOK
staff.

                                       
Table 3.175
--_-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Casualties resulting from international terrorism involving U.S.
citizens

By type of casualty, 1981-93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total            Dead         Wounded                       
---------------------------------------------------------------------------  
  Total           2,197            586           1,611

1981                 47              7              40
1982                 19              8              11
1983                386            271             115
1984                 42             11              31
1985                195             38             157
1986                112             12             100
1987                 54              7              47
1988                232            192              40
1989                 34             15              19
1990                 44             10              34
1991                 21              7              14
1992                  3              2               1
1993              1,008              6           1,002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Terrorism is defined as premeditated, politically-motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine State agents, usually intended to influence an audience.  
International terrorism is terrorism involving citizens or territory of more
than one country.  (Source, 1993, p. iv.) Data have been revised from
previous presentations by Source.

Source:  U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism:  1987,
p. 1; 1988, p. 4; 1989, p. 5; 1990, p. 37; 1992, p. 1; 1993, p. 1
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State).  Table adapted by the
SOURCEBOOK staff.                                                             
                        

Additional resources from NCJRS:

o       Hard copy of the tables from the Sourcebook, or the complete
        Sourcebook (free to local, state and Federal agencies [$6.00 to the
        general public].

o       The Severity of Crime (NCJ# 92326).

For information on how to order this document,  
email NCJRS at askncjrs@aspensys.com or call (800) 581-3420.
.
393.1226And according to these bright fellows, Specter is a nut....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftMon Jun 19 1995 13:2720
    Jim -                                      
    
    In your travels, have you come across the "proof" yet that the US
    Government is responsible for the gas attacks on the subways in Japan?
    *AND* that the Japanese government is responsible for the OKC bombing?
    
    How about the "proof" that the US Government has weather altering
    machines and is creating tornadoes in Montana so that we the people
    starve to death?
    
    How about the "proof" that the Murrah Federal Building was destroyed in
    a massive coverup?
    
    Or the Janet Reno directed a massive assault on militia this March?
    (Actually, I *have* found that on the net.)
    
    All of these things were offered by the "leaders" of the Michigan,
    Montana and Ohio "militias"....
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1227Gross generalizationMKOTS3::CASHMONa kind of human gom jabbarMon Jun 19 1995 15:0024
    
    re .1226
    
    Mr. Bill, you are really generalizing and/or playing fast and loose
    with the truth.  The militia movement has attracted a fascinating
    variety of nuts and crazies, but also attracts quite a few normal,
    conservative people (although I admit that you may also see them as
    nuts and crazies.)
    
    A few of the militia leaders at the hearings would have espoused all
    the beliefs that you listed.  Some might have agreed with one or two
    of the ideas, or at least be willing to entertain them as ideas.  But
    the majority of these people would be no more likely to believe that
    a malevolent government is controlling the weather than you or I.
    
    It is no more accurate to judge the entire militia movement by one
    or two numskulls in fatigues than it is to judge the entire British
    political scene by the Monster Raving Looney Party.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    
393.1228Not a gross generalization at all....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftMon Jun 19 1995 15:2739
    So you are saying Senator Specter went out of his way to invite
    nuts and crazies?
    
    Did you bother to watch the hearings?  Only one numbskull had fatigues.
    These are the very folks who are distancing themselves from the
    "nuts and crazies" in the militia movement.
    
    I've seen the hearings.  I've seen the press conferences held by
    the "militia" leaders while "C-SPAN's cameras were there."
    
    Contrary to their claims, they are *NOT* being misquoted by the press.
    They are exactly who they are.
    
    Nuts.
    
    
    You all can't have it both ways.  You can't hold up a Linda Thompson as
    expert on Waco, tell us to watch her propaganda video, and then a few
    months later when it's politically expedient exile her to the "nuts
    and crazies" side (or my personal favorite fate, she really works for
    the gummint and is agent provacatur [actual speeling seen on the net]).
    
    
    Each of the "leaders" had their lucid moments.  Followed by near
    brilliant displays of delusion.
    
    
    But I know, the Feds really do have a machine that can make 82
    tornadoes in Montana.
    
    
    If it weren't so serious, it could be fun to be a member of staff going
    over all the "proof" still to come.  I can imagine the laughter reading
    those six pounds worth of documents in a four inch thick three ring binder.
    
    
    But it is serious.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1229CSOA1::LEECHMon Jun 19 1995 18:1516
    I must have missed the weather control segment, but I saw the C-Span in
    question (the latter part of it).  I saw little to indicate that these
    men were "nuts" in the portion I watched.  I did wonder why the one man
    wore fatigues, rather than a suit, but that's his business I guess. 
    
    The militia leaders made two things clear: 1) they are willing to 
    cooperate with federal authorities in answering their questions; 2) they 
    are of a defensive posture, not gearing up to attack the federal 
    government as the news media would have us believe.
    
    Mr. Specter did not come across very well in the portion I saw, IMO. 
    He did not seem to have an open mind at all.  I think he went in with a
    negative veiw of these men.
    
    
    -steve                     
393.1230SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Tue Jun 20 1995 02:2717
    
    
    	re: .1226
    
    	Mr. Bill,
    
    	What makes you think that I'm in the militia and that I support
    every conspiracy theory in existence? I see the militia's purporting
    some wild things, but I don't see them as the menace everyone else
    seems to think they are. 
    
    	I don't subscribe to those theories and therefore do not seek out
    proof of them. I seriously doubt proof of them could be found anyway...
    
    	cheers,
    
    	jim (in from home)
393.1231Yes, I did see the hearings.MKOTS3::CASHMONa kind of human gom jabbarTue Jun 20 1995 11:1733
    
    Mr. Bill, 
    
    First of all, I AM saying that Senator Specter went out of his way to
    invite nuts and crazies, along with more representative members of 
    the militia.  The Senator had taken up an anti-militia stance long 
    before the hearings, and who can blame him?  There is a lot of
    political hay to be made attacking easy targets like the militias.
    The hearings were designed to drive home the point that "something
    must be done" about these groups.
    
    I did watch parts of the hearings, and I heard people saying things that
    made me cringe and roll my eyes, and people saying things that I agreed
    with wholeheartedly.  Personally, I don't fall into the
    black-helicopter-Russian-tanks-across-the-Rio-Grande-conspiracy crowd,
    but I agree with some of the basic tenets of the movement, especially
    the contention that government has grown too big, greedy, grasping,
    and oppressive.
    
    At any rate, the point is that there were representatives from many 
    different organizations at the hearings, and I think it is inaccurate
    to label ALL of them as nuts, or as dangerous.  Prejudice is an 
    ugly thing, no matter who it is aimed at.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    
    
    
    
    
393.1232re: Jim Sadin....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftTue Jun 20 1995 12:4624
    
|   What makes you think that I'm in the militia and that I support every
|   conspiracy theory in existence?
    
    According to *you* you are in the militia.  According to *you* *I*
    am in the militia.
    
    Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the "militias".
    
    As far as do I think that you "support every conspiracy theory in
    existence" I thought you did not.  I didn't ask if you did, I asked
    if you had come across such dreck in your sniffing around the net
    and various BBs.
    
|   I don't subscribe to those theories and therefore do not seek out proof
|   of them. I seriously doubt proof of them could be found anyway...
    
    Are you trying to tell me you only cross-post to Soapbox
    what you believe to be true or only cross-post theories that you
    subscribe to?
    
    Then I have misjudged you significantly.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1233SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Tue Jun 20 1995 18:3537
393.1234NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Jun 20 1995 18:383
393.1235Uh huh. Now readers can make up our own minds about your eyes....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftTue Jun 20 1995 18:408
    
|   ...but I only post things that I see as "possibly" having some merit
|   (no "the president meets with space aliens" stuff).
    
    I see.
    
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1236CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenTue Jun 20 1995 18:423
    Yes, it is the secret government weather machine that is trying to
    sweat all the cammo clad militia types to death.  A BATF, NOAA, USGS
    plot if I ever saw one.  Watch for tonadoes in Montana soon also too.  
393.1237CSOA1::LEECHTue Jun 20 1995 18:561
    Doom!
393.1238More appropriate for the topic...MKOTS3::CASHMONa kind of human gom jabbarWed Jun 21 1995 07:033
    
    Boom!
    
393.1239Summertime, and the nutters are busy....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 21 1995 12:3093
    The problem.
    
    Jim Sadin finds .678 "possibly true" but finds the following in the
    category of "president shakes space alien's hand."
    
    								-mr. bill
    
    -----
    
    e0001b0-p-
    u n usgs-URGENT-NEWS-RELEASE     06-01 0646
    URGENT NEWS RELEASE

   FROM: U.S. Geological Survey, Western Region

SEISMIC RECORDS SUPPORT ONE-BOMB THEORY IN OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

MENLO PARK -- The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal  
Building in Oklahoma City produced a train of conventional seismic  
waves, according to interpretations by scientists with the U.S.  
Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).

 Scientists from those agencies said the seismic recordings of the May  
23 demolition of the building reproduced the character of the original  
April 19 seismic recording by producing two trains of seismic waves that  
were recorded on seismometers near Norman Okla.

 "Seismic recordings from the building's explosion indicate that there  
was only one bomb explosion on April 19," said Dr. Thomas Holzer, a  
USGS geologist in Menlo Park, Calif. Holzer is one of several USGS and  
OGS scientists who analyzed the shock waves created by the April 19  
explosion and the May 23 implosion.

 Seismic waves from the April 19 bombing were recorded at two  
seismograph stations; one in Norman Okla., and another at the Omniplex  
Science Museum in Oklahoma City. The stations are approximately 16 and  
four miles, respectively, from the Federal Building in downtown  
Oklahoma City. The Norman station is contained by the Oklahoma  
Geological Survey and the station is maintained by the museum.

 In addition to these two stations, four portable seismographs were put  
in place for the May 23 implosion. One of these additional instruments  
was located about 300 feet from the bombed-out front of the building,  
and another was located near the town of Moore, about 7.5 miles from  
the Federal Building. The other two were set beside the permanent  
instruments at the Norman and Omniplex Science Museum locations.

 Holzer said the OGS seismograph at Norman recorded three wave trains  
following the April 19 bombing; a high-frequency train of seismic waves  
followed by two separate and lower-frequency wave trains that were  
about 10 seconds apart. Following the bombing, some explanations of the  
multiple wave trains lead to speculation that there may have been two  
separate explosions, about 10 seconds apart.  

The USGS, in cooperation with the OGS, initiated a comprehensive  
scientific investigation to evaluate the April 19, Norman seismographic  
recording. When it was determined that the safest way to complete  
demolition of the Federal Building was by controlled detonation, or  
implosion, scientists from both agencies record the opportunity to  
record that demolition and compare the event's seismic record with that  
of the April 19 explosion.

 "By comparing the April 19 and May 23 seismic records, it appears that  
the high-frequency waves at the beginning of the April 19, Norman record  
are the body waves, arriving from the bombing, and that the two later  
wave trains are primarily groups or packets of surface waves generated  
by the bombing," Holzer said. Holzer explained that "body" waves travel  
through the earth, while "surface" waves travel along the Earth's
surface. The speeds of the seismic waves that we infer from the record  
are consistent with our knowledge of other measurements of seismic-wave  
velocities in central Oklahoma, and the later wave trains were  
consistent with the surface waves that were recorded during the  
controlled demolition."

 OGS Director, Dr. Charles Mankin said he is pleased with the work  
performed by Dr. Holzer and his USGS colleagues in the analysis of the  
seismic records obtained during the demolition of the Federal Building.  
"This information, together with data from industry sources, has enabled  
us to develop a velocity model for the crust in central Oklahoma,"  
Mankin said. "We believe this model is an integral part of the eventual
resolution of the seismic records obtained during the bombing of the  
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City."

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
 Editors: Interviews with Dr. Holzer may be obtained by calling the USGS  
Public Affairs Office in Menlo Park, Calif., at 415-329-4000. Interviews  
with Dr. Mankin may be obtained by calling the OGS at 405-325-3031.


EDIS-06-01-95 2048 PDT

.
    
393.1240RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 21 1995 12:4436
    What does the article in .1239 tell us?  It clearly says scientists
    compared the April 19 event with the May 23 event, and they concluded
    the April 19 seismograph records were consistent with a single event.
    
    And it repeats this statement several times.
    
    But it doesn't give us much information about how this conclusion was
    reached.  One paragraph describes the wave trains seen on April 19.  No
    paragraph describes the wave trains seen on May 23.  The article gives
    us lots of details about where seismographs were placed, how seismic
    waves travel, et cetera.  Why bother telling us where seismographs were
    placed on May 23 and not telling us what they recorded?  It's rather
    like telling us that police were called to 34th and G street without
    telling us what happened there.
    
    This information is particularly important because on May 23, there
    WERE multiple explosions, so scientists certainly wouldn't be able to
    merely put the April 19 and May 23 records side-by-side and see the
    same pattern of wave trains arriving.  On May 23, they should see wave
    trains from multiple explosions.  Somehow they've got to figure out
    what the differences between the records of the two days are and
    ascribe explanations to those differences.
                                                
    The article tells us nothing at all about this important part of the
    experiment.
    
    I don't suspect this failure to be any more of a conspiracy than a
    naive reporter, but the fact remains that the article is basically
    uninformative.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1241"...children wasting all that time on book learning."PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 21 1995 12:497
    
    If only edp could manage to apply such "analytical skills" to the
    words of Murray and Herrnstein.
    
    (BTW, _The_Bell_Curve_ sucked.)
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1242WAHOO::LEVESQUEMr BlisterWed Jun 21 1995 12:513
    >(BTW, _The_Bell_Curve_ sucked.)
    
     Translation: I didn't read what I wanted to read.
393.1243CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenWed Jun 21 1995 12:527
    It's obvious that the scientists from the USGS are being forced into
    corroborating the single blast theory by offering vague data and
    unverified research.  I would much rather believe the fabricated
    evidence from independent expert sources that point to multiple 
    blasts and therefore an obvious government conspiracy cover up.  
    Watch for renewed earthquake activity in the mid-west when the weather 
    machine goes berzerk later this summer.  
393.1244SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Jun 21 1995 13:328
    
    re: .1242
    
    Memorable line from "The Point"
    
    
    "You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear..."
    
393.1245Damn Oblio, there's conspiracy theories to weave....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 21 1995 13:4917
    
    I still can't believe they sold out and let that a song by used
    by Chrysler (but I guess that was pre-Lee days anyhow).
    
    Now you are going to have me humming that insipid music.
    
    
    None of which has anything at all to do with people who blindly believe
    in fairytales about pineapple bombs or silently let such rubbish go by
    unchallenged but question every single line from something that is
    "tainted" by the government.
    
    
    "THEY" control the USGS as well, huh?  You know, I always wondered
    about them.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1246SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Jun 21 1995 13:5511
    
    
    You see billy?? You're a prefect example of what that quote means...
    
    The story (The Point) encompasses a range of events and situations...
    
    The quote encompasses people in a very wide spectrum... from left to
    right...
    
     You just proved it...
    
393.1247SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 14:2117
    
    
>    Jim Sadin finds .678 "possibly true" but finds the following in the
>    category of "president shakes space alien's hand."
    
>    								-mr. bill
 
    	Mr. Bill,
    
    	I never ran across that article on the net. If I had, I would have
    posted it. Where did I ever say that that particular article was
    untrue or even in the category of "president shakes space alien's
    hand"? Or is that just IYHO?
    
    	big hugs,
    
    	jim
393.1248WAHOO::LEVESQUEMr BlisterWed Jun 21 1995 14:255
    >Where did I ever say that that particular article was
    >untrue or even in the category of "president shakes space alien's
    >hand"? Or is that just IYHO?
    
     It's just Bill's way of accepting his role as a superior being.
393.1249SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 14:264
    
    	ah...thanks for the clarification doctah. :)
    
    
393.1250BTW, McVeigh is a *SUSPECT* not a "suspect"PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 21 1995 15:0516
    You never ran across that article, or any other article that rebutted
    the seriously fraudulant claims of .678, or any other article that has
    supported the "single ANFO truck bomb theory" aka "magic truck"?
    
    
    But you've found several nutter theories about high tech bombs,
    multiple blasts, etc etc etc and raving analysis that is impossible
    that a big truck bomb could have done the damage.  And you've posted
    them here for the past month.
    
    
    You run in interesting cyberspace.
    
    I suggest you widen your wanderings.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1251SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 15:1316
    
    	Mr. Bill,
    
    	Read back aways. You will find that I posted quite a few straight
    news articles about the OKC bombing. In fact, I'll bet you'll find that
    I posted more straight articles than "nutter theories".
    
    >    I suggest you widen your wanderings.
    
    	I suggest you read the topic.
    
    
    	XOXOXOXOXOX,
    
    
    	jim
393.1252DEVLPR::DKILLORANM1A - The choice of champions !Wed Jun 21 1995 15:256
    >        -< BTW, McVeigh is a *SUSPECT* not a "suspect" >-
    
    Wat the H*!! is this about ? ! ? ! ? !
    
    Dan
    
393.1253re: Jim, you need to get out more....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 21 1995 15:3736
    
|   Read back aways. You will find that I posted quite a few straight news
|   articles about the OKC bombing. In fact, I'll bet you'll find that I
|   posted more straight articles than "nutter theories".
    
    No, you didn't.  You showed a brief fasination with all things
    nando.net for a brief period.  And you made sure that anything and
    everything that exonerated militias or NRA got posted here.  A few
    articles about McVeigh.  One on fertilizer.  Back in April,
    you actually entered some factual information, I'll give you that.
    
    
    Then you snapped and went to the nutter side of the net.
    
    (Hey, you hear the latest?  McVeigh went to militia meetings in Michigan
    and Florida, odd travel profile, isn't it?  Why would someone travel
    the country attending militia meetings?  Can you say "govenment agent"?
    I knew you could.  NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT HIS FRIENDS LIVED IN
    MICHIGAN AND HIS SISTER LIVED IN FLORIDA.  THAT'S NOT A RATIONAL
    EXPLANATION.  ONLY A GOVERNMENT FUNDED AGENT COULD AFFORD TO TRAVEL
    FROM MICHIGAN TO FLORIDA.   THAT'S A KNOWN FACT!)
    
    But as to the articles that indicate a single truck bomb caused the
    explosion from credible sources?  I'd count them on a hand, entered
    back in April.  But the nutter articles?  I lost count long ago.  A
    dozen or so?  Some by such unbiased sources as Matt Rearwin and Gene
    Haag.  You're near half-a-dozen nutter-two-bomb-theory posts.  If you
    haven't past that already.
    
    
    Go ahead, read what you post for once.
    
    I do.
    
    								-mr. bill
    
393.1254Which the nutter side calls a political prisoner....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Jun 21 1995 15:4012
|   >        -< BTW, McVeigh is a *SUSPECT* not a "suspect" >-
|    
|   Wat the H*!! is this about ? ! ? ! ? !
    
    from .373....
    
|   they have a "suspect" in custody
    
    No, Jim, they have a *SUSPECT* in custody.
    
    								-mr. bill
    
393.1255SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 15:5184
    
    
>                   -< re: Jim, you need to get out more.... >-
    
    	And you need to find a new hobby besides belittling people. It's
    most childish.
    
>    No, you didn't.  You showed a brief fasination with all things
>    nando.net for a brief period.  And you made sure that anything and
>    everything that exonerated militias or NRA got posted here.  A few
>    articles about McVeigh.  One on fertilizer.  Back in April,
>    you actually entered some factual information, I'll give you that.
>    Then you snapped and went to the nutter side of the net.
    
   	I didn't "snap" Mr. Bill....the news agencies simply stopped
    carrying the story or weren't printing anything new. I could've kept
    piling article upon article of the same rehashed stuff, but why waste
    the disk space? As I said before, I post things that I feel might
    possibly have some merit. Get off yer high horse wouldja? Don't wanna
    read my "nutter" postings? next unseen still works for me!
    
>    But as to the articles that indicate a single truck bomb caused the
>    explosion from credible sources?  I'd count them on a hand, entered
>    back in April.  But the nutter articles?  I lost count long ago.  A
>    dozen or so?  Some by such unbiased sources as Matt Rearwin and Gene
>    Haag.  You're near half-a-dozen nutter-two-bomb-theory posts.  If you
>    haven't past that already.
    
    	Huh? You can count the number of credible sources on one hand
    (five max) and I have (by your count) put in near a half-dozen
    "nutter" theories (IYNSHO). Seems about even to me? Where's the
    unbalance?
    
    	Tell you what, go back and read the following notes:
    
    	
    .251
    .252
    .410-414
    .438
    .456
    .458
    .461
    .466
    .482
    .485
    .562
    .564
    .567
    .575
    .658
    .685
    .687
    .752
    .909
    .1079
    .1225
    
    
    	Then come back and tell me how few "credible" notes I enter.
    
>    (Hey, you hear the latest?  McVeigh went to militia meetings in Michigan
>    and Florida, odd travel profile, isn't it?  Why would someone travel
>    the country attending militia meetings?  Can you say "govenment agent"?
>    I knew you could.  NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT HIS FRIENDS LIVED IN
>    MICHIGAN AND HIS SISTER LIVED IN FLORIDA.  THAT'S NOT A RATIONAL
>    EXPLANATION.  ONLY A GOVERNMENT FUNDED AGENT COULD AFFORD TO TRAVEL
>    FROM MICHIGAN TO FLORIDA.   THAT'S A KNOWN FACT!)
    
    	So what? I never called McVeigh a govt agent or any such thing. I
    never even denied the fact that he may have attented militia meetings.
    I never denied the fact that his friends lived in Michigan and his
    sister lived in Florida. And I certainly never stated that only a govt
    funded agent could have traveled from michigan to florida (didn't
    McVeigh have huge credit card debts? possibly he contributed to them by
    buying plane tickets to Florida!).
    
    	You're REALLY reaching by trying to stick that stuff on me. Give it
    a rest....
    
    
    lovingly yours,
    
    	jim
393.1256SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 15:5413
    
    
>   No, Jim, they have a *SUSPECT* in custody.
    
    	What the heck is the difference? seems you read a little too much
    into my putting quotes around the word "suspect". I didn't mean to
    question the validity of holding McVeigh in any way shape or form, just
    that when he was referred to he was a "suspect" not "guilty party".
    
    
    warm regards,
    
    	jim
393.1257SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBe vewy caweful of yapping zebwasWed Jun 21 1995 16:1010
    
    re: .1256
    
    >What the heck is the difference? 
    
    jim,
    
     billy just needs to practice his emoting... in preparation for the
    next "nutter" note he comes across...
    
393.1258TROOA::COLLINSThe Seal Of DisapprovalWed Jun 21 1995 16:113
    
    That's *NUTTER*, not "nutter"...
    
393.1259SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 16:1245
393.1260SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 16:15171
393.1261NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 21 1995 16:151
Canadian County?
393.1262don't ferget the lights! SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jun 21 1995 16:1727
THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN

Drivers' Support Following Bombing
Tough on Batteries

Many of the thousands of people who have been driving with their car
lights on during the day to show their support for the victims of the
April 19 bombing are forgetting to turn them off. 

Rick Bickford, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association
in Oklahoma City, said their calls for assistance have increased by
about 30 percent. 

``On a typical day, we receive 200 to 275 calls for assistance and the
calls have jumped up from 60 to 75 a day and most have been light
service jumps,'' Bickford said. 

He added the Tulsa area has had an increase in the number of calls for
assistance for the same reason. 

``Anywhere in the United States where people are driving with their
lights on to show their support, the number of light service jumps is
up,'' he said. 

He quickly added that AAA is happy to provide the service. 

Front Page 
393.1263MOLAR::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dogface)Wed Jun 21 1995 16:283
TTWA:
    Is there any point in filing a $4M lawsuit against McVeigh?

393.1264TROOA::COLLINSThe Seal Of DisapprovalWed Jun 21 1995 16:323
    
    Only if he eventually writes a book.
    
393.1265SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Jul 12 1995 15:0094
U.S. to seek death penalty, McVeigh is notified


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service


WASHINGTON (Jul 12, 1995 - 01:18 EDT) -- Federal prosecutors
in Oklahoma City formally notified lawyers for Timothy McVeigh on
Tuesday that they had invoked a procedure to seek the death penalty
against the former Army sergeant accused of blowing up the federal
building in Oklahoma City.

In a letter Tuesday to McVeigh's lawyer, Stephen Jones, federal
prosecutors advised the defendant that he would be indicted before
Aug. 11 with "one or more crimes potentially punishable by death."
The letter was signed by Patrick Ryan, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma
City.

The letter is the first official notification that government is taking
the legal steps, under a policy signed into effect by Attorney General
Janet Reno in January, to execute McVeigh if he is convicted of
bombing the office building.

The government's intention to ask for the death penalty was first
expressed on April 19, the day of the bombing, when Ms. Reno said
that the government would seek the death penalty under a law that
made it a capital offense to take a life in connection with destruction
of government property. Her comments were quickly echoed by
President Clinton.

But later, the government's intentions seemed less certain. Aides to
the attorney general scaled back her comments about punishment in
the case, saying she meant only that the bombing was the kind of
case in which prosecutors might seek the death penalty.

Moreover, in court appearances, federal prosecutors avoided stating
directly whether they intended to ask for a death sentence. Some
lawyers suggested that the government was signaling McVeigh's
lawyers that it might agree to spare McVeigh's life if he pleaded
guilty and cooperated with the prosecution.

Tuesday's notification to McVeigh's lawyers ended that speculation.

The blast killed 167 people, including 19 children at a day care center
operating in the building. Under Justice Department rules, each
victim's family must be notified of the government's final decisions
about the death penalty.

Under departmental regulations, McVeigh's lawyers are entitled to
present any information, including mitigating circumstances, either
orally or in writing, to the U.S. attorney. The prosecutor may accept
or reject the submission.

If the U.S. attorney decides to go forward with the death penalty
case, McVeigh's lawyers are permitted to make another presentation
to Justice Department officials, including the deputy attorney general
and the head of the department's criminal division.

The final decision on whether to seek the death penalty is up to the
attorney general. The prosecutors can seek the death penalty, but
only the jury can impose it.

In written response to the prosecutors, McVeigh's lawyer sharply
criticized the government, saying that the Justice Department's
decision on whether to seek death penalty had been sealed at the
time of the initial statements by Clinton and Ms. Reno.

"We believe the process of this review is a charade," Jones told Ryan
in a letter Tuesday.

The lawyer added, "For us to reasonably believe that any type of fair
review is to be conducted would require us to accept that you, as a
nominee of the president for the position you hold, and the Attorney
General's Capital Review Committee, appointed by Ms. Reno, would
reach a decision and recommendation which overrides the president
and the attorney general's own public commitment."

Jones said that Ms. Reno, by her previous comments on the death
penalty in the Oklahoma City case, had violated Justice Department
guidelines, which require her to undertake a careful review of each
death penalty request based on information from her subordinates.

Carl Stern, a spokesman for the Justice Department, would not
comment on the matter Tuesday night, saying "We do not intend to
conduct a trial by press release."

The government has apparently not yet decided whether to invoke the
death penalty procedure against Terry Nichols, the second man
charged with the bombing. Michael Tigar, Nichols' lawyer, said he
had not received a notification from the United States, but added that
he was preparing Nichols' defense as a capital case.

393.1266Grease them skids!SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIZebwas have foot-in-mouth disease!Wed Jul 12 1995 15:044
    
    Any odds on how long (short?) a time he stays in death row if
    convicted??
    
393.1267They'll probably walk him to the chair from the trial.CSOA1::LEECHdia dhuitWed Jul 12 1995 17:002
    Bet he doesn't make it to the average 16 years (or thereabouts) of
    death rowism.
393.1268Right!DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundWed Jul 12 1995 17:532
    CNN reports one of the defense attorneys sez McVeigh wuz framed.
    
393.1269McVeigh goes before Fed Grand JuryMILKWY::JACQUESVintage taste, reissue budgetThu Jul 20 1995 19:4914
393.1270the signature of guilt?HBAHBA::HAAStime compressedThu Jul 20 1995 19:505
It's called the 5th.

Caint do nothing about it.

TTom
393.1271CRASHSMURF::BINDERFather, Son, and Holy SpigotThu Jul 20 1995 19:504
    .1269
    
    I'd guess that because he's invoked his Fifth-Amendment rights in the
    matter of handwriting, it is likely that they can't do squat to him.
393.1273BIGQ::SILVADiabloThu Jul 20 1995 20:0910
| <<< Note 393.1272 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| Why can't they access his "permanent record" from elementary school?  :^)

	You mean doctors wrote that way back in high school? I thought they
learned that in college! :-)  In other words, his handwriting style could have
changed from high school. I know mine has. 


Glen
393.1275DEVLPR::DKILLORANLove In An ElevatorThu Jul 20 1995 21:375
    
    but Joe, will it stand up in court?  Will the jury believe it ?

    I doubt it....
    Dan
393.1276DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Jul 20 1995 21:503
    Wouldn't the Army have some records with McVeigh's signature on it?
    
    
393.1277WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159Fri Jul 21 1995 02:493
    re .1274
    
    graphologist.
393.1278biomechanicsSMURF::WALTERSFri Jul 21 1995 13:2822
    Neither graphologist or cryptologist, but especially not graphology.
    Graphologists claim to be able to determine personality characteristics
    from handwriting, which is hokum of the purest form.
    
    The most likely qualification for matching handwriting characteristics
    would be in the field of biomechanics or cybernetics.  It would not
    make any difference if the sample was old or if it was made by someone
    who relearned with another hand.  Enough characteristics
    could easily remain to determine a probability that the sample
    comes from a given writer.   Simple pattern-matching is only one
    characteristic used when sample matching cursive script.
    (Although I very much doubt that a signature would ever be an adequate
    sample for a writing match.)
    
    The chances are that McVeigh's lawyers have already consulted a
    handwriting expert, hence the defending statement that he
    only prints block letters.  Their expert would have advised them
    that block letters would not provide enough data for a 
    positive match with cursive script.
    
    Colin
    
393.1279Cover-UpLUDWIG::BARBIERIFri Jul 28 1995 12:4116
      Any mention of a barometric bomb?  Apparently, the designer of
      the bomb (Riconosciuto) as well as a former FBI Special Agent
      (Gunderson) are convinced such a bomb was used.  As with the
      general's testimony (Partin), the blast was too uni-directional
      to be caused by fertilizer.
    
      USA Today, April 28, p. 3A states that McVeigh had traces of a
      chemical called PDTN on his shirt.  Along with the similarity
      in explosion to that expected for a barometric bomb, PDTN is
      used to detonate the electrically charged cloud of the A-neutronic
      device (barometric bomb).
    
      Its a cover-up.  I mean if you want to pass an anti-terrorist bill
      and further take away our rights...
    
    						Tony
393.1280TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Fri Jul 28 1995 12:464
    
    Actually, a UFO crashed into the building, and the gov't wants
    to keep it quiet, so they're blaming McVeigh.
    
393.1281SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Jul 28 1995 12:561
    Whazza barometric bomb?
393.1282CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Jul 28 1995 13:015
    It's the type of bomb used by shadow gov't agencies to create
    barometric differentials triggering tornadoes and other violent weather
    distubances used to combat the rebellious right wing militia freedom
    fighters.  It was developed in a super secret underground laboratory
    funded by the Trilateral Commission.  
393.1283SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Jul 28 1995 13:041
    They test it on trailer parks, right?
393.1284CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Jul 28 1995 13:101
    Yup, that's the type.  
393.1285CSOA1::LEECHDia do bheatha.Fri Jul 28 1995 13:4317
    re: .1280
    
    Nope.  McVeigh stole a UFO from a super secret government hangar and
    then flew it into the building.  Lucky for him, it has a transporter on
    board, which he used to beam himself into his getaway car. 
    Unfortunately, he had to leave the getaway car unattendedd for too
    long, and a group of thieves stole his tags and vandalized his
    speedometer.
    
    Since the secret military police were already looking for McVeigh (and
    their UFO), it didn't take them long to find him after the UFO crashed-
    the missing tags only sped up the process a little.  
    
    What little remained of the UFO was gathered up in those "evidence"
    trucks and soon vanished.  Just in case they missed anything, they made
    sure the building would be quickly demolished to cover up stray UFO
    parts.
393.1286TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Fri Jul 28 1995 13:455
    
    <--- You're pretty good at this, aren't you?
    
    :^)
    
393.1287CSOA1::LEECHDia do bheatha.Fri Jul 28 1995 13:551
    That's the Reader's Digest version of it.  8^)
393.1288Get real. Barometric bombs are old-hat.SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Fri Jul 28 1995 16:357
    Actually, a barometric bomb is similiar to the so-called "poor-man's"
    nuke, the atomizing gasoline bomb.  If you saw the movie "Outbreak",
    the bomb they were going to use is a type of barometric bomb.
    
    Essentially, it releases a atomized cloud of some mixture, and uses a
    high speed classified detonator to detonate the vapor mixture between
    15 and 30 microseconds later.
393.1289SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Jul 28 1995 17:271
    What they called the fuel/air explosive during the Gulf War? Izzat it?
393.1290Assorted kooks and nuts with "theories" they call facts...PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftFri Jul 28 1995 17:3812
    re: .1279 and several other "barometric bomb" nutter posts
    
    
    See .678 and .1006.  If you want all things nutter, just do a
    dir/author=sadin 393.*.
    
    
    It's a cover-up all right.  By the nutters.
    
    Lie often, lie loudly.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1291MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri Jul 28 1995 17:448
    
    > See .678 and .1006.  If you want all things nutter, just do a
    > dir/author=sadin 393.*.
    
    fwiw, if i ever find myself in a foxhole, i'd pick jim sadin
    over you as company _any day_.
    
    -b
393.1292SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Jul 28 1995 17:564
    I dunno about sadin, but whoever was writing that conspiracy stuff just
    hasn't done any research to confirm/deny the accusations of the
    "G-man."
    Sounds like stuff from the Natural Inquisitor.
393.1293SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Jul 28 1995 17:587
    
    re: .1291
    
    You lie Brian!!!!!
    
    Why do you lie?????????
    
393.1294CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Jul 28 1995 17:591
    Because it is safer than standing in a fox hole?  
393.1295DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Jul 28 1995 18:2210
    
    > It's a cover-up all right.  By the nutters.
    > 
    > Lie often, lie loudly.
    > 
    > 								-mr. bill
    
    AAAHHHH It's good to see that billy hasn't changed a bit !
    
    
393.1296Keep Flames Away !SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Fri Jul 28 1995 18:307
    .1289
    
    Yep.
    
    Mr. Bill's barometric version is a lighter and a can of refried beans.
    
    ;^)
393.1297Some People Will Be SurprisedSTRATA::BARBIERIFri Jul 28 1995 20:0822
      re: .1290
    
        Someday, you are going to be very surprised.  You make me think
        of the rationale that anything extreme cannot possibly happen
        _on that basis_.  Try telling that to any Jews in Germany in
        the early 1930's.  
    
      re: .1292
    
        I offered a summary.  I believe the information is fairly good
        because most of the source gets collaborated elsewhere.  But,
        I really don't have the time or the means to offer proof.  I
        mean, what _really_ constitutes proof?  I can only offer words.
        I don't have hard evidence at my disposal.
    
        But, it did offer a good amount from the general as well as
        the former FBI agent.
    
        I believe the handwriting's on the wall.
    
    						Tony
                                                  
393.1298It was on a computer, it must be true....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftFri Jul 28 1995 20:2136
    [gratuitous NAZI WAFFEN STORM TROOPER reference deleted....]
    
|   	I believe the information is fairly good because most of the
|	source gets collaborated elsewhere.
    
    It's a twisty little maze of corroborations, all alike.  Or more
    formally, the corroborations are a cyclic graph.
    
|	But, I really don't have the time or the means to offer proof.
    
    Of course you don't.  The liars count on this.
    
|	I mean, what _really_ constitutes proof?
    
    That some nutter posted to the net, of course.
    
|	I can only offer words. I don't have hard evidence at my disposal.
    
    Nobody has the hard evidence at their disposal.  The conspirarati
    don't need no stinking evidence!
    
|       I believe the handwriting's on the wall.
    
    What you see on the wall was Written by liars.
    
    ----
    
    You know, there was an article in the Globe yesterday in the Biz
    section.  Evidently, some folks have actually been believing the
    Biz advice they get on AOL chat areas.  As if because some yahoo
    with a modem and no life says that such and such would be a
    GREAT investment or this and that is going to go down 50% in
    three days, bigger yahoos with modems actually *believe* *them*.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1299CSOA1::LEECHDia do bheatha.Mon Jul 31 1995 12:224
    Ever think about changing your p_name, Mr. Bill?  How about to
    something like... "It can't happen here."
    
    8^)
393.1300SNARFbombCSOA1::LEECHDia do bheatha.Mon Jul 31 1995 12:221
    
393.1301SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Mon Jul 31 1995 13:1238
    Re: .1297
    
    I understand what you mean about lack of proof..I don't think this
    issue can be proven one way or another. People will simply have to
    examine the facts presented, and make their own decisions. It is easier
    to make an informed decision with all of the facts, however.
    
    1) Was the difference in time between the arrival of the two waves at
    the seismograph 10 seconds or 10 msec? There is a very significant
    difference, and the post does more to confuse than clarify this issue.
    Could the two separate measurements have come from the shock wave
    bouncing off the earth's core? This happens with compression waves from
    earthquakes - it's one of our best tools for determining the interior
    structure of the earth.  The only data given by a qualified
    seismologist was the timing of the waves, not the possible reasons for
    the timing. It was the FBI man (does he have any training in the
    reading of seismographs?) who interpreted this to mean two separate
    events.
    
    2) For the type of bomb proposed, the first explosion is minor
    and the second one is tremendous. This would be reflected in the
    seismological data, if this was the type of bomb used. Does the data
    support this?
    
    3) As supposrting evidence, the "G-man" mentions that this type of bomb
    creates an atmosphereic disturbance that is very likely to blow out
    windows. ALL bombs create atmospheric disturbances that blow out
    windows! The explosive force of any bomb comes from a compression wave
    travelling through the air. The force of the bomb if a function of both
    the intensity and speed of the wave. Pointing out that windows were
    blown out - in general - does nothing to support this theory. Pointing
    out that windows were blown out in a specific pattern, or at a specific
    distance, etc. that could have only come from this bomb would be much
    more convincing.
    
    Etc. etc....this theory just doesn't have enough supporting facts, as
    it stands. Much more information would be needed to prove _or_ disporve
    this theory.
393.1302DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Mon Jul 31 1995 13:1712
    
    Steve, that looked suspiciously like a setup snarf !

    billy, have you thought about posting something useful here instead of
    just critizing people who disagree with you, whoops my mistake, that
    wouldn't fit your MO.  Shout and call others liars, I forgot, never
    mind.

    SPSEG::COVINGTON - BTW what's your first name?
    Well written and thought out.
    
    Dan                          
393.1303SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Mon Jul 31 1995 16:203
    .1300
    
    No, BariSnarfic bomb.
393.1304CSOA1::LEECHDia do bheatha.Mon Jul 31 1995 18:391
    That would be alleged BariSnarfic bomb, right?
393.1305Mea Cupla.SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Mon Jul 31 1995 21:191
    Sorry, I was being conspirisnarfical.
393.1306Unproven "theories" are worthless, except to the conspiraratiPERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftTue Aug 01 1995 14:5620
|   Etc. etc....this theory just doesn't have enough supporting facts, as
|   it stands. Much more information would be needed to prove _or_ disporve
|   this theory.
    
    Excuse me.  Just because a bunch of nutters propose a theory, why does
    it have to be *disproved*.  Especially since any proof against the
    theory is just further proof that it really happened (because after
    all, the source of such proof is the evil *them*.)
    
    
    Sorry, it is up to the nutters who have to *prove* these lies,
    I'm sorry, these "theories."  (But that can't be done, can it?)
    
    
    I guess what amazes me most is some of the *very* same nutters
    (such as Stormfront) who strongly promote the holocaust-is-a-hoax
    conspiracy "theories" are also promoting the it-could-happen-here
    and/or the feds-are-nazi-waffen-storm-tropper "theories."
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1307SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Tue Aug 01 1995 15:543
    >Excuse me.
    
    You're excused.
393.1308Appreciate Proof Part/Down On The Farm With Mr. BillLUDWIG::BARBIERITue Aug 01 1995 16:4725
      re: .1301
    
      I hear what you're saying about the windows blowing out, but of
      what I read I thought the 'unidirectionality part' was very
      significant.  I mean the part about the blast seeming to destroy
      in very much a sheer line rather than equally all about the
      source of explosion.
    
      But, anyway, as to the proof thing, I'm glad you 'hear' what I
      meant.  There's no way we can truly have proof.
    
      re: .1306
    
      I believe you would have told any Jew that would be thinking of
      leaving 1930's Germany that they were crazy believers of some
      sort of 'conspirati.'
    
      On that basis, I believe you have a bias whose basis is not 
      rational thought.  Thus I conclude that rational conversation
      with you on this type of topic is completely useless.
                                                        
      There would first have to be a major improvement in your thought
      patterns.
    
    						Tony
393.1309Too believable....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftTue Aug 01 1995 17:074
    
    And they find me offensive.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1310SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Tue Aug 01 1995 20:551
    <--- Not really. We don't have to find you. ;^)
393.1311SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Aug 02 1995 14:5919
    
re:  <<< Note 393.1290 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    
>    See .678 and .1006.  If you want all things nutter, just do a
>    dir/author=sadin 393.*.
    
    	It's nice to know you still think of me now and then billy....;*)
    
    	re: Brian and the foxhole
    
    	Could you stand listening to my music tho' (classical with the
    occasional heavy metal)? ;*) 
    
    	String the claymores in the trees and take bang that clacker three
    times. :)
    
    	jim
           
393.1312MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 15:016
    >	Could you stand listening to my music tho' (classical with the
    > occasional heavy metal)? ;*) 
    
    stand it! sounds like even more reason to share your foxhole!!!! :-)
    
    -b
393.1313SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Aug 02 1995 15:329
    
    	re: .1312
    
    	ahhhh....a man of good taste....:)
    
    	I get the M60 tho'...:*)
    
    
    jim
393.1314DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Wed Aug 02 1995 16:287
    
    > And they find me offensive.

    Offensive, not really... Obnoxious and pig headed in a childish manner 
    would be a better description.

    Dan
393.1315SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Wed Aug 02 1995 17:073
    Don't mince words, Dan. How do you really feel ?
    
    ;^)
393.1316SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Wed Aug 02 1995 17:1567
McVeigh's sister to testify in bombing case


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY (Aug 2, 1995 - 03:01 EDT) -- As her brother
sat in a nearby prison charged with bombing the federal building,
Jennifer McVeigh arrived in Oklahoma City to testify before a grand
jury investigating the deadly blast.

"She is not a target," her attorney, Joel Daniels, said as the two
arrived Tuesday. Miss McVeigh appeared frightened as she walked
through the airport amid a crowd of reporters and camera crews.

Meanwhile, NBC News reported that a man resembling McVeigh
attempted to purchase racing fuel and a volatile additive from a
Kansas distributor last fall.

The network said Glynn Tipton of V.P. Racing Fuels in Manhattan,
Kan., reported the attempted purchase of 55-gallon drums of
nitromethane and hydrozene, a volatile additive, to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms last October.

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was gutted April 19 by a
4,800-pound bomb made of fertilizer and fuel oil. McVeigh and
Terry Nichols, both being held in federal prison without bond, are the
only people charged in the attack that killed 168.

Tipton, who has since been interviewed by the FBI, said he never
considered selling the fuel to the man and called the ATF "to make
sure that everything was on the up and up."

Tipton said he was not sure the man who identified himself as
"James" or "John" was McVeigh, but told NBC that he got no
response to the report until four days after the bombing, when he was
visited by FBI agents.

"Apparently they had the phone records from when he called me," he
also told The Dallas Morning News.

NBC said Tipton first called the ATF office in New Orleans and was
referred to its Kansas City office. The network reported that sources
familiar with the phone call said the name "Tim" and a phone
number was given to the agency.

But federal sources told the network the ATF didn't have enough
information to act because it was only told that a man named John
was trying to buy dangerous chemicals.

A spokesman for the ATF was not immediately available for
comment.

Miss McVeigh was expected to appear before the grand jury today.
Last week a federal law enforcement source told The Associated
Press that the Pendleton, N.Y., woman has cut a deal with prosecutors
and is now considered a "friendly witness."

Miss McVeigh spent several hours Tuesday in the offices of the U.S.
attorney. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Hartzler, the head of
the prosecution team, declined to comment on any negotiations.

Federal officials have said that Miss McVeigh shares
anti-government views with her brother, including outrage over the
1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas.

393.1317No Defense Is...No Defense!LUDWIG::BARBIERIWed Aug 02 1995 17:1925
      Wild Bill,
    
        If you wanted me to give you some credibility, you could
        have at least attempted to explain how you _wouldn't_
        conclude that 1930's Germany would not develop into the
        monstrosity that it did.
    
        You have this "It can't happen here" mentality when history
        has shown that it in fact sometimes does happen.
    
        Germany wasn't stupid.  They had the Nobel prize winners.
        They had the philosophers (Hegel and others).  They had 
        free elections.
    
        From my perspective, the entire basis of your stance is that
        extreme things do not happen on the basis that they are
        extreme.
    
        But, history proves otherwise.  Not that it has to happen, but
        that the potential exists.
    
        If my perspective of your basis is true, you postulate from
        pure fantasy.
    
    						Tony
393.1318How many times you going to beat up that strawman?PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 16:105
    The problem I have with you is quite simple.
    
    You see, the Jews did *NOT* break the windows.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1319Yes, Its A Dead HorseLUDWIG::BARBIERIThu Aug 03 1995 16:4214
      It has happened in history that separate people's have had
      some similar beliefs.  Some respond in ways considered 
      abhorent to others.  It is illogical to clump the two together,
      IN EVERY RESPECT, because they may have some similarities.
    
      Whether or not the Jews broke any windows is completely
      irrelevant as to whether or not Germany would become sinister.
    
      I don't need to beat this, but you have done NOTHING to 
      demonstrate any rational legitemacy to your stance.
    
      Absolutely nothing.
    
    						Tony
393.1320I guess I lobbed that one right over your head, huh?PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 16:464
    
    A history quiz for you.  What day in 1939 am I talking about?
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1321POWDML::LAUERLittleChamber/PrepositionalPunishmentThu Aug 03 1995 17:384
    
    I know.  May I answer, huh, may I?
    
    
393.1322NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Thu Aug 03 1995 17:414
    
    
    Go for it.... :*)
    
393.1323It touched the net on the way over his head....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 18:094
    
    Hit it back from the baseline Deb.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1324I saw that one on Mission Impossible!PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 19:4421
    Gunderson (he of the pineapple bomb theory fame, you know, the retired
    "special" [they are all special] FBI agent making the rounds on the
    "militia" circuit with Mark from Michigan) on McVeigh's involvement in the
    bombing....
    
        "I've been watching the guy, and he looks kind of like a
        robot," Gunderson said. "...There's a secret government
        mind-control program, where they take  these people in
        the service, give them shock treatments, drugs, hypnosis
        -- and then they give them a secret keyword."
    
        When a handler activates the keyword, Gunderson said,
        the hypnotized person carries out a predefined mission.
    
    
    Thank god for secret government mind-control programs.  Along with
    secret government pineapple bombs, Gunderson's got it all figured out.
    
    Too bad nutters can't stop nutting.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1325TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:473
    
    The Michiganian Candidate
    
393.1326CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenThu Aug 03 1995 19:581
    It's Michigander not Michiganian.  NNTTM
393.1327SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 19:596
    
    re: .1324
    
    Does that mean that all future retirees who're special agents now are
    potential "nutters"?
    
393.1328TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 03 1995 20:015
    
    .1326:
    
    Well, that may be fine for the *goose*...
    
393.1329CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenThu Aug 03 1995 20:022
    HONK!! HONK!! <splat> HONK!! HONK!! <splat> HONK!! HONK!! <splat>
    
393.1330re: .1327 Beware of men with self-inflated credentials....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 20:1230
|   Does that mean that all future retirees who're special agents now are
|   potential "nutters"?
    
    No, it means
    
    when somebody lies about seismic traces showing two bombs (they
    don't, the traces are entirely consistent with a truck bomb, see
    USGS release)
    
    when somebody lies that the seismic traces specifically show the
    "signature" of a "pineapple bomb" (they don't, they are entirely
    consistent with a truck bomb)
    
    when somebody lies about pineapple bombs (they don't exist, the "top
    secret" plans were "smuggled" out of a prison where the "designer"
    is serving time for rather ordinary crime, I know, I know, he's
    a political prisoner, not a dork with too much imagination
    spending too much time at a drafting board)
    
    when somebody lies about how McVeigh was "programmed" by the FEDS
    when he was in the Army to attend militia meetings and then one day
    blow up the Murrah building whenever the FEDS sent a keyword (he wasn't)....
    
    
    Then I don't care if he's a retired special agent, a current special
    agent, a future special agent, a retired special agent from the
    future, a future special agent from the past, a special agent from
    outer space....
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1331Or the Attorney General...SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:171
    
393.1332SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Thu Aug 03 1995 20:184
    .1326
    
    I believe that was an allusion to a 1963 movie starring Angela
    Landsbury...
393.1333PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 20:204
    
    Gee, I was thinking of the one with Leslie Nielson....
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1334DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Thu Aug 03 1995 20:364
    
    re: .1330
    
    Source please......
393.1335SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Thu Aug 03 1995 20:411
    <--- Why, outer space, of course.
393.1336Good LobLUDWIG::BARBIERIThu Aug 03 1995 20:496
      Yes, you lobbed one over my head.  I don't know what you are
      alluding to.
    
      I still think you are evading my main point tho.
    
    						Tony
393.1337SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:535
    
    Of course he did Tony!!
    
    You weren't aware that Billy's had his lobotomy???
    
393.1338MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Aug 03 1995 21:1116
        re: mr. bill's glass

    the night of the broken glass; while i can't tell you the
    date off the top of my head, it was when a band of hitler's
    thugs vandalized and looted some shops and then blamed
    the jews as a way of strengthening support for the nazi's
    political goals.

    the point mr. bill was trying to make was that the accusation
    of the jews breaking the glass was sufficient to cause
    a large segment of the population to believe they broke
    the glass; similar to the way bill believes anything the
    democratic party tells him because he's predisposed to
    their way of thinking. an excellent analogy, mr. bill.

    -b
393.1339Unlike some, I have no doubt that this stuff is MUAFF....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 21:25532
    re: .1334
    
    You really don't want "The GUNDERSON report" do you?
    
    Well, you asked for it....
    
								-mr. bill
The Gunderson Bomb Report
*************************




AKA: Let a third party investigate!
===================================

From the contributor:
+++++++++++++++++++++

    Please Accept The Following Report for publication in part or whole
    on your http home page for Oklahoma bombing. Uncensored copies shall
    be distributed to senators at the next congressional hearing.

The Gunderson Report On The Bombing Of The Alfred P. Murrah
===========================================================
Federal Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. April 19, 1995
========================================================

2118 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 422 Santa Monica, California 90403 310-364-2280

Table Of Contents
-Synopsis 
1-Ted L Gunderson Resume 
2-University of Oklahoma Seismogram (not Yet Available)
3 -Michael Riconosciuto
15-Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device
19 -Reason It Was Not A Fertilizer And Fuel Oil Bomb
20 -Federal Criminal Investigator At The Scene
24 -U.S. Nuclear Scientist's Statement
24 -Proposed Anti-terrorist Legislation (not yet savailable
)24 -Statement By Ted Gunderson Regarding
-Current Anti-terrorist General Guidelines (to Come) 
26 -Current Attorney General Guidelines For (to Come)
-Domestic Security And Terrorism Investigations (to come)
27 -Information Furnished To The FBI
    
46 Exhibit A Illustration of the new bomb ( Tiff File Available) Exhibit
B Mike Riconosciuto genius at age 12 (news article Available) Exhibit C
Mike's laser isotope separation in the 60's (not available) Exhibit D
Cabazon Indians and Wackenhut security (available as tiff) Exhibit E
Robert Booth Nichols and Meridian Arms (availablre as Tiff) Exhibit F
Meridian Arms and FMC corporation. (available as Tiff) Exhibit G
Affidavit of Michael J Riconosciuto (available as tiff) Exhibit H SPY
Magazine Article On Cabazon/Wackenhut (Copywrited N/A)

Note: This Version is for public use only and has been censored to
prevent the exposure of sensitive technical information. The Senate
members attending the upcdomming hearings will be provided with
uncensored versions of this document. 

Synopsis
========
   The University of Oklahoma Geology Dept., Norman, Oklahoma, recorded
"two events" one at 9:02 am and 3 seconds and one 9:02 and 13 seconds on
April 19, 1995, which indicates there were two detonations or two bombs
activated at the Federal building, the morning of April, 19, 1995.
Expert Michael Riconosciuto advises he believes the bomb used was a
electro-hydrodynamic gaseous fuel device, which he developed in the
early 1980's. This bomb is considered an "A-neutronic" device, hence the
designated "Q" clearence is required for information reguarding its
construction. An abstract of the bomb is set forth. Numerous experts
agree that the bomb was not a concoction of fertilizer and fuel oil
(fertilizer bomb) as claimed by the government. Sixteen instances are
cited herein as to why this bomb was not a fertilizer bomb. A nuclear
scientist employed with the U.S. government confirms this. A federal
criminal investigator at the scene states Gunderson's investigative
results and conclusions are "100%" right." Ted L. Gunderson, former
Senior Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Los Angeles field office,
states the current Attorney General guidelines for domestic
security/terrorism investigation are adequate and there is no need for
further legislation. Attorney General guidelines set forth.

-Pending-

DETAILS: ========

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA SEISMOGRAM +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

April 26, 1995, Ted L. Gunderson, president and owner of Ted L.
Gunderson and Associates, received a seismogram from the Oklahoma
University Department of Geology, which showed that two surface waves
were received on their seismograph on April 19, 1995, at 9:02 and 3
seconds and one at 9:02 and 13 seconds. He immediately called the
University of Oklahoma Geology Department and talked to Dr. Ken Louzza
who confirmed this. Gunderson asked Dr. Louzza to interpret the chart.
He stated "this indicates two detonations occurred in Oklahoma City at
the precise time recorded by the seismograph."

Dr. Louzza was recontacted on May 11, 1995, as Gunderson had received
information that the Geology Department had retracted its findings. Dr.
Louzza advised the official statement being made now by the University
was that there were TWO EVENTS that took place in the Oklahoma City area
on April 19, 1995 at the precise time indicated on the seismogram. 

Gunderson subsequently received the following official report from Dr.
Raymond L. Brown, Geology Department, University of Oklahoma: It is
noted that the FBI, after insisting for several days after the bombing
that it had occurred at 9:04 am, has now changed the official time to
9:02, which conforms to the seismographic record from the University of
Oklahoma.

MICHAEL RICONOSCIUTO ++++++++++++++++++++

Gunderson, realizing that the official word being released by the
government sources was that a fertilizer bomb was used to destroy the
building and that there would only have been one detonation with this
type of bomb, then contacted his experts and furnished them the results
of the University of Oklahoma seismogram. (This included two
persons,-one does not wish to be identified).

Michael Riconosciuto stated that based on the briefing given him by
Gunderson and the unidentified expert, he is convinced that the bomb
used in the Oklahoma City bombing was initially developed by himself. He
described it as an ELECTRO - HYDRODYNAMIC GASEOUS FUEL DEVICE. (see
exhibit A). Since Mike Riconosciuto is the original developer of this
device it would be helpful to describe his background and the events
which may have led to the dissemination of the information necessary for
someone to have built this type of bomb.

Mike Riconosciuto is the son of Marshall Riconosciuto, who was a
powerful municipal leader and politician with numerous major west coast
political connections. When Mike Riconosciuto was young, he was
surrounded by relatives and business associates working with the Office
of Strategic Services (OSS) and later the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA). Marshall Riconosciuto, his father, owned and operated a "public
relations" firm which included long-time friend and colleague "Fred Lee
Crisman," an OSS psychological warfare specialist working against the
German effort to secure the atomic bomb. It is still rumored today that
Marshall Riconosciuto held a powerful position within the intelligence
community. His son, Michael, was born and raised into this secret
lifestyle. From an early age, Mike was a technological child prodigy.
(see exhibit B) At the age of ten, he was experimenting with radios,
television, sound amplifiers, and remarkably he was one of the first
persons to discover the biological reactions in plant life that are
stimulated by external sound. 

Mike Riconosciuto grew up in Berkeley during the early sixties and was
already making a name for himself as a world class scientific genius.
While at Stanford University he developed a method of extracting nuclear
isotopes using a laser (see exhibit C), something which has only
recently been perfected. Because of his family connections to the
intelligence community, Mike was a perfect insider for the CIA to use
during their experimentation with LSD.

American teenagers loved to experiment with it and Mike became
interested in the chemical structure of these psycho-active drugs and
was eventually linked with the analytical side of the CIA's MK-Ultra
experiments. It is at this juncture that the CIA developed a "control
jacket" for Mike Riconosciuto. A control jacket is an unpleasant
blackmail scheme that the CIA uses to keep psychological control over
their assets. Mike Riconosciuto's jacket was that of an illicit drug
manufacturer. The CIA used Mike to spy on the radical Berkeley crowd and
the anti-war movement then springing out of the Height Ashbury area of
San Francisco. Mike led a dual life as a young scientist experimenting
with highly secretive and new technology, while associating with
motorcycle gangs and radical hippie elements of society. He reported his
intelligence gathering activities to the FBI and CIA on a regular basis.
At one point, Mike refused to cooperate with his handlers, and they used
their control jacket to have him arrested. Mike claims that he was set
up, then prosecuted as a juvenile. 

It was at this point that Mike realized how much power and control was
being exerted upon him to stop all other activities and to continue to
explore his scientific skills in the development of new theories in
science. Part of this pressure was a result of Mike Riconosciuto's own
father to channel the young Riconosciuto into his work. During the late
1970s, Mike was making discoveries in a new scientific principle that
would eventually cause so much excitement at the National Security
Agency (NSA) that the director of this agency would make a personal
appearance at Mike's laboratory to examine the results of his work. The
laboratory was called Hercules Research, and Mike was developing a new
device called the ######## ###### ##### ###### (METC Unit). By itself
the METC unit was not so complicated a device to replicate, however, the
control circuitry and the applications in which the METC unit was being
used was nothing short of a scientific revolution. Numerous patents were
issued to Inter-Probe Inc., under the leadership of former Admiral Henry
Renkin. 

The Admiral had formed a relationship with the Riconosciutos, and the
government had taken an active interest in everything that Mike was
developing. These included ######## ##### ####### weapons systems, #####
####### ########## counter-measures for the Stealth aircraft, an
improved method of controlling and ######## ############ in winged
aircraft, an improved method of ######## #########in critical
laser-welded applications and a half-dozen more such projects shrouded
in secrecy. Mike was considered years ahead of his time and important
people were now be-friending him.

In the late 70s, Mike Riconosciuto was slowly developing a sense or
rejection against his father, who tried to continue to steer Mike away
from other pre-occupations and back into his work. 

At one point, Mike rebelled and broke away from his father's influence
only to come running into the hands of a CIA control agent named John P.
Nichols. (see exhibit D) J. P. Nichols was a master at controlling the
young Riconosciuto, and even managed to set him up with a former
Wackenhut female security guard who was hired to marry Mike and keep an
eye on every aspect of his life. Mike's new wife was also creating a
fictional daily account of her activities as his wife and secretly
submitting them to J. P. Nichols who proceeded in creating a whole new
control jacket for Mike. His new wife would take a few items of truth
and create whole elaborate reports of exaggerated nonsense on paper.

These reports painted Mike as a monstrous control freak, drug addict,
and wife abuser. In reality, Mike detested drugs and had become upset at
how easily the CIA was capable of using drugs to set up and imprison
anyone who objected to the program. At one point a man named Paul
Morasca was working with Mike at the Cabazon Indian reservation in
southern California on numerous secret projects on behalf of Wackenhut
Corporation, which was then under contract with the Central Intelligence
Agency to develop small arms and secret new weapons systems. In the
early 1980s, Mike was being asked to develop new weapons systems. Having
already developed the METC and having used it for numerous other
applications, Mike developed a method of using the energy enhanced
transfer phenomena in a bomb. After spending a few weeks developing the
mathematics, Mike came up with the electro-hydrodynamic gaseous fuel
bomb. It was first developed and tested by Wackenhut Research under a
government contract. Among the officials who composed the board of
directors for Wackenhut Corporation was William Casey who eventually
became CIA director during the Reagan administration.

When the first version of the electro-hydrodynamic device was tested at
an underground test site in Nevada, called "Area 51", the explosion was
underestimated by several degrees and the earth above the test site
collapsed several feet down killing one technician and injuring several
others. When this information was provided to President Reagan the whole
project was compartmentalized and classified under a "Nuclear Weapons"
category. It was also at this time that something happened that Mike has
never told anyone. Mike's friend and long time co-worker Paul Morasca
was found hog-tied and tortured to death. Something had gone terribly
wrong and Mike's life was now in danger. Yet another CIA control agent
was now promising Mike an opportunity to start over again by leaving J.
P. Nichols. Meanwhile, the California state authorities had been looking
into J. P. Nichol's activities with some concern. It seems that J. P.
Nichols had employed hired professional killers on his staff, but these
hit men were not your average criminals.

These people were trained ritual-type murderers who actually loved their
work with a passion. Arrests were made by the Indio California Police
Department and J .P. Nichols was subsequently convicted of soliciting
murder.(see exhibit H) Wakenhut tried to distance itself from this
affair. However, both Wackenhut and the CIA had intensive information
about what was going on and who was involved. For one thing, J. P.
Nichols had made friends with numerous mafia bosses, some of whom had
helped him set up the gambling casino in Indio, California, on Cabazon
Tribal property. 

When Mike Riconosciuto found out about his friend being murdered, J. P.
Nichols had thus indicated through his actions that he also intended to
assassinate Mike. Mike left J. P. Nichols and started looking for
another company to form a business relationship. Mike struck a deal with
a twenty-year veteran CIA career officer named Robert B. Nichols (see
exhibit E) (no relation to J .P. Nichols). R. B. Nichols formed a
corporation called Meridian Arms Corp. By the time Meridian Arms got
involved in Mike's project activities, Dr. Harry Fair of the Defense
Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) was being contacted and FMC
corporation was being solicited to participate in a joint venture with
Meridian Arms. ( See enclosed documentation between Meridian arms, FMC
corporation, and Dr. Harry Fair all are included as exhibit F) 

Somehow the Meridian Arms venture never materialized due to a failure in
communications between Mike Riconosciuto and Robert Nichols in late
1984. Mike's laboratory was moved to a small seaside town in Washington
statewhere he was slowly preparing to get back into the theoretical
research applications of the METC unit. Meanwhile, Mike was developing a
new idea involving the extraction of precious metals using an organic
chemistry reaction and his ##### ##### ##### Theorem. Mike was looking
for some cash to start up the theoretical research lab again and he
decided to try his own method of extracting platinum in the tailings of
an old mine in eastern Washington state. At about the same time as Mike
was succeeding in extracting his first few grams of platinum, Mike got a
message from a computer software firm named Inslaw. Inslaw had
successfully sued the government for having conspired to bankrupt the
company that developed the software under contract with the Reagan
Administration. The case was up for an apeal and Inslaw was collecting
evidence. Mike volunteered to provide a sworn affidavit (see exhibit G)
to the originator and true owner of the intellectual property. This
affidavit confimed a Department of Justice plot to steal and modify the
software source code by adding a trap door inside the system which would
subsequently allow anyone with the correct "Macro Sequence" to access
unauthorized data from outside the facility where the computers were
operating.

The new administration then sold its new product to other countries
without telling these new customers that it was possible for the United
States government to read all of the world' s secrets by tapping into
the foreign computer's modem lines and using an unauthorized back door
to penetrate the system's normal security lock-out. Mike proceeded to
sign the sworn affidavits despite the government's warning that if he
helped Inslaw, they were going to set him up and throw him in jail.
Exactly eight days later, Mike Riconosciuto was arrested and prosecuted
under the control jacket they had used over and over again. DRUGS. He is
now serving a thirty-year sentence without parole for having conspired
to manufacture a controlled substance. "Amphetamine". Although other
criminals who have killed are getting out within a few years, Mike is
purposely being made out to be a crazy drug addicted liar who will say
anything to anyone to get out of prison. When Ted Gunderson recently
made contact with Mike Riconosciuto, Mike described the type of bomb he
had designed. (see Illustration exhibit A) 

ELECTRO-HYDRODYNAMIC GASEOUS FUEL DEVICE (declassified version is
blacked-out for Security reasons) 

After having seen the devastation of the Oklahoma bomb, Mike concluded
that someone had gotten hold of his technology and components, which had
been stolen from the research laboratory in the late 1980s. The test
bomb consisted of a cylinder of just "64 ounces or more of ammonium
nitrate (Aqueous)," which surrounds a shaft of aluminum silicate that
has at its center another shaft of an explosive known as #############.
When the ######## is detonated, the top of the canister or tank
containing the bomb flies upwards and the bottom of the tank opens up
into a flower-petal shape. Immediately the ammonium nitrate mixes with
the shattered ############ aluminum silicate to create an even more
devastating explosive fuel cloud. This cloud is then energized with a
high-potential electrostatic field resulting in the creation of millions
of "microfronts." The cold cloud is then detonated by a charge that is
cushioned from the first blast due to a shock absorbing cavity. 

This time the cold cloud ignites, creating a shock wave which surpasses
the traditional ###########. The most astounding effects of this type of
detonation is the immediate atmospheric overpressure which has a
tendency to blow out windows of any structure within the vicinity of the
blast. 

####### is used in the initial detonation which releases ammonium
nitrate and aluminum silicate to mix in a cloud. 

PETN is used to detonate the electrically-charged cloud. The reason PETN
is not used in both charges is because if it were used in the first
detonation, it would be of such a violent explosive nature that it would
detonate the secondary charge at the same time. 

The explosive PETN is the substance used to detonate the second charge,
which in turn detonates the electrified cloud mixtures of ammonium
nitrate and ######### causing the major devastating blast. 

PETN is an explosive used as a primer or initiating charge. It is high
speed, very sensitive and used in small amounts. 

Exhibit A was drawn by a technician who has worked closely with Mike
Riconosciuto in the past:

In reporting on the vulnerability of the building to the explosion, the
New York Times in its April 28 edition, page A27, reported as follows:
"The Federal Building in Oklahoma City may also have been vulnerable
because of its ground level atrium and glass facade. The problem was not
with flying glass--a small hazard compared with collapsing concrete--but
with the way the blast was able to penetrate the glass easily and push
up the floors at the lower levels, some experts said."

The Times reported further: "Anatol Longinow, an engineer at Wiss,
Janney, Elstner Associates, a firm in Chicago that investigates
structural failures, said that when a bomb goes off at street level, the
blast expands spherically, and it hits the floors up instead of down, by
coming in under them.

"The floors are not intended to go up in any event, he said. If pushed
in a direction opposite from normal, he said, the floors may break loose
relatively easily and crash down in a pancake-like pile". 

It is this pancake-like pile of the several stories of the building that
has caused rescue workers and firemen so much trouble in their search
for survivors and retrieval of search for survivors as well as retrieval
of the dead from the structure.

REASON IT WAS NOT A FERTILIZER BOMB +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Based on information furnished by Mr. Riconoscuito and other experts the
bomb used in Oklahoma City was not a fertilizer bomb for the following
reasons:

1 Commercial ammonium nitrate (fertilizer bomb) has too much moisture to
be effective as was the situation in Oklahoma City. Even if a person
knows what he is doing, it is almost impossible to prepare it with home
mixing equipment. Commercial production of ammonium nitrate fertilizer
requires a prill tower over 300 feet high. It would take huge processing
equipment to produce a 4800 pound fertilizer bomb.The chances of a large
quantity such as 4800 pounds detonating is slim.What usually happens is
the propagation from the initial detonation would be uneven and it would
scatter the bulk of material before contributing energy to the bulk of
the explosion.An improvised bomb can be ferocious but an unconfined
explosive charge is not going to develop the pressure necessary to
demolish the Oklahoma City building.

2 An FBI agent testified that McVeigh's shirt contained
PDTNpentadirythri-tetra-nitrate). It is claimed by the governmentthat
rope used to tie the 55 gallon barrels was soaked in PDTN,which would be
unreliable and probably would not work, as the propagation would have
been uneven and there would havebeen no way to shield such a blast. The
only way to obtain blast control is with volumetric initiation.This
takes elect-ronic circuits of similar sophistication as would be
required in nuclear weapons. This sophistication is not available to the
average person--most certainly the militia do not have access to
this.The calculation on an unconfined device of 4800 pounds does not
match the damage in Oklahoma City. It would have been a confused and
uncontrolled blast. Much of the energy would have cancelled itself
out.The over-driven detonation in terms of energy delivered from the
blast was more explosive from the blast than the chemical energy which
is not the signature of the fertilizer bomb.

3. The signature of the bomb used in Oklahoma went in energy from Class
A to Class C abruptly, class A being the highest velocity to class C,
being the lowest velocity. The signature of the Oklahoma City bomb was
not that of a fertilizer bomb, but it does match the signature of the
A-Neutronic bomb. 

4. The University of Oklahoma Geological Survey reports that there were
two bomb blasts in Oklahoma City, 10 seconds apart. In a recent press
conference, Dr. Charles Mankin, Director of the University of Oklahoma's
Geological Survey Department, stood by a seismographic recording of two
shock waves 10 seconds apart. He stated that "Because there are two
seismograph records, there would had to have been two explosions or two
bombs." Mankin scientifically refuted other suggested explanations. The
media has ignored this as well as other evidence.

5. An ammonium nitrate truck bomb of the size reported does not produce
a crater, it blows upward.

6. Officials reported finding the Ryder rental truck axle three blocks
away. The obvious question is: How did the axle blow upwards when the
bomb-setting over and on top of the axle blew out a crater 30ft deep?

7. A growing number of bomb experts (ex-U.S. military, ex-FBI, ex-police
with extensive demolition backgrounds) are coming forward to say that it
appears two or more sophisticated bombs detonated inside the Federal
Building. 

8. The bomb experts go on to say that a truck bomb immense enough to
break reinforced concrete columns at a distance would certainly blow out
the exterior curtain wall at ground level on the opposite (undamaged)
side of the building. 

9. A retired Air Force General (with impressive ballistic and government
credentials) recently discussed the Oklahoma bombing with Don McAlvany,
Editor, Mc Alnanry Intelligence Review. His first reaction was that the
pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without
supplementary demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete
column bases inside the building - a standard demolition technique. "A
blast through the air is very insufficient against reinforced concrete." 

10. The pattern of blown columns is not close enough to being circular
if the blast emanated from one origin. As virtually all bomb experts
agree, the power of detonation diminishes proportionally as the distance
in all (circular) directions is increased. The pattern of destruction
seen at the Murrah Building was essentially linear. Bomb experts from
all over the country have argued that the truck bomb was not parked in
the right spot to do the resulting damage

11. Private citizens monitoring police band Scanners in Oklahoma City
overheard the Oklahoma City Bomb squad disscuss the finding of an
undetonated bomb with military markings on the canister inside the
building. This was subsequently reported on national television as
viewing audiences watched people run away from the building. 

12. The Oklahoma Ryder truck bomb reportedly destroyed 20 to 30 main
support columns and the massive horizontal cross beam from a distance of
30 to 75 feet, and yet the van used in the World Trade Center bombing
with about the same explosive power failed to destroy even one support
beam from a much closer distance.

13. It is reported by the News Services of (April 29) that "Sources
familiar with the investigation said that the bomb appears to have been
set off by hand, rather than ignited by a timing device," How is it that
the bomber could have rolled up the rear gate of the truck, lit the fuse
by hand, and rolled the gate back down without being seen by nearby TV
cameras? 

14. The detonator cord used was described by a government source as
being "so powerful that it is used in military operations to slice
through bridge supports. However, according to a former military
detonations expert, the cord would have to be wrapped at least three
times around each barrel, and, in addition to a number of other
complicated step, also be wrapped directly around each column
approximately 27 times, necessitating 324 feet of detonator cord per
column and a blasting cap to achieve the resulting damage.

15. Debris was blown out of the building as one would expect from an
internal blast.

16. The bomb could not have been built by former Persian Gulf War Army
veteran Timothy McVeigh and his rural Michigan farming friends, brothers
James and Terry Nichols - - at least not without the aid of persons, as
yet unknown. Those persons would need to possess knowledge of research
classified at the very highest level of top secret by the U.S.
government, in addition to access to a vast array of chemical and
electronic components.

FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR AT THE SCENE 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gunderson has been contacted indirectly by a federal criminal
investigator who is involved in the investigation. He stated the
Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995 was with a dual charge. Had it
been ammonium nitrate (fertilizer bomb) the workers would not have been
allowed in the area without breathing masks due to the presence of
Nitric Acid vapors. He advised that John Doe #2 was vaporized by design.
McVeigh is also a "throwaway." He stated that the debris was collapsed
toward the crater. There was something inside the building probably
another bomb. It was a drop and shear charge. The investigators have
looked for signs of ammonia nitrate but there are none. He advised that
Gunderson is "100% right" in his deductions and investigative efforts. 

U.S. NUCLEAR SCIENTIST STATEMENT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A nuclear physicist from one of the nation's three top government
laboratories has anonymously confirmed that the A-Neutronic device, as
designed by Mike Riconsciuto, is far more likely to have caused the
damage in Oklahokma City than a crude fertliser bomb. 

PROPOSED FEDERAL ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ted L. Gunderson, former Senior Special Agent in Charge (retired) of the
FBI Los Angeles field office, advises the current Attorney General
guidelines on domestic security/terrorism investigations are adequate
and there is no need for further measures. Guidelines are as follows: 

Information contained in this report was submitted to the FBI on April
26 and May 18, 1995.

Mr. Donald Mc Alvany, Editor Mc Alvany Intelligence advisor, contributed
to this report. 
393.1340DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Thu Aug 03 1995 21:383
    
    MUAFF ?
    
393.1341Quiz time people....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 21:4022
    Gunderson is a
    	a) nutter
    	b) retired special agent
    	c) kook
    	d) all of the above
    
    Riconsosciuto is a
    	a) nutter
    	b) "crazy drug addicted liar" (their words, edp, not mine)
    	c) felon
    	d) all of the above
    
    A pineapple bomb is
    	a) A so called ELECTRO-HYDRODYNAMIC GASEOS FUEL DEVICE
    	b) a mythical non-existant fictitous bomb
    	c) A bomb that exists only in the minds of Gunderson, Riconsosciuto,
    	   assorted other nutters *AND* people foolish enough to believe
    	   everything they read on the Internet without bothering to check
    	   the facts
    	d) all of the above
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1342POLAR::RICHARDSONPrepositional MasochistThu Aug 03 1995 21:401
    Beverly?
393.1343Make Up A Fact FridayPERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 21:405
    re: MUAFF
    
    Tomorrow is....
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1344DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Thu Aug 03 1995 21:4610
    
    billy, I meant sources to back up your statements of:
      
    > don't, the traces are entirely consistent with a truck bomb, see
    > USGS release)

    > when somebody lies that the seismic traces specifically show the
    > "signature" of a "pineapple bomb" (they don't, they are entirely
    > consistent with a truck bomb)

393.1345TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 03 1995 21:486
      
    > USGS release
    
    Looks like a source to me (United States Geological Service?).


393.1346LEARN TO READ!PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 21:515
    Posted here on my birthday in 393.1239.
    
    But I'm offensive....
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1347In case you are wondering....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 21:588
    
    Oh, I don't have any sources to support that McVeigh was *NOT*
    programmed by a top-secret mind-control program to blow up the
    Murrah building.  I have no sources to support that the
    super-secret code phrase "Ahead warp factor three, engage"
    was *NOT* sent to him the morning of April 19, 1995....
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1348DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Thu Aug 03 1995 21:595
    
    If you will read the note following .1239, it will indicate the problem with
    your source.  Try again.
    
    
393.1349I don't think even edp believes .1240 was a valid rebuttal....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 22:024
    
    It begins with the letters "US".
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1350I am *not* making this up, the nutters are....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Aug 03 1995 22:0713
    By the way, another nutter thinks the mild-control projects and the
    starve-off-Montana-with-tornados-so-the-new-world-order-can-take-over
    projects are related.  Seems there are reports that people heard
    an "untraceable reverberating hum" for a few minutes the week of the
    bombing.  Further investigation shows that this hum was consistent
    with a Very Low Frequency (4.10Hz) energy pulses used in
    mind-control and weather-control.
    
    
    Other sources state that wearing a baseball cap with aluminum foil
    on the brim protects you from such top-secret emissions.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1351MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Aug 03 1995 22:105
    
    if there really was such a thing as "mild control", we can rest
    assured that you're not the victim of it.
    
    -b
393.1352TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 03 1995 22:125
    
    Nonsense; Bill is in full control of his mildness.
    
    :^)
    
393.1353SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Fri Aug 04 1995 00:0122
393.1354COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Aug 04 1995 01:556
I wonder why Grolier's want you to believe that it was only synagogues that
were damaged that night.

The windows of almost every Jewish owned business were shattered.

/john
393.1355SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 03:0514
    .1339
    
    Working on the stealth aircraft?
    
    Laser technology?
    
    New super-duper bombs?
    
    Pretty impressive for someone with no education.
    
    As a radical libertarian, I am shocked to find myself agreeing with Mr.
    Bill:
    
    Gunderson is a nutter!
393.1356SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Fri Aug 04 1995 11:3013
    
    
>    Sort of like
>    modern 'Murican workers and houseparents who tune into Rush Lamebrain
>    and belive his every word even in the face of documentary evidence that
>    he is not infrequently telling outright lies.  Excellent analogy,
>    indeed, given that both Nazism and the gun-toting militias are so far
>    to the right that they make Ronald Reagan look like a flaming liberal.
    
    	Nice broad brush you paint with Mr. Binder.
    
    
    jim
393.1357DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 04 1995 12:1710
    
    re: .1353
    
    Sources please....
    
    > .... Rush Lamebrain
    > and belive his every word even in the face of documentary evidence that
    > he is not infrequently telling outright lies.
    
    Dan
393.1358Baby and BathwaterLUDWIG::BARBIERIFri Aug 04 1995 12:5766
      Hi Bill,
    
        I will extract your long reply and I very well might come to
        the same conclusion you have (after reading it) regarding this
        bombing.  And if thats the case, I have erred bigtime.
    
        Because I have spiritual leanings, allow me to present an analogy
        to the idea of a nwo.
    
        Way back near the times of Luther when Protestantism was getting
        to be a force, there were more than a few factions.  Some of these
        factions were fanatical.  They were totally off the wall.  They
        aligned their cause as being the Protestant cause.
    
        Now, there have been wonderful books written on the Reformation.
        Stories of the Waldenses in their mountain retreats who would
        venture down to the cities with scriptures hidden in their clothing
        and seek to share "the good news."  Many at the peril of their 
        lives.  And many did die.  What Luther did was absolutely amazing.
        He literally risked his life.  In short, it was a good cause.
    
        So, how do *I* feel about anyone who might have condemned Pro-
        testantism on the basis of a fanatical fringe who claims to fight
        the same cause?  I would feel that the battle is a complex one 
        and it is overly simplistic to pass judgment on the whole thing
        on the basis of _some_ things.
    
        I guess the adage is, "Don't throw away the baby with the
        bathwater."
    
        The baby being Protestantism and the bath water being fanatical
        fringe groups.
    
        Extending the analogy, the baby is the idea that there are weird
        things going on, that there is some worldwide conspiracy, a nwo.
        The bathwater is that fanatical fringe that tends to make the
        whole thing (baby) seem like lunacy.
    
        Look at the Fed Reserve stuff going on!  Why isn't Congress
        printing our money.  There's some WEIRD stuff going on there!
        What about our tax laws?  What about states giving Feds some of
        their rights?  What about no mention ever being made as to the
        real reason we have the right to bear arms?  (Have you read the
        Federalist papers Jim offers?)  What about the detention centers
        being built?  One guy that noted here even said he thinks he
        built one!  What about the anti-terrorist bill.  Or the trade
        agreement with the rest of North America?  Don't you see the
        Constitution getting desecrated?
    
        I recognize that sometimes I come in here and blaze a little too
        readily and that I should have more the self control of MadMike.
    
        But, man, there's a lot of things going on and I feel that there
        may be cases where I'm full of it, but does that discount the 
        totality of what we're talking about?
    
        On what basis?
    
        Isn't that like throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
    
        I.e. Gunderson's a looney (supposing he is.  I don't know)
    
        THEREFORE There cannot possibly be a nwo scheme.
    
    							Tony
    
393.1359According to the nutters, my *brother* built a detention camp....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftFri Aug 04 1995 13:2724
    Homework assignment for you.  Read "In the Matter of Pat Robertson"
    by Norman Podhoretz in this issue of _Commentary_ (Vol 100, No 2,
    August 1995) pp 27-32.
    
    Just begin to understand that your "New World Order" conspiracy theories
    are rather old and rather smelly retreads of some deeply anti-Semitic
    crap from time gone by.  (Robertson has done a great disservice
    in laundering these "theories."  Podhoretz believes Robertson's
    support of Israel mitigates his actions.  I do not.)  Which is just
    *one* of the reasons why your protestations of "FEDS could have done
    it, remember the Nazis" are just so far off the mark.
    
    (Most puzzling are the Holocaust Deniars invoking the names of
    Rheichstag and Kristallnacht in reference to OKC.  Speaking of
    revisionists, the "Institute for Historical Review" which exists to
    spread the lie that the Holocaust did not take place has made
    spreading their lies on the Internet one of their top five goals!)
    
    
    Because you believe so strongly in a nwo conspiracy, you accept at
    face value everything that you are told that supports your vision.
    Open your eyes and *TRUST* *NO* *ONE*.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1360SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 13:325
    Trust no one is quite different from "assume everyone is lying."
    
    More sources please, bill.
    
    (e.g. where did that "top five goals" come from?)
393.1361SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Fri Aug 04 1995 13:4415
    .1357
    
    > Sources please....
    
    I'd have to introduce you to some people I know personally, such as my
    s-i-l Kathleen Chastain, whose husband is an Army recruiter.  Before
    that he was a pig farmer.  Kathleen dotes on Rush, and when she was
    presented by her brother with factual proof that he had lied on seven
    specific items, she exploded, saying that that wasn't proof, it was a
    leftwing plot to discredit Rush.
    
    I know others like her.  Several of them.  They're called Dittoheads. 
    And anyone who would wear a sobriquet like that proudly, which these
    people do, is living under a terrifying illusion of being intelligent
    and informed.  Whatever happened to thinking for oneself?
393.1362SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 04 1995 13:5010
    
    Dick,
    
     I don't watch/listen to Rush and never have, but from reading things
    in the box about him before, doesn't he deride these "ditto-heads" for
    the same reasons you do? That they should think for themselves..?
    
     From what I gather of reading about him, he considers himself an
    entertainer, albeit a political one...
    
393.1363I don't assume everyone is lying, I assume liars are lying....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftFri Aug 04 1995 13:5517
    re: .1360
    
|   Trust no one is quite different from "assume everyone is lying."
    
    It is not too much to ask of people who assume the government is
    lying to have them extend that assumption to assume everyone is
    lying.
    
|   More sources please, bill.
|   
|   (e.g. where did that "top five goals" come from?)
    
    From a fundraising letter from the Institute for Historical Review.
    Which clearly must have been sent by the government to discredit
    the IHR.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1364SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Fri Aug 04 1995 13:574
    .1362
    
    Yup, Rush derides Dittoheads.  And the members of his studio audience
    agree with him 100 percent.
393.1365SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 13:587
    >|   Trust no one is quite different from "assume everyone is lying."
    >
    >    It is not too much to ask of people who assume the government is
    >    lying to have them extend that assumption to assume everyone is
    >    lying.
    
    I agree. But I think my statement still stands.
393.1366NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri Aug 04 1995 13:595
>    From a fundraising letter from the Institute for Historical Review.
>    Which clearly must have been sent by the government to discredit
>    the IHR.

It was sent via U.S. Mail, right?
393.1367SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 04 1995 14:044
    
    re: .1364
    
    Is that your objective brush you're painting with today, Dick??
393.1368DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 04 1995 14:3015
    
    re: .1357
    
    > ... with factual proof that he had lied on seven specific items
    
    Examples please....
    
    re: .1353
    
    > and belive his every word even in the face of documentary evidence that
    > he is not infrequently telling outright lies.  Excellent analogy,
    
    Ah, seven specific items constitute "not infrequently".... I see.
    
    
393.1369SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 14:365
    I gotta say...
    
    Lying seven times in just a few years (iffen it did happen) is fairly
    frequent, as far as I'm concerned.
    Esp. on a nationally syndicated show where the pupose is to educate.
393.1370WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 04 1995 14:383
    >Esp. on a nationally syndicated show where the pupose is to educate.
    
     Ho ho! It's to entertain.
393.1371SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 14:423
    Ok, entertain...
    
    But he's certainly presenting his info as education, no?
393.1372GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 04 1995 14:562
    
    No, you are wrong again.  
393.1373SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 14:571
    OK, I give up. What DOES he do?
393.1374DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 04 1995 15:0314
    
    > Lying seven times in just a few years (iffen it did happen) is fairly
    > frequent, as far as I'm concerned.

    Alleged lying, this is yet to be proven.  Also over a period of 4-5
    years (not sure on actual number) amounts to less than 1 per 6 months.
    Now if you had a group of people following you around listening to much
    of what you said, with the sole purpose of proving you to be a liar, do
    you think you could do as well? I've seen nationally syndicated
    "news" magazine and news papers print that many lies in a lot less time, 
    and I'm pretty sure you have too.

    Dan

393.1375PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 04 1995 15:035
>>    OK, I give up. What DOES he do?

	he promotes Rush Limbaugh, the commodity.

393.1376CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Aug 04 1995 15:061
    It Rush traded on the futures exchange yet?  
393.1377sell shortHBAHBA::HAASbuggedFri Aug 04 1995 15:070
393.1378SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 15:158
    I'm not following Rush around - he's persenting hisself to me.
    (I don't watch him - I ain't got no teevee.)
    
    I also didn't comment on the validity of the statement that he had or
    had not lied seven times. Just said it was a lot. And yes, if one
    journalist did the same thing once every 6 months (not a whole
    publication - they got too dang many journalists not to lie one a week) I'd
    say that journalist was lying frequently, as well.
393.1379truth?SMURF::WALTERSFri Aug 04 1995 15:1711
    
    Limbaugh, TV Show Aug 3.
    
    "...pushy New York lawyers.  Now, if you live in New York, You'll
    know that this means pushy Jewish lawyers..."
    
    (Even his audience was dead silent at this leap of inferential logic.)
    
    Perhaps New Yorkers can confirm?
    
    Colin
393.1380SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 04 1995 15:184
    
    
    Perhaps Jesse Jackson can confirm...
    
393.1381CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Aug 04 1995 15:215
    It is remarks like that, that got Howard Cosell and Jimmy the Greek
    panned from t.v. sports commentary.  If this is truly attributable to 
    Rush, I sincerely hope it helps to quicken his demise as a commentarist.
    
    Brian
393.1382SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 04 1995 15:253
    
    Yeah, but not Teflon Jesse...
    
393.1383DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 04 1995 15:506
    
    Hey Colin, how about the rest of what he said....  You can get a lot of
    mileage when you take something out of context.

    Dan

393.1384SMURF::WALTERSFri Aug 04 1995 16:005
    Dan, 
    
    If you believe the context makes a difference, then you quote it.
    I'm only interested in knowing whether the phrase has that universal
    meaning to New Yorkers - for my own edification.
393.1385DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 04 1995 16:105
    
    Really, then why did you post it in such a way as to promote
    dis-information?


393.1386Oh, The Immorality of It All!!LUDWIG::BARBIERIFri Aug 04 1995 16:1421
      Bill,
    
        I agree 100% with your last paragraph in your reply to me.
    
        I still have yet to see you explain the 'dead horse' argument
        I made.  You haven't touched it so far as I can tell.  The
        1939 incident is completely irrelevant as to what Germany 
        became.
    
        Jesse:
    
        Yeah, Andy.  Thats one that some liberals might not want to
        acknowledge, i.e. holding people to the same standard.  You
        got Gerry Studds doing up some 16 year old boy and Barney
        Frank's lover holding a prostitution ring in his very own
        place of residence.  And they're still in high enough standing, 
        so why not Jesse??!!
    
        But, to be fair, this Packwood thing is a crock too!!
    
    						Tony
393.1387MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryFri Aug 04 1995 17:1736
    > You ought to learn a little history, Brian.  "vandalized and looted
    > some shops," indeed.
    
    two years ago, my company did a cd-rom project for the german
    government called "facts about germany". the cd-rom contains
    information about the history, society, geography and
    economy of germany; it is available at german embassies
    in english-speaking countries (as is a companion book, upon
    which the cd-rom was based). the cd-rom is intended to support
    german tourism and business and while it is pro-german propaganda,
    the germans were always willing to tell the truth about their
    past.
    
    the cd-rom does contain some information about the "night of
    the broken glass", although i did not write that particular
    story. so please pardon me for understating the scope of the
    event; i had forgotten that synagogues were also burned.
    however, i am not ignorant of the event or its purpose,
    as you suggest. let me try again, given what i do know about
    it:
    
    essentially, hitler claimed that the "night of the broken
    glass" was caused by civil unrest and rioting. his version
    of the story was that the jews were rioting, and in the
    process destroyed much of their own property. what really
    happened is that hitler's thugs did the burning and looting,
    and also drove the jewish population onto the street, where
    they were arrested; in fact, they were fleeing for their
    lives. but photographs of them running about in the street
    were used as evidence that they were the instigators and
    participants in the violence.
    
    better?
    
    -b
    
393.1388SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Fri Aug 04 1995 17:481
    Much better.
393.1389TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Tue Aug 08 1995 02:258
    
    Heard on CBC nooz tonite the latest speculation in this affair:
    
    Just before the search for survivors/bodies was called off, rescuers
    came across a leg with a military boot on it.  Well, it seems they
    cannot match this leg with any of the known victims, leading investi-
    gators to believe that this may be the leg of the actual bomber.
    
393.1390CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanTue Aug 08 1995 03:185



  They haven't got a leg to stand on
393.1391CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanTue Aug 08 1995 03:184


 They're just pulling our leg
393.139243GMC::KEITHDr. DeuceTue Aug 08 1995 10:192
    They found it May 31 and did NOT notify the defense which (as I recall)
    is required by law (sharing of evidence).
393.1393Groan awayGRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberTue Aug 08 1995 10:513
    
    
    SO I guess the govt figured they had a leg up on the defense.......
393.1394DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Tue Aug 08 1995 12:266
    
    Well Mike, now you've gone and stepped in it...
    You've given them a foot in the door.....
    
    ;-)
    Dan
393.1395POWDML::LAUERLittleChamberPrepositionalPunishmentTue Aug 08 1995 12:555
    
    It sounds suspicious to me, but I'm sure Mr.Bill can fill us in with
    the real story 8^).
    
    
393.1396TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Tue Aug 08 1995 13:013
    
    "Bring me the leg of William Licea-Kane!"
    
393.1397NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 08 1995 13:062
I've seen Mr. Bill on numerous occasions since the bombing.  He either has
both his legs or is remarkably adept with his prosthesis.
393.1398POLAR::RICHARDSONThank You KindlyTue Aug 08 1995 13:491
    <----- You went out on a limb with that one Gerald.
393.1399TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 10 1995 12:5411
    
    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Prosecutors building their case in the U.S.
    federal building bombing now have a star witness: a former army buddy
    of the two suspects who will admit helping plot the deadly attack.
    
    Michael Fortier, 26, of Kingman, Arizona, has agreed to plead guilty to
    lesser charges in exchange for testifying for the government, a senior
    federal official said yesterday.  The official did not know the exact
    length of the sentence under the plea-bargain but said Fortier would
    get "less than life."
    
393.1400CNTROL::JENNISONRevive us, Oh LordThu Aug 10 1995 13:432
	Snarf bomb!
393.1402POWDML::HANGGELILittle Chamber of BoingfestsThu Aug 10 1995 21:204
    
    So, what about the leg?
    
    
393.1403SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Thu Aug 10 1995 22:463
    
    The leg was not charged.
    
393.1404DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Aug 10 1995 23:008
    Perhaps it belonged to someone in the building that hasn't been
    reported missing.  Gruesome as it sounds, perhaps the leg blew
    in one direction and the torso was incinerated :-(
    
    I still question if authorities REALLY know how many non-employee
    types might have been in the building on closeby in the street.
    
    
393.1406POLAR::RICHARDSONFirsthand Bla Bla BlaFri Aug 11 1995 00:213
    I think I'll just have the salad.
    
    Bluuuurgh.
393.1407SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREOutta my way. IT'S ME !Fri Aug 11 1995 04:111
    <--- Would you like an extra leg with that, sir ?
393.1408SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 11 1995 12:584
    
    Since it's been determined the three were "Army" buddies, it's
    incumbent on Herr Reno to now do a thorough investigation into the
    complete workings of the military...
393.1410DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 11 1995 14:199
    
    > Fortier, 26, of Arizona, could receive up to a 23-year prison sentence 
    > in return for his testimony against the other two. 
    
    There's gotta be something screwed up about the wording of that
    sentence....
    
    :-|
    Dan
393.1411SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherFri Aug 11 1995 14:303
    re: .1409
    
    Of course not, silly, herring's don't have legs! :-)
393.1412Polish clemency???SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 11 1995 14:362
    
    re: .1410
393.1413EST::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQFri Aug 11 1995 19:057
><<< Note 393.1408 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
>    Since it's been determined the three were "Army" buddies, it's
>    incumbent on Herr Reno to now do a thorough investigation into the
>    complete workings of the military...

Complete with dynamic entry raids into all military compounds in the USA.
Why, I bet they're even stockpiling AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in there!
393.1414DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Mon Aug 14 1995 12:4512
    
> >    incumbent on Herr Reno to now do a thorough investigation into the
> >    complete workings of the military...
> 
> Complete with dynamic entry raids into all military compounds in the USA.

    WOW !  The mental image of that is a riot!!!....
    Here you have the hot-shot DEA & BATF agents trying to storm Fort
    Bragg.... You have the gate guards waste their miserable butts... the
    question is would the guards even bother to report it.... :-)

    Dan
393.1415DRDAN::KALIKOWW3: Surf-it 2 Surfeit!Mon Aug 14 1995 12:503
    Not to mention the implication that Attorney General Janet Reno has
    undergone sexual reassignment surgery...
    
393.1416SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 14:237
    
    <-------
    
    You caught that huh?? :)
    
    Actually, I put that in cause she just looks like she did...
    
393.1417makes me feel warm and fuzzy about our govt SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Thu Aug 17 1995 14:5544
                   FBI agent says reports changed 
                        for Trade Center trial
    
                            By Jeanne King

    NEW YORK, Aug 14 [Reuter] - An FBI explosives expert testifying in the
bombing plot trial of Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others
said on Monday that he was told to change his reports in favour of the
prosecution.
    FBI agent Frederic Whitehurst said he disagreed with the final report
prepared by the FBI that was to have been used by the government at the trial
of four men accused in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.
    ``There was a great deal of pressure put upon me to bias my
interpretation,'' Whitehurst said in Federal Court in Manhattan. He said his
superiors told him ``not to provide alternative theories that could be used by
the defence. I was told not to give the defence anything that could be used.''
    Whitehurst told the court that initial reports about the presence of urea
nitrate were false. He said it so upset him that false testimony would be
offered that he went to the bathroom, urinated into a beaker and went to
extremes to demonstrate that false information was being offered.
    Whitehurst said he formulated urea nitrate from his own urine and placed
that sample with others taken from the bomb scene. He said the FBI technician
failed to notice the difference between the samples.
    Whitehurst said he was so upset at the ``strong pressure'' being put on him
by FBI members that he wrote two memos to the Inspector General about the
matter.
    Whitehurst, who holds a doctorate in chemistry from Duke University, was
called as a defence witness by lawyers for Fares Khalafalla and Mohammad Saleh,
two men who have been on trial since January with the Egyptian cleric.
    Abdel-Rahman and nine other men are charged with planning the World Trade
Centre blast and plotting to bomb the United Nations and bridges and tunnels
leading into New York. They are also accused of planning the 1990 murder of
Jewish militant Rabbi Meir Kahane and conspiring to kill Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak when he was visiting the United States.
    ``I was criticised openly and told I could hurt the prosecution case ...
that the prosecution was going to circumvent my testimony by having another
expert testify,'' said Whitehurst, who described himself as the ``dean'' of the
FBI explosives school in Virginia.
    Four men were convicted in 1994 for the explosion at the trade centre that
killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others. The four were sentenced
to 240 years in prison.
    After the trade centre trial Whitehurst was transferred to the paint chip
analysis division of the FBI as a trainee.

393.1418SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Fri Aug 18 1995 15:2264
Leg found in Oklahoma bombing rubble doesn't
worry prosecutors


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY (Aug 18, 1995 - 09:24 EDT) -- A leg found
in the rubble of the bombed federal building does not worry
prosecutors despite one defense lawyer's theory that it may have
belonged to the real bomber.

"It's not a concern," Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Mullins said.
"Obviously we want to know if there's another victim, but it
shouldn't impact our case significantly."

The leg, discovered in the rubble on May 30, has not been
matched to any of the 168 known victims of the April 19 bombing,
said Fred Jordan, the state medical examiner.

DNA tests at an FBI laboratory in Washington are expected to
be completed within a few days.

The death count will probably be raised to 169 if those tests fail
to match the decomposed leg with any of those known dead,
Jordan said.

If DNA testing fails to turn up a match, then there is little hope of
identifying the limb, Jordan said.

"We just don't have anything to match it to," Jordan said.

Scientists say the leg likely came from a man about 30 with dark
hair and fair skin. Local police say there are no outstanding
missing-person reports that match the leg.

The leg had a military-style boot and an olive-drab strap used to
tuck pants into the boot when it was discovered, Jordan said.

Those details prompted Stephen Jones, the lead lawyer for
suspect Timothy McVeigh, to speculate that the leg belonged to
someone involved in the attack.

Neither Mullins nor FBI spokesman Dan Vogel would comment
Thursday on whether the leg may have belonged to a suspect.

McVeigh and Terry Nichols are the only two people charged in
the bombing. Both pleaded innocent Tuesday to conspiracy and
murder charges that could carry the death penalty.

The boot and strap also raised the possibility that the unknown
victim was homeless. Homeless men and women often wear
military-surplus clothing.

Operators of local homeless shelters say none of their regulars
are missing. But the Rev. Eddie House, who runs the Jesus
House shelter a few blocks away from the bombing site,
conceded that the leg could have come from a homeless man who
was just passing through the city.

House said many such men have little contact with family or
friends and might not be missed for many months.

393.1419No leg up on the prosecution.SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREHEY! All you mimes be quiet!Mon Aug 21 1995 05:122
    Why should they worry ? Severed legs can't testify.
    
393.1420Talk HardSNOFS1::DAVISMHappy Harry Hard OnMon Aug 21 1995 05:323
    Gimme a break ! It's America, anything can happen !
    
    Ok I'll quit that now, I'm just bored that's all !! :*)
393.1421GIDDAY::BURTDPD (tm)Mon Aug 21 1995 05:354
Maybe Doris Stokes could talk to the toes....


Chele
393.1422This bites.SCAS01::GUINEO::MOOREHEY! All you mimes be quiet!Tue Aug 22 1995 15:5129
    
    Should be in Wacky News Briefs, but OKC related, so here goes:
    
    Associated Press, August 22, 1995
    
    A University of Colorado psychology professor has been awarded a
    federal grant to study stress levels among the 100 Oklahoma City
    residents who were within a five-block radius of the federal
    building blast.
    
    The $50,000 National Institute of Mental Health grant will try to
    determine whether emotional damage is greater in natural or human-
    caused disasters.
    
    Charles Benight, who is heading the study, said he expects the bombing
    survivors to have a harder time coping with the trauma than the
    survivors of Hurricane Andrew.
    
    "We're really interested in how people cope, physically and emotionally
    with this type of trauma," he said. "The idea is to understand the
    coping process so we can use that information the generate better
    intervention strategies".
    
    End of story.
    
    -- ed. note : No, Mr. Benight, the idea is to get $50,000 from the
    		  the taxpayers.  The results of your study will then
    		  be used to interfere with peoples' normal, natural 
    		  grieving processes in times of distress.
393.1423NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 22 1995 15:521
Poor benighted one.
393.1424SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Sat Aug 26 1995 11:1776
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:49:46 GMT
From: Charles Zeps <czeps@icis.on.ca>
Subject: OKC BOMB SQUAD FOLLIES

                      OKLAHOMA BOMB SQUAD NEWS

====================================================================
Oklahoma bombing Investigator Pat Briley was the guest on Radio Free
America on WWCR (nightly on 5.065 MHZ from 02:00-04:00 UTC). The host,
Tom Valentine got a call in the second hour from the Atlanta GA area
where a caller stated that a "bootleg" copy of the explosions at the
Murrah Building on 91 April was making the rounds of the Federal Law
Enforcement sub-contacting community. Valentine also said that the 
Guest on Wed. night Aug.23 would be David Hall (KPOC - Ponca City OK
producer of the Video on the OKC bombings called "The Bomb".
====================================================================

- KFOR TV in OKC will carry a story this week that has two witnesses
  saying that BATF Agents told them they had received a "serious"
  bomb threat and work attendance on 19 April was optional.

- Author John Rappaport will son be publishing a book called _The
  Oklahoma City Bombing: Suppressed Truth_.

- The militaryly clad leg locally reported to have a size 9 boot as
  per the convicted bank robber contradicts earlier CNN/AP reports that
  the foot took a Size & boot. 
  
- In Fall of 1994 McVeigh is said to have tried to purchase Hydrarzine
  from racing fuel distributors. His name and phone number were 
  given to the BATF on two occaisions in 1994.

- Roger Moore, the Akansas gun collector whose home was robbed reported 
  to the local Sherrif that he suspected Tim McVeigh at the time. He is 
  said to have run a front company for the CIA and worked for the FBI. He 
  is also said to have been an ATF informant and had went to many gun
  shows with Timothy McVeigh.

- KFOR TV in OKC carried a story on Thur. 17 Aug. 1995 in which the steps 
  of the OKC bombers were traced. The three vehicles involved were the
  Ford Ryder truck, the Ford Marquis and a brown (Ford?) pickup truck
  (later recovered by the FBI in an OKC apartment building lot after a
  hasty yellow paint job). The Ryder was driven by McVeigh with an Iraqi    
  called John Doe II and stopped at a Firestone Tire store N. of the
  Murrah to ask direction to the Murrah. They were seen one block W. of
  the Murrah circa 07:45 and another Mid-Easterner was driving the 
  yellow Ford Marquis which was driven to the parking lot across from
  the Murrah as the pickup was positioned a block West. JD II left the
  scene in the brown pickup recovered later by the FBI and Mcveigh left
  with JD III in the yellow Ford Marquis according to witnesses KFOR
  has interviwed. The FBI has not interviewed these people although 
  they are very aware of them. The Grand jury has seen no information on
  the Arab connections.

- Michael Collins Piper, author of Final Judgement, stated that Jennifer
  McVeigh had attended a Liberty Lobby Open House in April of 1994 and
  conversed with Piper. After some heated discussion she told Piper that
  her brother, Tim McVeigh, was an ATF informant. Piper has told Briley 
  that they have a photograph showing Jennifer McViegh in attendance at
  the April 1994 open house. It may be noted the McVeigh had, according
  to an NBC Dateline program, placed a small classsified ad in the 
  SPOTLIGHT magazine selling gun-type paraphenalia and used a name of
  "Tuttle" with a Kingman AZ PO Box address.

- An article in a Texas newspaper called the _Penula Richmond_, published
  in Carthedge TX on Sun. 23 April 1995 carried the story of a Norma Smith
  who works at the Courthouse across from the Murrah Building in Oklahoma
  City. In the article she describes arriving at work on the morning of
  19 April 1995 around 07:45 to find a Bomb Squad out in the parking lot
  between the Murrah Federal Building and the Courthouse. She is said to
  have discussed the prescence of the Bomb Squad with other workers in the
  Oklahoma Courthouse whom all found the prescence peculiar. She has a
  number of relatives in the Carthedge Texas area according to Briley.



393.1425SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Sat Aug 26 1995 11:1752
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 12:18:31 GMT
From: Charles Zeps <czeps@icis.on.ca>

                   DAVID HALL SPEAKS ON THE OKC BOMBING

========================================================================
David Hall, producer of "The Bomb", a video on the bombing of the Murrah
building in Oklahoma City on 19 April 1995 was ther guest on Radio Free 
America on Wed. 23 Aug. 1995 in the 02:00-093:00 UTC time slot on WWCR
shortwave radio (weeknights from 02:00-04:00 UTC) with Tom Valentine. 
=======================================================================

- According to a source of Valentine's and FBI agent in OKC had told
  some church congregation members FBI had been given "administrative
  leave " for the date of 19 Apr. 1995

- Hall said he was working on a more comprehensive sequel to _The Bomb_
  in which figures for Government expenditure on the Murrah project as well 
  as names of the Arabs and ATF agents involved would be given.

- Hall stated that the brown GM pickup from the 19 Apr. APB put out by the
  FBI was found in Bullhead AZ, that ammonium nitrate residue was found in
  the bed of the pickup and that a "Steven Colven" (sp?) had been tied to
  the truck whose tag was captured on OKC video near the Murrah on 19 April.

- Hall had just returned fron Denver CO where he had interviewed the USGOV
  CI (Confidential Informant - granted Immunity) who has told the United
  States Attorney and US Marshalls on 14 Sept. 1994, and again on 27 Mar. 
  and most significantly on Mar. 6 1995 that a Federal Building in the 
  Mid-west would be bombed. The CI is said to appear to be an Iraqi and had 
  obtained the data from conversations overheard in Kingman AZ in 1994 in 
  meetins of conspirators.

- Hall stated that at this time it appeared that 10-12 people were involved
  in the Murrah Building bombings and that the CI had informed authorities
  that 4 cities were named as possible targets including Denver CO,
  Salt Lake City UT, and Oklahoma City OK.

 
       I had learned that those who    |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
       are lying or trying to cover       CI$: GO OUTFORUM SEC.8
       up something generally make     |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
       a common mistake - they tend
       to overact, to overstate their                PERMISSION TO
       case. - Richard Milhous Nixon                 COPY / REPOST

       x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
       X      Waco Page: http:/rampages.onramp.net/~djreavis     X
       x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

393.1426DRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&amp;Glory!Sat Aug 26 1995 22:015
    Cut to the chase here Jim -- what's the point of all this?  That the
    USGov is behind it?  Agent Provocateurs?  What???  
    
    I gotta hear this...
    
393.1427SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Sat Aug 26 1995 23:106
    
    	beats me Dr. Dan...I just post the stuff. Don't shoot the
    messenger! :)
    
    
    jim
393.1428DRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&amp;Glory!Sat Aug 26 1995 23:172
    Damn.  And I hoped to get to the bottom of this.  Tnx Jim! :-)
    
393.1429SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Sat Aug 26 1995 23:255
    	
    	Anytime Doc....;*)
    
    
    
393.1430CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenMon Aug 28 1995 15:255
    RE: Shooting the messenger.....
    
    Hold still Jim, can't aim right if you keep moving like that.
    
    :-)
393.1431MPGS::MARKEYLook at the BONES!Mon Aug 28 1995 15:298
    
    > Hold still Jim, can't aim right if you keep moving like that.
    
    Sounds like you'd be the perfect "bad guy" in a typical
    hollywood adventure flick; they also seem to have trouble
    aiming...
    
    -b
393.1432SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Thu Aug 31 1995 13:438
    re: .1430
    
    	    > Hold still Jim, can't aim right if you keep moving like that.
    
    	....and that's exactly why I'm movin'! ;*)
    
    
    jim
393.1433things that make you go hmmmmmm...SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Fri Sep 01 1995 16:1165
Bomb test said scrubbed due to blast case


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

OKLAHOMA CITY (Sep 1, 1995 - 10:54 EDT) -- The Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has canceled a bomb test in
the New Mexico desert for fear the results might have hurt the
prosecution's case in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Susan McCarron, chief of the office of public information for the
ATF in Washington, D.C., said the regularly scheduled bomb test
was to take place Sept. 6 and test a truck bomb similar to the
one that killed at least 168 people in April.

She said the test was canceled by the Oklahoma City U.S.
Attorney's Office. A spokesman for the attorney's office,
however, said the decision to cancel came from the ATF.

"The U.S. Attorney's Office in Oklahoma City determined to
cancel it for fear it could interfere with the prosecution of the
case," McCarron said.

McCarron said the test would have measured "how far objects
would fling" from the explosion. She declined to give further
details.

Stephen Jones, defense lawyer for chief suspect Timothy
McVeigh, said the handling of the bomb test was another
example of how federal authorities have denied him access to
evidence.

"The government has played cat and mouse about this test at
White Sands," he told Reuters.

The public affairs office at Kirtland Air Force Base in
Albuquerque said the test was scheduled to take place at the
White Sands Missile Range and was to consist of blowing up
5,000 pounds of explosives in a truck.

Steve Mullins, spokesman for the Oklahoma City U.S.
Attorney's Office, said the ATF decided to cancel the test, not
his office.

"Their agency makes their decision on what they are going to do
with their tests," Mullins said.

However, Mullins said his office consulted with the ATF about
whether or not the test would occur.

"I think we discussed all the possibilities it could be used for, the
ups and the downs of it," Mullins said. "Some of the downs could
be significant."

Clues obtained at the time of the bombing of the Alfred P.
Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City indicated that the truck
axle that yielded the vehicle identification number that led to
McVeigh was found several blocks from the site of the
explosion.

McVeigh and Terry Nichols are awaiting trial in the bombing. An
associate of McVeigh's, Michael Fortier, pleaded guilty to
charges that he knew the bombing would occur.

393.1434WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Sep 01 1995 17:423
    You don't suppose they wanna conduct a test that would prove their
    hypothesis to be insufficient to explain the damage incurred at the APM
    federal building, do ya?
393.1435You lie! Why do you lie?SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Fri Sep 01 1995 20:364
    
    	naaaaaa....couldn't be Doctah.....it just couldn't be!
    
    
393.1436MPGS::MARKEYLook at the BONES!Fri Sep 01 1995 20:436
    
    WRT: The Doctah's Theory
    
    Mr. Bill's 'nutter' list is starting to look pretty distinguished... :-)
    
    -b
393.1437SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Sat Sep 02 1995 16:4358
Justice officials reportedly want new judge, trial out of
Oklahoma City


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY (Sep 2, 1995 - 01:42 EDT) -- Justice Department
officials want a new judge for the federal building bombing trial despite
objections from local prosecutors, The Daily Oklahoman reported
Saturday.

The newspaper also reported that government lawyers are planning to
agree with defense attorneys and ask that the trial be moved from
Oklahoma City, again over the objections of local prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Wayne Alley was picked at random Aug. 10 to
handle the case after a grand jury indicted Timothy McVeigh and Terry
Nichols.

McVeigh's defense team maintains that Alley was too affected by the
blast to remain impartial. The federal courthouse where he works is
across the street from where the building once stood.

Federal prosecutors must respond to the defense request by
Wednesday.

Alley, who was not in his courthouse when the building was bombed,
could decide not to step down, even if both sides want him removed.

A government source told the Oklahoman on condition of anonymity
that the Justice Department is "asking the U.S. attorney's office to
support Judge Alley's recusal."

The newspaper did not say exactly why the department wants a new
judge.

A duty officer at the Justice Department told The Associated Press
that a spokesman was not immediately available for comment on the
report.

Despite what the source told the newspaper, U.S. Attorney Patrick
Ryan of Oklahoma City said that federal prosecutors in Washington
have not decided whether to ask Alley to step down.

"The Department of Justice is considering the motion to recuse, trying
to decide what the position of the government ought to be," he told the
newspaper.

Ryan also said he objects to moving the trial out of Oklahoma because
he thinks families of victims should be able to attend. The defense
claims McVeigh and Nichols could never get a fair trial in the state.

Alley, reached at home Friday night, had no comment.

The April 19 bombing killed 169 people and injured 500 more. McVeigh
and Nichols could face the death penalty if convicted.

393.1438DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalTue Sep 05 1995 14:1110
    
    <--------------

    Defense wants to move trial away from Oklahoma !

    How'd a thunk it ?!?!?!?

    If McVeigh goes for a jury trial, he's gonna burn.  This ain't LA
    after all.
    
393.1439DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalTue Sep 05 1995 19:12262
    
    Didn't know where else to but this sooooo:
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------\

    
     C O N S E R V A T I V E   C O N S E N S U S(tm)
     *****************************************************************
      Events * Analysis * Forecasts * Commentary * Readers' Opinions
     *****************************************************************
     I N T E L L I G E N C E   :::                       Editor's Desk
     B R I E F I N G   :::                         Distribution: World
                                                 For Immediate Release

     Copyright 1995 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X.
     QUOTATION AND REPOSTING ARE ENCOURAGED, provided
     our name & address are credited. V1XIX41


     T O   P R E S E R V E ,   P R O T E C T ,   &   D E F E N D

     THE OMNIBUS COUNTER-TERRORISM BILL

               _______________________________________________________

               To bereave a man of life or by violence to confiscate
               his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so
               gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at
               once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole
               nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly
               hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown
               or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and
               therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary
               government.
                                             -- Sir William Blackstone
                             Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
               _______________________________________________________

     by James R. Elwood

                    In the wake of the tragic bombing of the federal
     government building in Oklahoma City, the "Omnibus Counter-Terrorism
     Bill" is being pushed through Congress. Backers claim that the
     government needs more police powers to combat terrorism.

                    In reality, the "Counter-Terrorism Bill" will do almost
     nothing new to combat international terrorism -- but it will do a lot
     to restrict the rights and freedoms of American citizens right here at
     home.

                    Does the government really need new laws to fight
     terrorists? Every act that a terrorist might commit -- murder or
     injury to people, and destruction of property -- is already a crime,
     with laws prescribing harsh punishments. The US Government has the
     most powerful military, intelligence, and law-enforcement capabilities
     in the world, plus working agreements with many government agencies
     abroad -- even the Russian KGB. The FBI, CIA, etc. can readily deal
     with real threats.

                    Contrary to many media reports, the CTB is not a
     response to the Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI drafted it last year,
     and it was cleared by the Justice Department and the White House. The
     Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill (S390/HR896) was submitted to both
     houses of Congress on February 10, 1995 -- two months before the
     bombing -- with bipartisan backing. Original Senate sponsors included
     Democrats Joe Biden (DE), Bob Kerrey (NE), along with Republicans
     Arlen Specter (PA) and Alfonse D'Amato (NY). House sponsors included
     arch gun prohibitionist Charles Schumer (D-NY). Many in the
     bureaucracy and both parties have supported new laws in recent years
     that have been increasing the federal government's police powers,
     including the use of the US military in domestic law-enforcement. This
     bill is a quantum leap. Two major sections could destroy freedom in
     America.

                    If passed, the Counter-Terrorism Bill would allow the
     president to single-handedly declare any person or organization
     "terrorist" -- by his own definition. Numerous places in the bill have
     language similar to Section 3(46)b(2): "...to prevent persons and
     organizations within the jurisdiction of the United States from
     providing funds [or any other support], directly or indirectly,
     including subordinate or affiliate persons, designated by the
     President as engaging in terrorism..." Section 301(c)6 states that
     these presidential rulings shall be considered to be conclusive and
     can't be appealed in court!

                    The attorney general would be given broad new
     enforcement powers as well. Suspects would be considered guilty unless
     proven innocent, and would not be allowed t know the source or nature
     of the evidence brought against them if the Justice Department
     declares it off-limits for "national security" reasons. They can be
     held without bail. Visiting aliens could be summarily deported for any
     reason. Resident "green card" aliens get a hearing, but could still be
     deported without a crime being proven. US citizens could be put in
     jail for up to ten years and pay a $250,000 fine if declared guilty.

                    These sections violate the traditional American system
     of justice that has protected the rights of citizens for over 200
     years -- separation of powers, presumption of innocence, and taking no
     one's life or property without due process of law.

                    Civil libertarians have spoken out against the above
     provisions of the bill, and much of the media has supported their
     criticisms. But there is an enormous threat to your life, liberty and
     property contained in the bill, that has been scarcely mentioned in
     the media.

                    CTB Section 603 incorporates all "terrorist" crimes
     into the RICO (Racketeer-Influenced Criminal Organization) civil asset
     forfeiture statutes. If you are merely accused of "interfering" or
     "impeding" or "threatening" a current for former federal employee, the
     government could seize all your property under "conspiracy to commit
     terrorism" charges. A recent addition to the bill would designate all
     local gun-related charges as federal terrorist crimes.

                    Abuses are already rampant under these civil-forfeiture
     laws. Under these laws, the property is charged with facilitating a
     crime, and it is considered to become the property of the government
     at the time of the alleged crime. The owner is forced to prove that it
     is innocent -- which is usually impossible. The government then keeps
     the loot. Federal and state agencies and local police are encouraged
     to make seizures -- and they get to keep the property for their own
     use!. Anonymous informants may make accusations and get a cut of the
     loot! "Seizure fever" has led to 5,000 homes, bank accounts and cars
     being seized each week in the US! And 80 percent of the victims are
     never even charged with any criminal offense, much less convicted! The
     "Counter-Terrorism Bill" would vastly expand such property seizures.

                    You can imagine how these laws could be used against
     critics of the government. Bill Clinton and his cronies have
     specifically blamed "anti-government rhetoric" for helping to incite
     the Oklahoma bombing. Do you want to give Clinton, or any president,
     the sole arbitrary power to decide who is a "terrorist"? Do you want
     to give any government agent, or informant, the power to wipe out you
     and your family's future on a whim? Do you want to live in constant
     fear of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person?

                    Attacks on dissidents will happen if this bill passes
     the CTB would authorize "covert action" by government agents to
     infiltrate and disrupt suspected "terrorist" groups. The FBI will be
     given a huge increase in its size and budget, and new authority to
     conduct "anti-terrorist" activities anywhere in the country -- without
     judicial oversight, and completely independently of local law-
     enforcement authorities. The FBI already has a notorious history of
     using "agents-provocateurs" against civil rights and anti-war
     organizations. Under the "COINTELPRO" program of the 1960s and early
     '70s, FBI agents within these groups encouraged and even committed
     violent acts in order to entrap other members in criminal charges and
     discredit the legitimate actions of these groups.

                    The Counter-Terrorism Bill will allow the FBI to do
     this again to targeted groups. For example, an "agent-provocateur"
     could casually talk in a bar with a few militia members about buying
     illegal weapons, or could bring an illegal gun to a meeting. he or she
     could then secretly report everyone to the government on charges of
     conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. He could even commit a violent
     act and claim prior knowledge by others in the group. or victims could
     sue the entire group under RICO for the actions of any one of the
     members -- including the anonymous government agent. The end result?
     All of the members of the accused group would have their property
     seized, and would face up to ten years in jail! If somehow they
     exposed the agent, they would have no means to sue the agent for
     damages, and under existing law they could face up to 20 years in
     prison for "compromising a federal agent!" In such an environment of
     fear and distrust, your freedom would be dead.

                    History should remind us of what happens when you give
     too much power to governments. In 1933, a mysterious fire destroyed
     the Reichstag, the German parliament building. The new Chancellor,
     Adolf Hitler, took advantage of the climate of fear and won swift
     approval of his "Enabling Acts." The Acts gave dictatorial powers to
     Hitler and the Gestapo to deal with "terrorists." As we now know, they
     used the broad language of the Enabling Acts to round up political
     dissidents, and other targets such as Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals.
     Germany became a police state, and began the march towards World War
     II and the Holocaust. We must not let Bill Clinton and his accomplices
     use Oklahoma as a new "Reichstag Fire" to justify a massive power grab
     at out expense.

                    Bill Clinton has been lashing out at "anti-government
     rhetoric" and speech that explicitly or implicitly encourages
     "violence and division." Some of what he says is legitimate. But in a
     democracy, should not critics of the government have their say?

                    And don't they have a LOT to say these days? High
     taxes, a mountain of debt, bloated bureaucracies providing poor
     services, crushing regulatory controls and brutal prohibitions are
     hurting people in all walks of life. Property seizures and Gestapo-
     style 2 am raids by black-uniformed, machine-gun armed DEA and BATF
     squads and local police are now commonplace, with hundreds of victims
     nationwide being shot to death each year.

                    People are reacting with alienation and anger. A
     CNN/TIME poll done three weeks after the Oklahoma bombing showed that
     52 percent felt the federal government had become "a threat to the
     rights and freedoms of Americans," and 39 percent agreed that it was
     an immediate threat. The government killings at Waco, Ruby Ridge, the
     Don Scott ranch, and elsewhere have driven thousands of fearful
     Americans into forming armed citizen militias. The incumbent
     politicians know that they are losing control, so their plan seems to
     be to crush dissent by brute force and terror.

                    To defuse this powderkeg, the government must be
     sharply reined in. Sovereign-immunity laws much be repealed so that
     government employees who violate the constitutionally-guaranteed
     rights of their fellow citizens will be personally liable for their
     crimes. Civil asset forfeiture laws that violate the presumption of
     "innocent until proven guilty" and that destroy property rights should
     be abolished. "Probable cause" must be re-established as the standard
     for conducting surveillance, wiretaps, or searching people and
     property. The use of anonymous informants must be stopped so that
     defendants can face their accusers. In short, congressmen (and other
     legislators) need to be told loudly and clearly by citizens such as
     yourself that the government must abide by the Fourth Amendment -- and
     the rest of the Bill of Rights -- or else!

                    The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill is unnecessary to
     stop terrorism, and dangerous to our rights and freedoms. Indeed, the
     threat of massive property seizures and draconian jail terms for mere
     suspicion of "terrorist" activity will actually incite more violence.
     Please do everything possible to get copies of this article into the
     hands of your friends, neighbors, the media, and politicians to stop
     this bill!
                                      ###
     Ed: This article was provided by the International Society for
     Individual Liberty, 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
     Permission to copy and reprint is expressly granted.

               _______________________________________________________

               Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he
               shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do
               solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
               execute the office of President of the United States,
               and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect
               and defend the Constitution of the United States.
                                              -- Article II, Section I
                                            United States Constitution
               _______________________________________________________


     =========================
     NEWS FLASHES AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE MEMBER BRIEFINGS are prepared by
     the editors of Conservative Consensus(tm) on key events affecting:
                                      ***
     The US Constitution *     US & World Security   * Political Corruption
     Individual Liberty  *   World Financial Markets *    Religious Freedom
                                      ***
     WANT A COMPLIMENTARY SUBSCRIPTION? Don't miss the news that really
     matters! Send us an email at the address below. Put the words
     "SUBSCRIBE CC" as the subject. We'll enter a complimentary email
     subscription in your name! We'll also send you complete information
     about our efforts and organization.
     _________________________________________________________________

     MEMBERSHIP SERVICES    EXPANDED RELEASE SERVICE     LETTERS TO LEADERS
     FUNDWATCH                ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER         MEDIA CRACKDOWN
     CLEARINGHOUSE           INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS        MEMBERSHIP FORUM
     _________________________________________________________________

      jinks@u.washington.edu * POB 17912 * SEATTLE WA 98107 * USA

    
393.1440SUBPAC::SADINFreedom isn't free.Sun Dec 03 1995 13:15280
In bomb case, John Doe No. 2 is mystery No. 1


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

HERINGTON, Kan. (Dec 2, 1995 - 16:20 EST) -- Seven months after
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were arrested in the bombing of
the Oklahoma City federal building, the prosecution's case against the
two former Army friends is still haunted by the ghost of a mysterious
third suspect who has never been found or identified.

In the days and weeks after a bomb shattered the building, killing 168
people, the shadowy figure that the authorities described then as John
Doe No. 2 became the most hunted man in America, his features
depicted in composite sketches circulated by the FBI.

But while federal officials are now saying little about John Doe No. 2
and are focusing their energies on building the case against the two men
they have in custody, the mystery remains.

A half-dozen people said in interviews that they saw someone else in the
company of McVeigh or Nichols, or both, in the days before the bombing
on April 19.

These people, who said they also gave accounts to FBI agents, offered
somewhat varied descriptions of a third man, reporting sightings both in
Oklahoma City on the day of the bombing, and in the two rural Kansas
towns, Junction City and Herington, where McVeigh and Nichols spent
time before the blast.

This man bore no resemblance to Michael Fortier, who has pleaded
guilty to weapons charges and has agreed to be a government witness in
the case.

It is unclear whether the man the witnesses have described is John Doe
No. 2, who federal agents say was with McVeigh in Junction City when
he rented the Ryder truck used in the bombing. It is also unclear whether
the witnesses have described the same person, or whether their
descriptions are of different people who looked broadly similar.

Prosecutors and investigators now say their inquiry has turned up little
concrete evidence the man ever existed. But the existence of witnesses
who swear there is someone else -- coupled with the government's own
determined efforts in the wake of the bombing to hunt and capture John
Doe No. 2 -- could have important consequences for the way the case
against McVeigh and Nichols unfolds.

For defense lawyers, the suggestion of another suspect who has never
been found offers an opportunity to poke holes in the government's case.
The government's inability to explain away a suspect whom it
introduced, lawyers say, raises questions about the possibility of a larger
but as yet unseen conspiracy.

"It's strange that the official version has focused on Nichols and
McVeigh, and that the government is now busily engaged in denying all
possibility that there could be anybody else," said Michael Tigar, who is
defending Nichols. "That is inconsistent with the position the
government took to begin with."

While the FBI embarked on the biggest manhunt in U.S. history,
received 10,000 telephone tips and interviewed dozens of look-a-likes, it
could not identify John Doe No. 2. But the Justice Department has never
officially disavowed him or the possibility of a wider plot, and the
indictment names as yet unidentified co-conspirators.

Moreover, although the inquiry began with the assumption that several
conspirators were involved, law-enforcement officials say the case has
moved into a pretrial phase aimed at fortifying what the government
believes is already a strong case against the two defendants.

Prosecutors are also preparing to counter likely defense maneuvers such
as the assertion that the government may be trying to make McVeigh
and Nichols into scapegoats because it has failed to explain the sightings
of unidentified people in the company of the defendants.

Doubts have also been raised about the original eyewitness identification
on which the composite sketches and manhunt for John Doe No. 2 were
founded.

Pvt. Todd Bunting, posted at Fort Riley, next to Junction City, said in
July that he had been in the rental office the day after prosecutors say
McVeigh rented the truck. Private Bunting, who has no connection to
the bombing, said it was his face that witnesses had recalled for the
composite sketches.

Federal investigators acknowledged the sketch's resemblance to Private
Bunting, who was wearing a black baseball cap similar to the one shown
in two of the drawings.

But they have been careful not to disavow the witnesses who gave them
the information for the sketches, because in a largely circumstantial case,
prosecutors need the witnesses for their identification of McVeigh and
for their testimony linking him to the truck.

But the authorities have additional reasons to believe there was another
suspect. Early in the investigation, according to court papers, two
witnesses at the federal building saw McVeigh and another man -- not
Nichols, who was in Herington that day -- leaving the area of the
building just before the blast.

In this part of Kansas, some residents have no doubt that another suspect
exists, and is still at large. They saw him, they say, and they wonder why
the government cannot find him.

On April 14, five days before the bombing, McVeigh checked into Room
25 of the Dreamland Motel in Junction City, 26 miles north of
Herington. The next day, a Saturday, McVeigh used the name Bob Kling
to call Elliott's Body Shop, a Ryder truck rental office in town, to reserve
the truck that the government says carried the bomb.

That night, Shane Boyd, 23, a helicopter mechanic who was also staying
at the Dreamland, said he saw a bushy-haired man, who resembled the
sketches of John Doe No. 2, in the parking lot near McVeigh's room. The
man, Boyd recalled, was smiling.

Shortly after midnight, Connie Hood, 29, who lives in the Junction City
area, drove into the parking lot to visit David King, a guest at the motel.

All the motel rooms open directly onto a narrow parking lot at ground
level, and just as Mrs. Hood parked her car near King's room, she said, a
man flung open the door of Room 23, next to King's, as if he were
expecting someone. The man startled her, she said. Then he stepped back,
pulling the door almost closed while still looking at her.

He had thick, dark hair, brushed back, and an olive complexion, and was
about 5 feet, 9 or 10 inches, Mrs. Hood recalled. Later, when the sketches
of John Doe No. 2 were published, she saw the resemblance, but the face
was not identical, she said. The man she saw had fuller features.

After questioning Mrs. Hood, the FBI took the hotel's records and dusted
Room 23 for fingerprints. But Lea McGown, the motel owner who lives
on the premises, said she was absolutely certain that Room 23 was
neither rented nor occupied that night, although it is possible, she said,
that someone might have taken a key to have a look at the room and was
coming out when Mrs. Hood arrived.

On Monday, April 17, prosecutors say McVeigh and John Doe No. 2
went to pick up the Ryder truck McVeigh had reserved. At 3 p.m.
Monday, Mrs. Hood again came to the motel to visit King, bringing her
husband, Donald, 30.

Just as the Hoods were pulling into the parking lot, they said, they had to
wait for a large Ryder truck that was also pulling in to park. Mrs. Hood
recalled seeing both doors of the truck's cab open, and she watched the
driver, who she said was not McVeigh, walk into the motel office.

The driver, she said, was "a dark-headed guy." She added, "He had the
same look and weight as the guy who came out on Saturday night."

Mrs. Hood went into King's room, while Hood waited outside in the
parking lot. Within minutes, Hood said, a man who resembled the
sketches of John Doe No. 2 came out of the motel office and got into the
driver's seat of the truck.

At about the same time, McVeigh came out of a room at the motel and
got into the passenger's seat, Hood said. The men then drove off.

Hood described the man as about 5 feet, 9 inches, with dark, brown hair
brushed straight back and an olive complexion.

Court documents say a large Ryder truck was seen parked behind
Nichols' house in Herington on Monday night.

Shortly before 9 p.m. Monday, Larry Wild, 55, a former high school
baseball coach and major league scout who grew up in Herington, had
just finished pumping $5 worth of gas at Cardie's Corner, a gas station
and convenience store in downtown Herington.

Wild said he saw a man whom he did not know waiting just inside the
glass door and a man standing at the counter inside, his back to the door.

Just as Wild was going in to pay for his gas, the man at the counter
turned around. That man, Wild said, was McVeigh. Wild said he did not
see how the men left, by car or on foot. Nichols' house is only a few
blocks away.

Wild told the police and the FBI that the likeness of McVeigh from a
sketch was very good, but that the face of the other man was less like the
sketch he had seen of John Doe No. 2, although it fit his general
description.

Wild described the mystery person as 5 feet, 10 inches, with dark hair
combed back and a dark complexion. His cheekbones were more
prominent than they appeared in the sketch, Wild said, and his face was
a little less full. He appeared to be part Hispanic, and part Indian, Wild
said, and was wearing a light-blue denim jacket.

At about 3:30 Tuesday morning, back at the Dreamland in Junction City,
King, who was drinking beer and watching movies with a friend, said he
heard a noise, looked out at the parking lot and saw McVeigh sitting in
the passenger seat of the Ryder truck. The dome light was on, King said,
and the glove compartment open; McVeigh was examining a map.

When King left the motel just before dawn, he said he saw McVeigh still
sitting in the Ryder truck, but when King returned at about 7 or 8 a.m.,
the truck was gone. Federal investigators have said in court that
McVeigh, who had paid in advance, left the motel for good sometime
before 5 a.m. Tuesday.

Barbara Whittenberg and her husband, Robert, own the Santa Fe Trail
diner in Herington on Trapp Street, the main road into town from
Highway 77, which leads to Junction City.

Mrs. Whittenberg said that early in the morning on Tuesday, the day
before the bombing, McVeigh, Nichols and a third man ate in her
restaurant. They had parked three vehicles in the parking lot, she said --
a white car with an Arizona license plate, a Ryder truck and a pickup
truck.

Mrs. Whittenberg, who is from Yuma, Ariz., said she noticed the arrival
of the men because when they parked, her son, Charlie, pointed out the
Arizona license plate. She struck up a conversation with the three men.

Nichols was familiar to Mrs. Whittenberg, she said, because he
occasionally came in for coffee or dinner. She also recalled that McVeigh
had stopped in at one time. But she had never seen the third man, who
she said had a dark complexion and might have been Hawaiian.

Mrs. Whittenberg said that when the FBI sketches were published, she
recognized the third man's resemblance to John Doe No. 2, although she
said the man's face was slightly thinner, his cheekbones more prominent
and his nose slightly wider than shown in the portrait.

Mrs. Whittenberg is the only person known to have actually spoken to
the mystery man. A relative of hers was looking for a house in Herington
at the time, she recalled, and, seeing the Ryder truck, she asked Nichols if
he was moving out of a house that might be available. He avoided the
question, she said.

Later in the conversation, she asked the men where they were headed,
and the man she now identifies as John Doe No. 2 replied, "Oklahoma."
When she responded that she had relatives in a town south of Oklahoma
City, she said, the conversation stopped. "It was like ice water was
thrown on it," she said.

The men stayed in the restaurant for about an hour, Mrs. Whittenberg
said, and were gone before 9 a.m.

Later that day, after 2 p.m., "my husband and I drove to Junction City,"
Mrs. Whittenberg said. As they drove north past the entrance to Geary
State Fishing Lake, she said she saw a Ryder truck parked by the lake
and thought of the men in the diner. It looked to her like the same truck.

"They couldn't find a place to stay," she remembered saying.

Witnesses at the lake have told investigators that when they arrived at
the lake at 9 a.m. Tuesday, a Ryder truck and a blue or brown pickup
truck were already there. This is where federal investigators say the
bomb was made from fertilizer and fuel oil.

Nichols has told federal investigators that at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday he met
McVeigh in Junction City, where he loaned McVeigh his blue GMC
pickup truck. Nichols went to an auction; McVeigh returned the pickup
at 2 p.m., Nichols said. Nichols never mentioned returning to Herington
before 9 a.m.

In Oklahoma City, Mike Moroz, 25, is a service manager for Jerry's Tire,
at Tenth and Hudson Streets downtown. Moroz said that on April 19,
the day of the bombing, two men in a large Ryder truck stopped between
8:25 and 8:35 a.m. to ask for directions to Fifth and Harvey Streets, the
site of the federal building. The bomb exploded at 9:02 a.m.

The driver of the truck was McVeigh, Moroz said. "There was someone
with him, a man wearing a hat."

The other man "was dark-skinned," Moroz said. "That's all I know."
Both men were wearing baseball caps, he said.

Like all the people who say they saw a mystery man, Moroz said that at
the time, he did not give the matter much thought. "We're located
around a lot of one-way streets," he said. "People often get lost. It's an
everyday deal."

Moroz and the others may not supply much detail. But as both sides
prepare for trial, what he and other witnesses say they saw, even if
imperfectly remembered, leaves the mystery unsolved.



393.1441SUBPAC::SADINFreedom isn't free.Tue Dec 05 1995 14:4373
Colorado judge to preside over Oklahoma bombing
trial


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

(Dec 4, 1995 - 21:38 EST) Judge Richard P. Matsch, the chief judge of
the U.S. District Court in Colorado, was named Monday to preside over
the trial in the Oklahoma City bombing case. He replaced Judge Wayne
E. Alley, a federal judge in Oklahoma City.

Matsch was appointed by Judge Stephanie K. Seymour, chief judge of
the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He is scheduled to
hold the trial, which is set to begin in May, in Lawton, Okla., but has
before him requests from the defendants, Timothy McVeigh and Terry
Nichols, to move the trial out of the state.

Alley was removed last Friday by a 10th Circuit panel, which praised his
integrity but said the bomb damage to his courtroom in a building across
the street from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building might make a
reasonable person harbor doubts about Alley's impartiality.

In comments filed with the court as he formally stepped down, Alley
wrote, "The judge who succeeds to this case will have to bear a dreadful
burden, and I wish him or her well."

Matsch, 65, presided eight years ago over the civil rights trial of four
members of the right-wing, anti-Semitic group known as The Order, or
the Silent Brotherhood, who were accused of stalking and killing Alan
Berg, the Jewish host of a radio talk show.

Members of the group told the FBI that they were inspired by an
organization in the novel The Turner Diaries, written by William Pierce
under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. The book was also read and
sold by McVeigh, and includes a plot line in which a group bombs the
FBI building in Washington, in an attack similar to the Oklahoma City
attack.

Morris Dees, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights
group in Montgomery, Ala., that monitors white supremacist and
paramilitary groups, said, "It's poetic justice, almost, this judge would
now be trying another person that's connected to The Turner Diaries."

Matsch was born in Burlington, Iowa, and received his undergraduate
and law degrees from the University of Michigan. He served in the Army
from 1953 to 1955.

He was in private practice in Denver from 1956 to 1959, when he
became a federal prosecutor there. In 1961 he became deputy city
attorney for the city and county of Denver.

He returned to private practice in Denver in 1963, and in 1965, became a
federal bankruptcy judge in the city. In 1974, President Richard M.
Nixon appointed him to the federal bench in Colorado, and he became
chief judge in 1994.

Over the years, Matsch ruled on plans to end public school segregation in
Denver, and on Sept. 12 ended 25 years of court supervision of Denver's
schools. In another high-profile case, he ruled in 1989 that airlines could
not be forced to pay for Denver's new airport through higher usage fees.

Michael Tigar, the lawyer for Nichols, said, "We look forward to
appearing before Judge Matsch." Tigar filed the request that resulted in
Alley's removal and the appointment of Matsch.

Steven Jones, McVeigh's lawyer, said of Matsch, "He has a reputation
for being very fair in criminal cases and holding the government to its
burden." Jones added, "And it raises the possibility of a change of venue
outside Oklahoma."



393.1442SCASS1::EDITEX::MOOREPerhapsTheDreamIsDreamingUsWed Dec 06 1995 05:403
    ZZZzzz...
    
    We'll see.  
393.1443SUBPAC::SADINFreedom isn't free.Sun Dec 17 1995 19:50102
Victims' kin urge boycott of Oklahoma bombing
heroes calendar


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Scripps Howard


OKLAHOMA CITY (Dec 16, 1995 - 19:00 EST) -- Their message was
clear: Don't sell the Oklahoma Heroes Bachelor Calendar -- and don't
buy it, either.

At least 15 relatives of people killed in the April 19 federal building
bombing are asking retailers and the public to boycott the 1996 calendar.

The calendar features 10 Oklahoma City firefighters, one Del City, Okla.
firefighter and an Oklahoma County sheriff's deputy posing in business
suits, casual wear and with bare chests. It also lists the names of those
who died in the bombing.

Those present at a gathering Friday in Oklahoma City said they had
gathered 100 signatures on a petition against the calendar. They say they
intend to picket any store selling the calendar.

The relatives mainly object to their loved ones' names being used
without their permission. Those who spoke to The Daily Oklahoman said
they would not have allowed the names to be used, even if asked.

Some said they object to a calendar that features single men with a 900
number to call. Others called the calendar an exploitation of a tragedy.

"If I have to stand out there with a sign, I will," said Felicia
Sims-Guzman, who lost her husband, Randolph Guzman, in the blast.
"They have to have respect for the people who lost their lives ... I'm very
angered by it."

The calendar's publisher, Becky Tilly, said she meant no harm to the
victims' families, but would not say whether she would remove the
victims' names from the back page. The calendar already has been
printed.

"My response to that is what one of the firemen told me this morning.
He just said, 'I think if the people had their loved ones back with us here,
that they would be proud to be on the calendar with us."'

The $15 calendar was originally going to be distributed to 1,700 stores in
Oklahoma, then sold nationally, Tilly said last week. However,
distribution plans were unclear Friday.

"They'll be on sale. I just don't know where," Tilly said. "Since this
controversy you brought up, I don't know where they're going."

Tilly said she has received many calls in support of the calendar.

The invitation to apply for the calendar was distributed to firefighters on
the official city computer network and had the approval of Fire Chief
Gary Marrs, as long as the firefighters posed off-duty and without fire
equipment or logos.

Firefighters have said they agreed to pose for the calendar only to raise
money for the Oklahoma State Firefighters Association Memorial Fund
and the American Red Cross. They said they had nothing to do with the
business side of it.

However, an Oklahoma County Red Cross chapter official said she only
learned Thursday through a memo dropped off at her office that they
were beneficiaries.

Normally, anyone wishing to donate to the Red Cross and use their
name on a product as a charity source -- must get advance approval,
usually in writing, Red Cross Financial Development Director Joanna
Ehlers said.

The memo said the Red Cross would get two percent of the calendars'
net profits, which means after all expenses are paid, Ehlers said.

The Red Cross turned the offer down.

"We are very much in touch with the concerns that many of our clients
feel related to the calendar, and that is something we want to be sensitive
to," Ehlers said. Meanwhile, the victims' relatives say they just want all
the commercialization of their loved ones stopped.

"It's like we're protecting territory, and we shouldn't have to," said Bud
Welch, who lost his daughter, Julie, in the bombing.

Said Marsha Kight, who lost her daughter, Frankie Merrell, in the
bombing: "It's a personal thing to me.'

Kight said some of the victims' families checked on whether they could
sue someone for using their loved one's name without permission.
However, she said, to sue "they have to be of celebrity status."

"I think this constitutes it ... I think these names are very widely known,
especially the children," said Kathleen Treanor, who lost her daughter,
Ashley Eckles, and her parents-in-law, Luther and LaRue Treanor, in
the bombing.

The Daily Oklahoman 



393.1444COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSat Feb 03 1996 02:43103
OKLAHOMA DIOCESE CONTINUES TO ADDRESS HUMAN COSTS IN WAKE OF BOMBING

BY JAMES H. THRALL

(ENS)--Some of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing have yet to
discover that they even are victims.

Even those residents of Oklahoma not injured in the April 19, 1995, blast
at the Alfred Murrah Federal Building and not directly related to someone
who died or was hurt in the bombing, find the horror of that day creeping
up to strike them months later.

"It's not one of those things where you can go away and forget it," said
the Rev. Mel Truitt, rector of the Church of the Redeemer in Oklahoma City
and coordinator of relief efforts for the Episcopal Diocese of Oklahoma.
"It's going to be right there in front of you." 

As the diocese works with other religious and relief organizations to
distribute the funds that poured in to assist bomb victims, an increasing
need is for "long-term counseling for those who are secondary victims," he
said. Secondary victims, he  explained, can include family members and
friends, but also those just struggling with the psychological costs of a
bomb that struck too close to home. 

"The 19th of April hit all of us," Truitt said. "It was like lightning and
thunder--all of us jumped."

Counselors geared up for Christmas--a time when those who perished would be
especially missed--and will be preparing as well for the first anniversary
of the blast and for the trial of suspect Timothy McVeigh when renewed
media attention will spark another resurgence of memories. "We're looking
for the long-range now," Truitt said. "People are showing up who didn't
think they needed any counseling."

AN INTER-FAITH EFFORT

Much of the support offered by the diocese has been coordinated through the
Interfaith Disaster Discovery of Greater Oklahoma City. 

"It's the only group that included Muslims, Bahai--every faith group you
can think of," said the Rev. Charles Woltz, diocesan canon to the ordinary.
The interfaith emphasis was key, he said, because "almost immediately after
the bombing, some of the TV stations mentioned Muslims as suspects and
raised all the old ghosts. We wanted to combat that in a healthy way."

At the same time, reported Truitt, who served for a while as president of
the interfaith group's board, the funds distributed by the diocese have
been identified as specifically Episcopal. 

"We wanted to make sure that the Episcopal presence was felt in the
community," Truitt said. Though only 20,000 strong in the area,
Episcopalians were able to make a significant impact because "the Anglican
community was very, very generous from around the world and in the
community here," he said. "We're still getting funds."

Nearly $550,000 was received in donations from around the world, including
a grant from the Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief, a gift from the
Archbishop of Canterbury and gifts from most of the dioceses in the United
States. Reflecting the high level of generosity, the diocese was able to
return the $25,000 grant from the Presiding Bishop's Fund "so that it could
be used elsewhere," Truitt said.

An additional $100,000 was sent to the diocese for the restoration of St.
Paul's Cathedral, which was severely damaged in the blast. The diocese
matched the donations for the cathedral restoration with its own grant of a
second $100,000 from diocesan funds.

So far, nearly $375,000 of the undesignated funds has been paid out in
assistance to families of victims for counseling and medical expenses,
burial expenses, and housing, house repair and living expenses. In some
cases, "we replaced cars or made repairs to cars that were damaged," Truitt
said.

For the families of the two Episcopalians who died in the bombing,
donations have provided a year's college tuition for their children. And
$102,000 was pooled with funds of other relief groups to provide a central
fund for distribution.

In order to show "solidarity with other downtown churches," Truitt said,
some of the funds have helped churches of other denominations rebuild,
including a downtown Methodist church; Calvary Baptist Church, historic as
a meeting place during the civil rights movement; and the Roman Catholic
cathedral.  

Cathedral pursues ambitious program to rebuild

St. Paul's Cathedral, which stands only two blocks from the bomb site, is
using the need to repair extensive bomb damage as an opportunity to make
other "much-needed repairs and improvements," said Marilyn Smotherman,
development coordinator.

Under an aggressive time-table that has telescoped many of the planning
steps into just a few months, the congregation hopes to have the cathedral
re-opened by Christmas, 1996, she said. According to Woltz, "well over a
million dollars" has been received in donations and pledges in a $2.8
million fund-raising drive that will supplement insurance money for the
reconstruction. 

Meanwhile the work of the cathedral, including the congregation's St.
George's Guild which provides services to the needy, has continued,
Smotherman reported. "We have Mobile Meals to serve shut-ins every
Wednesday," she said. "It was a Wednesday when the bomb hit and they still
got the meals out."
393.1445COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSun Feb 04 1996 02:4887
393.1446I don't think that this was in here43GMC::KEITHDr. DeuceTue Mar 19 1996 11:44231
    
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 09:39:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Gate <gate@id.WING.NET>
Subject: USA! OK SEISMIC EVIDENCE -- UPDATE (fwd)
To: searchnet list <snet-l@world.std.com>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 08:56:44 -0400
From: Cory Brickner <brickner@IMAP2.ASU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <oklabomb@phantom.com>
Subject: USA! OK SEISMIC EVIDENCE -- UPDATE (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:49:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: DDEMING@geoadm.gcn.uoknor.edu
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
Subject: OK SEISMIC EVIDENCE -- UPDATE


Date:  Thursday, August 17, 1995

Subject: OK SEISMIC EVIDENCE -- UPDATE

From:  ddeming@geoadm.gcn.uoknor.edu (David Deming)
To:  libernet@dartmouth.edu

This posting may be copied and distributed.

I have been browsing through the net lately and
have been distressed to see widespread reports
that both the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Oklahoma Geological Survey have dismissed the
two arrivals on the April 19 seismograms as
originating in one blast.  I do not believe
this is an accurate assessment of our current
understanding of the situation.

Let me first establish my credentials again.  I
am an assistant professor of geology & geophysics
at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.  I hold
a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah
(1988).  I am not, though, a seismologist.  I work
in the same building as Ray Brown, the seismologist
who has been interpreting the April 19 seismograms
for the Oklahoma Geological Survey.  I work for
the School of Geology of Geophysics, Dr. Brown
works for the Oklahoma Geological Survey.

Shortly after the April 19 blast I posted some
notices to libernet that essentially stated that
the April 19 seismograms were consistent with
either one or two blasts.  In other words, I was
simply cautioning that one could not automatically
conclude that two arrivals at the Norman seismograph
26 km from the Murrah Building was an unambiguous
indication of two blasts.  However, two blasts are the
simplest model if one knows nothing else about
the explosive source.

Here is what has changed since my earlier postings:

(1)  The US Geological Survey set up several seismographs
at staggered distances from the May 23 demolition of the
Murrah Building.  These data were published in the August
7, 1995, issue of the New American magazine.  I don't know
how the New American obtained these data, as I believe
the US Geological Survey is holding them confidential.
I can confirm, however, that the published data are
accurate.

(2)  The US Geological Survey (USGS) issued a press release
on June 1, barely a week after the demolition of the 
Murrah Building, which said that the demolition data
showed that the two April 19 arrivals arose from one
explosion.  At that time, I talked to the lead investigator
at the USGS, Dr. Tom Holzer, and asked him if he
had anything written up that I could review.  He said
"no". I subsequently posted a cautionary note that the
USGS conclusion was to be taken with a grain of salt as
they had no written analysis, let alone anything that had
passed an independent review.

A review of the demolition data in June showed that indeed
there did appear to be two phases on the seismogram
recorded at the Norman station.  These phases were not
so clearly separated as the April 19 data, but nevertheless
a fair-minded person would have had to acknowledge their presence.
However, the publication now of the complete data set
shows that these two phases were present in the
seismogram recorded 74 meters from the Murrah Building
on the day of the demolition.  Thus, naturally the
Norman seismogram had multiple phases, as there were
multiple source events.  There was about 4-5 seconds
of staggered demolition charges followed by 4-5 seconds
of seismic activity presumably due to the building
falling down.

(3)  Ray Brown has continued his analyses and concluded
that the April 19 seismograms are evidence for more than
one episode of explosive activity on April 19.  Below is
a quote from his most recent report dated August 16, 1995:

"This note gives a condensed version of my qualitative
interpretation of the seismic signals considered to have
been received from the Oklahoma City explosion.  I conclude
that there were two contiguous seismic episodes at the Murrah
Building.  The first seismic episode can be related to the
truck bomb via the air blast signal recorded at the Omniplex
Museum.  The second seismic episode at the Murrah Building
took place after the truck bomb stopped emitting the air blast.
The mechanisms which might be considered to have caused the
second episode of seismic activity include:  (1)  building
collapse, (2) oscillations of the building caused by the
blast, and (3) explosives which were smaller than those used
for the truck bomb (air blasts from small explosions are not
detected on the seismometer at the Omniplex).  Based upon
the relative strength of the two seismic episodes (both
episodes saturated the seismometer at the Omniplex Museum)
and the comparision of the demolition signals, explosive
energy at a level above that used for the demolition and
below that used for the truck bomb is judged to be the likely
cause of the second episode of seismic activity at the
Murrah Building".

Although I have not asked Ray, I believe that anyone can
obtain a copy of his report by writing to him at:

Dr. Raymon Brown
Oklahoma Geological Survey
100 E. Boyd St.
Sarkey's Energy Center, Rm N-131
Norman, OK  73019
phone:  405-325-3031

(4)  About a week or two ago, the USGS finally produced a
short written report.  In contrast to Ray Brown's analysis,
the report concluded that the two arrivals on the April 19
seismograms were due to one blast.  The report was reviewed
by Dr. Brown who found the USGS conclusion to be 
"unsupported by data or analysis".  Dr. Brown asked that his
name be taken off the report.  As far as I know the report
is still being held confidential by the USGS, and has not
been reviewed by anyone from outside of that organization
(with the exception of Ray Brown).

(5)  Here is my analysis, for what its worth.  The May 23
demolition seismogram recorded just 74 meters from the
Murrah Building shows 9.6 seconds of seismic activity
(as nearly as I can read from the data published in the
New American).  At the station in Norman which originally
recorded the two phases on April 19, the demolition signal is
18.4 seconds long.  The seismic energy "spreads out" due
to dispersion; that is, different frequencies travel with
different speeds. In other words, from the demolition
"experiment" we now understand that seismic activity
at the Murrah building will disperse to a signal about
twice as long by the time it gets to the Norman seismograph
26 km away.

Now, the total signal length of
the April 19 record in Norman is about 17-18 seconds --
virtually the same length as the demolition signal.
This implies to me that the total length of seismic
activity at the Murrah Building on April 19 was about
9 seconds.  There is the possibility that the
frequency content of the two episodes (April 19
bombing and May 23 demolition) were different, and
therefore the dispersive characteristics different.
However, my intuition is that this difference
would probably be small in that virtually all of
the high frequencies are filtered out by attenuation
by the time they propagate 26 km to the Norman
station.

I don't see how a single truck bomb could lead
to 9 seconds of seismic activity on April 19.
The actual explosion would have been instantaneous,
and any contribution from the air blast would
have rapidly attenuated.  Could it have taken
8-9 seconds for the building to have fallen down?
Presuming that the building collapse during
demolition on May 23 started with the first
explosive charge, it took this long for the
demolition collapse.  However, the May 23
demolition used a series of charges
staggered over 4-5 seconds so as to collapse
the building in a deliberate and calcuated
manner.

Attributing the second phase recorded in Norman
on April 19 to the building falling down also
has the severe problem of amplitude.  The ratio
of the maximum amplitude of the second phase from
April 19 to the maximum amplitude from the
demolition is 3/2.  Because energy is proportional
to amplitude squared, the second phase recorded
April 19 had more than twice the energy of
the demolition signal.  And yet during the
demolition 2/3 of the building was knocked
down in comparision to no more than 1/3 on
April 19.

Bottom Line:  No one has yet really done the
rigorous quantitative anlysis that is necessary
and possible, especially with the publication
of the demolition data.  However, from what
we understand at the present time it appears
to be difficult to explain the seismic data
with a single blast.

Footnote:  In the interest of providing everyone
with complete information so that they can
draw their own conclusions, I must mention
the the USGS is currently undergoing a RIF
(reduction in force). In the geologic division,
I understand that approximately 700 of
2300 employees are to be laid off.
Announcements of who was to be laid off
were to start on August 14.


*************************************************************************
UCC 1-207 Unsubscribe info - send to usa-forever-request@webcom.com the
word unsubscribe in the body of the message. | Listowner pc-man@pobox.com





393.1447SUBPAC::SADINFreedom isn't free.Mon Apr 08 1996 17:4843

Report: McVeigh wants to testify


Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net
Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press 

NEW YORK (Apr 8, 1996 09:53 a.m. EDT) -- Oklahoma City bombing
suspect Timothy McVeigh says he's been falsely labeled a "gun freak"
and "loner," and wants to testify "so jurors know me and not what
they've read," Time magazine reported.

"People have to realize that 90 percent of the case that people think they
have, it has all been through non-verifiable leaks," McVeigh was quoted
as saying in the magazine's April 15 issue, due on newsstands today.

"I think you would be surprised how much those leaks are bogus.
Especially through eyewitnesses," he said.

The interview with McVeigh took place in a federal prison in Oklahoma
last month just before he and fellow suspect Terry Nichols were
transferred to Colorado, where their trial will be held.

In the interview, McVeigh maintained his innocence in the April 19,
1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building that killed 168
people and injured more than 500. McVeigh and Nichols face the death
penalty if convicted on murder and conspiracy charges.

Time said McVeigh refused to discuss specific evidence or disclose where
he was on the morning of the bombing, saying, "we're saving that for the
trial."

But he did deny that he ever built a bomb. "I've never had my hand on
one. I used to watch other people do it. I won't go into that," McVeigh
said. "There were plastic soda bottles. They would put vinegar and
baking soda in and screw the cap on and it would burst."

The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Nichols told federal
authorities he and McVeigh learned how to make bombs while they were
selling military surplus items at gun shows around the country in 1994
and 1995.

393.1448SUBPAC::SADINFreedom isn't free.Sun Apr 14 1996 22:2390

Oklahoma City haunted by bomb attack one year
later


Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net
Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service 

OKLAHOMA CITY (Apr 14, 1996 12:23 p.m. EDT) - Only a neat field
of grass lies where the building stood before the blast but a year later
Oklahoma City is still haunted by the bombing which killed at least 167
people and stunned America.

The city's downtown area was an eery place as residents prepared for the
anniversary of the blast that tore apart the nine-storey Alfred P. Murrah
federal building last April 19.

Ahead of the memorial services, demolition crews were ripping down the
shells of nearby buildings battered beyond repair by the devastating truck
bomb.

Across the square, a chain link fence around the bomb site was decorated
with flowers, teddy bears, crucifixes, poems and prayers, offerings to the
dead from relatives, survivors and sympathetic outsiders.

An American flag fluttered from the wooden structure of an open-air
chapel built over the last 12 months.

And in the middle, a charred elm that Oklahomans call the "survivor
tree" stands as what many hope is a symbol of resistance and rebirth.

But the city and its residents are a long way from recovery.

"It has been a nightmare and we're still living in that nightmare," says
Jannie Coverdale, the grandmother of Aaron and Elijah Coverdale, aged
five and two, who were among 19 children killed inside the building's
day care centre.

"We are not going to heal overnight or even in a couple of years. Maybe
never," she said, adding that the boys' father has had alcohol problems
since their deaths and that she has struggled to retain her religious faith.

While there have been some success stories of survivors rebuilding their
lives, others have fallen into acute depression and most say good days are
quickly followed by bad ones when painful memories get the better of
them.

"Psychologically, I don't think there's been a lot of healing. There is still
rage, bereavement, puzzlement and anguish that you simply can never
get away from," said Gov. Frank Keating.

Neither is the suffering limited to those who were maimed or who grieve
the loss of parents, children, spouses and close friends.

By targeting Oklahoma City, a slow-paced cow town happy with its
humdrum existence, the bombers stripped away the innocent optimism of
the American heartland.

That the killers were apparently home-grown has hurt even more.

"I don't think we'll ever be the same again," Don Foster, 32, said last
week as he led his five-year-old son by the hand around the bomb site.
"We've learned that America isn't all we thought it was."

He said Oklahomans have traditionally been very critical of central
government but that he is now much more cautious when he hears
anti-Washington rhetoric. "We've seen what it can lead to. And it was
real bad."

The key suspects in the bombing are Timothy McVeigh and Terry
Nichols, former soldiers linked to U.S. right-wing extremists.

Drawn together by terror, Oklahomans are understandably proud of the
way people have lent a helping hand to the victims at every turn over the
last 12 months.

The tireless dedication of rescue workers, the generosity of even the
poorest and a total absence of looting in the days following the blast are
already part of the city's folklore.

Many said the city is more closely knit than ever before.

Nobody, however, feels they are better off.

"I can't say any single element of my life improved with this evil act,"
said Paul Heath, who was the Murrah building's medical safety officer,
lost many friends in the attack and is now a counsellor for several of the
bomb victims.

393.1449BUSY::SLABCrazy Cooter comin' atcha!!Fri Aug 02 1996 18:145
    
    	Is the building still standing as "evidence"?
    
    	And if so, are there plans to tear it down at a later date?
    
393.1450DECWIN::JUDYThat's *Ms. Bitch* to you!!Fri Aug 02 1996 18:168
    
    
    	Shawn, 
    
    	Read the first paragraph again.  The building was demolished
    	within a couple weeks of the blast.  A memorial park is there
    	now.
    
393.1451BUSY::SLABCrazy Cooter comin' atcha!!Fri Aug 02 1996 18:1910
    
    	Oh, will you look at that!!
    
    	I never read it in the 1st place, so instead of "reading it a-
    	gain" I "finally read it".
    
    	8^)
    
    	Thanks.
    
393.1452update on OKCFABSIX::J_SADINFreedom isn't free.Sun Sep 29 1996 20:5185
393.1453more on OKC trialFABSIX::J_SADINFreedom isn't free.Mon Nov 11 1996 13:5580
393.1454okc stuffFABSIX::J_SADINFreedom isn't free.Tue Feb 04 1997 19:28112

Case against Oklahoma bomb suspect collapses

by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Sunday Telegraph (London, England) February 2, 1997:

THE government case in the Oklahoma bombing trial, due to open next
month, is disintegrating. It is now quite possible that Tim McVeigh,
the main suspect, will be acquitted.

The latest blow to the prosecution is a report that the FBI crime lab
altered forensic conclusions to accommodate government claims that the
blast, which killed 168 people in the spring of 1995, was caused by a
4,000 lb ammonium nitrate bomb.

The report, by the Justice Department's Inspector General, found that
some lab officials have been pressed to falsify evidence and commit
perjury to support prosecutions. With the FBI crime lab going through
the worst crisis in the history of the Bureau, everything it touches
is now tainted.

But there are deeper problems with the case, the deadliest act of
terrorism ever committed on American soil, one that precipitated a
witch hunt against the militia movement and, by raising the spectre of
Right-wing extremism, arguably helped President Clinton's re-election.

The prosecution has been tying itself in knots from the beginning.
This is chiefly because it insists on a 'lone bomber theory'- - with
another man, Terry Nichols, helping in the background - when the
evidence clearly indicates a more complex conspiracy involving a
terrorist cell.

Last week it became clear that the Justice Department is willing to
let the case collapse rather than risk collateral revelations. On
Thursday the FBI arrested Michael Brescia, the man alleged to be the
mysterious 'John Doe II' seen with McVeigh in the days before the
bombing. Brescia has been named in a private lawsuit by victims of
the blast as a co-conspirator of McVeigh.

But in keeping with the "Alice in Wonderland" character of this
investigation, Brescia was arrested for his alleged role in a series
of bank robberies carried out by a neo-Nazi group called the Aryan
Republican Army. McVeigh is also tied into this ARA cell, and his
sister told the FBI in May 1995 that her brother had been involved in
bank robberies. But the Justice Department does not want to know.

Indeed, it has gone to hazardous lengths to stamp out talk of a
broader bombing conspiracy involving the Aryan Republican Army. On
Wednesday, the day before Brescia's arrest, it announced that John Doe
II - the subject of the massive FBI manhunt in the weeks after the
bombing - had never existed.

The Justice Department stated that Tom Kessinger, a clerk at the Ryder
rental agency where McVeigh allegedly rented the bombing vehicle, was
confused when he helped to produce a artist's sketch of a second man
with McVeigh. This is highly contentious. Mr Kessinger provided the
famous John Doe II sketch immediately after the blast. Almost two
years later he abruptly changes tack and asserts that he muddled John
Doe II with a soldier named Tod Bunting who came into the office on a
different day.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, Mr Kessinger has already given too
many interviews ridiculing the Bunting canard. "He was laughing about
it and said 'I don't know how they came up with that one'," said Glenn
Wilburn, a bombing victim, when he visited Mr Kessinger last year. The
Justice Department has now destroyed Mr Kessinger's credibility, so it
can no longer put him on the stand to identify McVeigh as the man who
rented the Ryder truck. But the prosecution does not have much else
to rely on.

The original FBI statements by the employees at the Ryder rental
agency describe the man supposed to be McVeigh - who used the alias of
Robert Kling - as heavy-set, 5ft 11in, stocky, with a pock-marked
face. This bears no resemblance to the lanky, 6ft 3in, baby-faced
McVeigh. The prosecution, of course, can draw on an army of
witnesses who saw McVeigh with a Ryder truck shortly before the bomb
went off at 9am on April 19 1995. But they all saw him with other
suspects, making a mockery of the claim that McVeigh acted alone.

So it appears that none of these witnesses is going to be called to
testify. Instead, the prosecution is relying on a single man who
thought he might have seen McVeigh getting out of a Ryder truck. Why
is the Justice Department destroying its own case? A clue came last
Tuesday in an Oklahoma newspaper, the McCurtain Daily Gazette, which
has gathered evidence that the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (ATF) was monitoring the bombing conspiracy from the very
start.

According to the Gazette, a paid informant working for the Tulsa
office of the ATF has come forward to admit that she used hidden
cameras to film three members of a neo-Nazi group in Oklahoma
discussing plans to blow up a federal building.

One was Andreas Strassmeir, a former German army officer with ties to
McVeigh. Strassmeir shared a house at the time with Michael Brescia of
the Aryan Republican Army underground. The story helps to explain how
bomb squads could have been seen in downtown Oklahoma hours before the
explosion. It also butresses testimony that McVeigh appeared to be
operating as part of a team on the day of the crime in Oklahoma City.

The only conclusion that one can draw is that the Justice Department
is protecting a federal informant who had penetrated the bombing
conspiracy - probably Strassmeir, but possibly also Brescia - and is
trying to cover up a bungled sting. McVeigh's defence lawyer, Stephen
Jones, says that the American people will never be able to think
of their government in the same way once they learn the full truth
about the Oklahoma bombing. Is he just bluffing?

Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997.

393.1455Ambrose, what a "reporter"....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Feb 05 1997 12:287
    
| by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    
    What, he's saturated the market for fictional accounts of Vince
    Foster's death?
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1456FABSIX::J_SADINFreedom isn't free.Sun Feb 09 1997 19:035
    
    
    	Must be.
    
    
393.1457SBUOA::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundMon Mar 03 1997 17:1513
    Dallas Morning News reported 3/1 on their Internet page
    that McVeigh confessed to the bombing. They will refrain from further
    reports for the good of the trial.
    
    They supposedly have documents where he says "We needed a body count to
    make our point".
    
    Other sources are saying the gov't is forcing this confession via his
    mother being committed to an asylum.
    
    (Yes I saw 60 minutes last night and rememebered that stalwart debunker
    of internuttiness" -- did we get any PR outta that BTW?)
    
393.1458CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageMon Mar 03 1997 17:4514
    The supposed documentws are supposed to be files from a former employee
    of one of the attorneys involved in McVeigh's defense.  Jones, the main
    attorney is hopping mad, according to the Denver post, states he will
    niether confirm nor deny that the records are real, but also accused
    the Dallas paper of theft by deception.  
    
    the confusion by the lawyers involved almost makes this look more
    plausible than when I first saw the article in the Denver Post
    Saturday.  The article could have been fiction for all I knew until
    Jones started jumping in with his quotes.  Now I wonder if this is a
    conspiracy to ruin any chance of a trial by jury, and leaving open an
    appeal route if McVeigh or Nichols is convicted.  I mean this came out
    just as the questionaires were being mailed to the first 1000 potential
    jurors.
393.1459SBUOA::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundTue Mar 04 1997 11:594
    Now the defense lawyer says McVeigh's statements were a ruse to draw
    a witness who may have had a part in the conspiracy.
    
    This kind of thing is really getting ludicrous.
393.1460BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Mon Mar 31 1997 20:498
    
    	Well, "The Trial of the Century II: The Sequel" opens today.
    
    	Any preliminary news to report?
    
    	Will the FBI's problems regarding evidence handling be a big factor
    	in the outcome?
    
393.1461ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 20:501
    THERE'S A SALE AT PENNY'S!!!!!
393.1462Oops, the jury won't even be picked for another two weeksBUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Mon Mar 31 1997 20:56140
Jury selection begins in McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing trial

Timothy McVeigh's trial in the Oklahoma City bombing began in a barricaded
courthouse today, and the first prospective juror said he believed other people
involved in the blast are still out there.

McVeigh, wearing a dark blue, open-collared shirt and khaki pants, looked
intently at the potential juror, particularly when the man described how he
would be able to impose the death penalty ``if the facts justify it.''

``It's hard to place yourself in the role of deciding the fate of another human
being on these terms. Yet there has to be some ultimate price to pay,'' said
the man identified only as No. 858.

The man said[Image] he has not  In photo: This is a formed an   June 22, 1995
file opinion     photo of Oklahoma City about       bombing suspect McVeigh,
butTimothy McVeigh. (AP believes    Photo) there may be other suspects who have
not been arrested. ``There are elements, potentially people out there that are
ancillary to this case, that might want to make their strength and presence
felt.''

McVeigh's trial comes nearly two years after the bombing killed 168 people and
shattered thousands of lives in the nation's deadliest domestic terrorist
attack.

Lawyers began choosing 12 jurors from a pool of hundreds of prospects, and all
those picked must agree to consider the death penalty as punishment.

[Image]                   The A doll from the family of courtroom Kathy Leinen
hangs on the was about fence surrounding the     two-thirds former Alfred P.
Murrah   full, federal building. (AP     with Photo)                   
reporters kept to one side where they could not see prospective jurors.

The first prospect, an investment adviser who once lived in Tulsa, Okla., said
he visited the bombing site before the gutted shell of the federal building was
demolished, feeling ``I guess all the things a normal human being would feel. I
think I cried a little.''

When asked about the government sieges at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas,
No. 858 said he thought the government failed to handle them as well as they
could have. ``To me, in my mind, they were overkill.''

Prosecutors have alleged that McVeigh set off the bomb because he was angry
about the government's handling of a raid on the Branch Davidian complex in
Waco.

The stone-and-glass courthouse was surrounded by concrete barriers and
temporary metal fencing. Federal police patrolled the area outside.

Only a handful of victims' families showed up to watch and an auxiliary
courtroom set up to handle an overflow crowd was filled mostly with reporters.

Tom Kight, whose stepdaughter, Frankie Merrill, was killed in the blast, came
to court with his wife, Marsha. ``My stepdaughter can't be here so we'll be
here to represent ourselves and our daughter Frankie.''

A hidden, closed-circuit camera has been placed in U.S. District Judge Richard
Matsch's newly renovated second-floor courtroom so survivors and relatives of
bombing victims can watch the trial in Oklahoma City.

But for the start of jury selection, fewer than 75 people showed up to watch
the telecast in a 320-seat auditorium set up under tight security at Oklahoma
City's Federal Aviation Administration complex.

Outside the Denver court, about 100 members of the news media gathered in an
orderly media city. A protest area that had been set up across the street was
empty.

McVeigh has been kept for the past two days in a holding cell normally reserved
for white-collar criminals and illegal immigrants.

His attorney, Stephen Jones, swept into court accompanied by armed guards and a
large entourage. His only comment: ``We're ready.''

McVeigh, who authorities say went from model soldier to a hateful, paranoid
loner, faces the death penalty if convicted of murder and conspiracy in the
April 19, 1995, bombing. Co-defendant Terry Nichols will be tried later.

Jury selection was expected to take about two weeks, with about 380 prospective
jurors questioned individually before Matsch and lawyers for both sides. After
the field is reduced to 64 people who have agreed to consider the death penalty
as a punishment, each side may dismiss 20 without giving a reason.

Finally, after 12 jurors have been selected, six alternates will be chosen,
with each side allowed to dismiss three candidates without cause.

In the questioning, Jones was expected to focus on the purported confessions of
his client in stories by The Dallas Morning News and Playboy magazine.

Jones lost an attempt to delay the trial when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals on Friday rejected his claim that potential jurors were irreparably
tainted by the recent stories.

For many, the suspects' identities have made the horror of the bombing that
much worse. McVeigh and Nichols are small-town Americans - not the sinister
foreign terrorists some initially suspected.

McVeigh, a tall, slender 28-year-old from a family that can trace its history
back to 19th-century Irish immigrants, served with distinction in the Gulf War
after growing up in working-class Pendleton, N.Y.

Prosecutors intend to show evidence that after the war McVeigh embraced a
culture of hate, racism and anti-government fervor, as spelled out in a book he
was said to have devoured - ``The Turner Diaries,'' a fictional, racist tract
that describes a scene eerily similar to the Oklahoma bombing.

Lead prosecutor Joseph Hartzler intends to link McVeigh to bomb-making
materials and a yellow Ryder rental truck used in the explosion.

Led by Jones, the defense will attack the integrity of the evidence, focusing
on recent allegations that results from the FBI crime lab were being altered to
suit prosecutors. According to federal sources, the lab examined a shirt worn
by McVeigh and found evidence of high explosives used to set off the truck
bomb.

On Sunday, former FBI deputy director Weldon Kennedy said he wasn't concerned
about claims of contamination.

``I'm anxious for the trial to begin so the actual facts in this case can be
brought out,'' he said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

Jones also will likely assault the character of the prosecution's key witness,
Michael Fortier. In a plea arrangement, Fortier will testify his former friend
McVeigh was at the center of the bomb plot.

Jones may also depict McVeigh as a patsy in a complicated conspiracy involving
Iraq, the Irish Republican Army and American white supremacists. The
prosecution has belittled that theory.

AP-ES-03-31-97 1344EST

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be
published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed
directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP Materials nor any
portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and
non-commercial use.The AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies,
errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any
part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

393.1463HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comMon Mar 31 1997 23:527
    TTWA:  How long it would take to be pulled over if you started
    circling the courthouse in a big, yellow Ryder truck ...

    
    No, I'm not advocating it.

    -- Dave
393.1464CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageTue Apr 01 1997 12:478
    With the Steroid-hyped feds and city police in Denver?  I would say
    that making one extra turn within a mile of the trial will get you
    pulled over with several cars carrying multiple people with large
    cotguns and looking larger than life with their flack jackets.  
    
    I wouldn't reis it.
    
    meg
393.1465BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Apr 02 1997 12:394
Well, at least the talking air-heads on CNBC will have something new to
talk about.

I hope.
393.1466OKC trial cranking up!MILKWY::JACQUESThu Apr 10 1997 17:0829
    As jury selection continues an Oklahoma newspaper published a
    letter hand-written by Tim McViegh in which he blamed the FBI
    for the Waco disaster. McVeigh's attorney has stated that the
    letter was in fact written by McVeigh. McVeigh wrote the letter
    and mailed it back in November, but the paper chose to wait and
    publish the letter just as the trial is getting underway, for
    maximum impact (sells more papers). 
    
    In the letter, McVeigh stated that the public never got to
    see any of the victims of the Waco disaster....men, woman, and
    children, gassed, and burnt to death in an inferno that was
    intentionally set by the FBI. 
    
    Prosecutors will use the letter to prove motive. McVeigh's attorneys
    will attempt to place a differant spin on the letter's meaning. 
    The Feds have seized the original copy of the letter to be used as
    evidence in the trial. 
    
    Defense attorney Jones must be fuming mad at McVeigh for sending
    this letter. McVeigh should keep his mouth shut and let his
    lawyer do the talking. He is becoming a more difficult client to
    defend.
    
    This is the "real" trial of the century! Too bad it will be
    closed to public scrutiny. It's definately not a slam-dunk for
    the prosecution or the defense.
    
    	Mark
    
393.1467LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayThu Apr 10 1997 17:121
    mcveigh was set up, just like OJ.
393.1468SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu Apr 10 1997 17:217
    
    Heard accounts by the family memebers of some of the victems that they
    don't want to be involved in this trial. They say that they are trying
    to go on with their lives and even a guilty verdict doesn't mean too
    much to them.
    
    ed
393.1469TINCUP::ague.cxo.dec.com::aguehttp://www.usa.net/~agueThu Apr 10 1997 18:119
 >   Defense attorney Jones must be fuming mad at McVeigh for sending
 >   this letter. McVeigh should keep his mouth shut and let his
 >   lawyer do the talking. He is becoming a more difficult client to
 >   defend.

My belief is that even though McVeigh wants to walk away a free man, he is 
quite proud, in his own sick way, of his accomplishment.

-- Jim
393.1470Refuse to Lose!MILKWY::JACQUESThu Apr 10 1997 18:2037
    A guilty verdict may not mean much, but how would they feel about
    an aquittal? If Tim McVeigh is aquitted, he probably ought to join 
    the Nasa space program and volunteer for space-station duty. His
    life will be worth spit with literally hundreds of irate family
    members with an axe to grind.
    
    I have heard that very few of the victims' family members have attended
    the closed-circuit tv viewing, however they may not be interested in
    the jury selection process. There will probably be a much bigger crowd
    when the actual trial gets under way. 
    
    Several members of victims' families have filed suit against the US
    Government. The plaintiffs claim the federal government knew that 
    someone was planning to blow up the building. The *rumour* is that
    the ATF agents were given the option of not coming into the office 
    that day. Keep in mind, this was the second anniversary of the Waco
    disaster. A response was expected by many! The Federal government
    is insistant that there was no knowledge of any bombing conspiracy and
    that it was sheer coincidence that no ATF agents were present. It will
    be interesting to see where all of this leads. The feds will have to
    tread lightly during the McVeigh trial. If they were following up on
    any rumours before the bombing occured this information could be
    problematic for the feds, not so much in the McVeigh trial, but in the
    civil matter. This goes way beyond being a simple civil matter anyways. 
    If the feds knew that people were at risk and failed to warn them,  
    they will have a major public-relations problem on their hands. Heads 
    could roll all the way from OKC to Washington.
    
    Not to belittle Nicole Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman, but that crime
    pales in comparison to the OKC bombing. A lot more lives were lost, 
    and the integrity of the US Government is at stake. This was the single 
    worst act of terrorism on US soil in history. It's a case the US Gov 
    *MUST* win, and there is a very real possibility they could lose. It 
    all rides on the jury which is being selected as we speak. 
    
    
    	Mark
393.1471what a jokeGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Apr 10 1997 18:2310
   Now here's a pet peeve of mine : "jury selection".

  Excuse me ?  Can I sell you a random number generator ?  There shouldn't
 BE any "jury selection".  In some other countries, this takes ten minutes.
 All you do is count.

  Just another stupid cost-adder from "the finest justice system in the world".

  bb
393.1472LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayThu Apr 10 1997 18:316
    .1470
    
    /literally hundreds of irate family members with an axe to grind.
    
    this is a very interesting characterization.
    
393.1473ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Apr 10 1997 18:379
>       <<< Note 393.1471 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>
>   Now here's a pet peeve of mine : "jury selection".

Yup, big waste of time and tax $, not to mention the spin it puts on the
whole trial before it even begins. I've been called for duty 3 times, and
been cancelled 3 times. Gee, maybe if we didn't have this stupid process, a
whole lot of us could get on with our lives?

You, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, and you. Done.
393.1474SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu Apr 10 1997 18:494
    
    You forgot you,you,you,you,you and you as alternates.
    
    ed
393.1475BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Apr 10 1997 19:2321
       <<< Note 393.1471 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>


>   Now here's a pet peeve of mine : "jury selection".

>  Excuse me ?  Can I sell you a random number generator ?  There shouldn't
> BE any "jury selection".  In some other countries, this takes ten minutes.
> All you do is count.

>  Just another stupid cost-adder from "the finest justice system in the world".

	You might want to consider the sworn testimony of the last juror
	excused.

	She stated quite clearly that she believed that McVeigh was guilty.

	If YOU were being held on a capital charge, would YOU want this 
	person sitting in judgement of YOU?


Jim
393.1476CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 10 1997 19:257
    and if you believe strongly in capital punishment, do you want the two
    potential jurors who said there was no way in heaven, earth or hell
    they could vote for the death penalty on the panel.  (If I were the
    defense, I might try to grab these two, but by law they will be
    excused.)  
    
    meg
393.1477SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu Apr 10 1997 20:1715
    
    
    
>	You might want to consider the sworn testimony of the last juror
>	excused.

>	She stated quite clearly that she believed that McVeigh was guilty.

    
    I do believe that her mind could be changed by evidence. ALL
    prospective jurors have some kind of opinion about guilt or innocence
    of the accused.
    
    ed
    
393.1478ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Apr 10 1997 20:525
    Why was the woman excused for expressing the view it was wrong to
    change the venue from Oklahoma?
    
    Yes, I'm aware of the "wouldn't get a fair trial" thing...but aren't
    they constitutionally required to hold trial there or some such?
393.1479BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 00:129
           <<< Note 393.1477 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Here's your sign" >>>

>    I do believe that her mind could be changed by evidence.

	That was not what she testified to. She was quite clear about
	he conviction about convicting.

Jim

393.1480BUSY::SLABA Momentary Lapse of ReasonFri Apr 11 1997 00:394
    
    	So she just dropped in to see how convincing her conviction had
    	been?
    
393.1481BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 01:0513
        <<< Note 393.1480 by BUSY::SLAB "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" >>>

    
>    	So she just dropped in to see how convincing her conviction had
>    	been?
 

	Nope, she found a not so unique "out" for jury duty.

	Just stand up and yell "Fire Up Ole Sparky!!!"

Jim   

393.1482BUSY::SLABA Momentary Lapse of ReasonFri Apr 11 1997 01:516
    
    	Darn, I KNEW I should have made that into a .wav file so Jim would
    	have avoided a "whoosh".
    
    	8^)
    
393.1483BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 02:0313
        <<< Note 393.1482 by BUSY::SLAB "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" >>>

    
>    	Darn, I KNEW I should have made that into a .wav file so Jim would
>    	have avoided a "whoosh".
 
	No "whoosh" Slab. I just decvided to in=gnore bad jokes from
	skinny get-a-lifers who are posting in the Box late at night.

	;-)

Jim
   
393.1484BUSY::SLABA Momentary Lapse of ReasonFri Apr 11 1997 02:065
    
    	OK, so the only thing that differentiates us is 65 pounds, right?
    
    	8^)
    
393.1485POWDML::HANGGELIElvis Needs BoatsFri Apr 11 1997 02:303
    
    Did somebody say "whoosh"?
    
393.1486BUSY::SLABA Momentary Lapse of ReasonFri Apr 11 1997 02:335
    
    	Yes, I did, and then Jim did.
    
    	Why do you ask?
    
393.1487BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Fri Apr 11 1997 13:083
    
    
    OK. I'll admit it. I thought that last exchange was pretty funny :-)
393.1488BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 13:2113
        <<< Note 393.1484 by BUSY::SLAB "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" >>>

    
>    	OK, so the only thing that differentiates us is 65 pounds, right?
 
	More like 100 pounds. ;-)

	But, technically I was "at work" even though I was sitting at home
	sipping a glass of Balvenie Doublewood, I was also on a concall
	with ZGO. One window up with the agenda, the other keeping track
	of you. ;-)

Jim
393.1489BUSY::SLABA swift kick in the butt - $1Fri Apr 11 1997 13:597
    
    	Ooh, now I have my own personal monitor.
    
    	The service sucks, but I guess I can't argue about the price.
    
    	8^)
    
393.1490yup, toss itGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri Apr 11 1997 14:1713
  well, like I said, I don't think a "jury selection process" adds
 anything.  Of course, if I were a defendant, I'd want 12 folks with
 mercy by the quart.  If I were a prosecutor, I'd want 12 angry men.
 But, as a citizen, I'd really rather just clear the docket.  It is true
 that this would result in some sorry individuals on juries, but given
 that you're picking Americans, that's inevitable.

  Here's another one I think we could toss : appeals based on "improper
 jury behavior".  That one's a joke, too.  Of course, since that one's
 only good for the defense, it means I'm heartless and cruel.

  bb
393.1491SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signFri Apr 11 1997 16:134
    
    Yea, look how good the OJ criminal trial jury came out.
    
    ed
393.1492with no end in sight...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri Apr 11 1997 17:154
  Ten days, so far !!!  TEN DAYS of "jury selection".

  bb
393.1493EVMS::MORONEYHit &lt;CTRL&gt;&lt;ALT&gt;&lt;DEL&gt; to continue -&gt;Fri Apr 11 1997 17:221
How many jurors/alternates have been selected so far (if any) ?
393.1494CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageFri Apr 11 1997 17:395
    No one has been selected yet.  A few jurors have been excused for
    varying odd reasons.  However, I imagine they will interview the first
    thousand before seating anyone.  
    
    meg
393.1495CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageFri Apr 11 1997 17:418
    Interesting factoid
    
    elPaso county is bordered by several of the counties where jurors are
    being selected from.  Interesting tht the county that has been the seat
    of some of the more loony members of the militia and soveriegn
    movements was not used.
    
    meg
393.1496BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 17:5025
            <<< Note 393.1494 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>

>    No one has been selected yet.  A few jurors have been excused for
>    varying odd reasons.  However, I imagine they will interview the first
>    thousand before seating anyone.  
 
	I don't think it's quite that bad. They started with a pool of
	~160. The judge has dismissed 4. The lawyers will need to
	wait for their chance to dismiss until after all have been
	questioned in this round. 

	Note that the lawyers can ask that a juror be dismissed "for
	cause" (some prejudice to either side) or preemptively (the 
	lawyer doesn't like them, but does not have to explain why).

	For cause dismissals have to be approved by the judge and
	are unlimited. Preemptive dismissals do not have to be
	approved, but are limited (in this case I believe each
	side gets 20).

	My guess is that the process wil consume the rest of April,
	With opening statements sometime around the first of May.


Jim
393.1497BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 17:5111
            <<< Note 393.1495 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>

>Interesting tht the county that has been the seat
>    of some of the more loony members of the militia and soveriegn
>    movements was not used.
 
Meg,	It's a government plot.

	;-)

Jim
393.1498we don't need no steenkin' "selection"...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri Apr 11 1997 18:035
  It's an outrage, is what it is.  Why, we could take any 12 'Boxers
 and give McVeigh a fair trial under the Constitution.

  bb
393.1499BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Apr 11 1997 18:0410
       <<< Note 393.1498 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

>  It's an outrage, is what it is.  Why, we could take any 12 'Boxers
> and give McVeigh a fair trial under the Constitution.

	Oh, I don't know about that.

	Look how many denizens would have wrongly convicted OJ.

Jim
393.1500oh yes, it's fridayLANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayFri Apr 11 1997 18:072
    	
    wrongly convicted?!  hah!
393.1501BSS::DSMITHI'LL GET UP AND FLY AWAYFri Apr 11 1997 18:1410
    
    Re:Interesting factoid
    
     As vocal as you are Meg it must be all your fault!
    
      . .
       ,
     \___/
    
      Dave
393.1502CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageFri Apr 11 1997 18:197
    Dave,
    
    Yeah, but which edge of what looney groups am I on?  
    
    >;-)
    
    meg
393.1503BSS::DSMITHI'LL GET UP AND FLY AWAYFri Apr 11 1997 18:2611
    
    After 1 minute and 30 seconds of very deep thought you must be doing
    something "right" to keep them outa El Paso county..
    
    
     Dave   . .
             ,
           \___/ 
    
    
    
393.1504WMOIS::CONNELLNo one noticed the cat.Fri Apr 11 1997 18:4115
    10 days is silly to select a jury. I'm amazed and appalled. I heard on
    the news a couple of weeks ago that the defense was trying oust a jury
    candidate because her husband had 2 grandparents killed in the
    Holocaust and McVey may have had some antisemetic lierature on his
    person at the time of arrest. Give me a break. I am as appalled by the
    Holocaust as most people are, but having someone she didn't know and
    her husband probably didn't know death's and connecting that to some
    pamphletts or books the defendant might have maybe had in his
    possession is stretching it a bit.
    
    Get on with it people.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ
393.1505CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageFri Apr 11 1997 19:0023
    
    
    Dave,
    
    Flattery will get you almost everywhere.
    
    >;-)
    
    PJ,
    
    At the rate they are going it will be  several weeks on selelcting the
    jury.  They are not apparently looking for someone who never heard of
    the OKC bombing, (you would have to find a hermit or someone who had
    been in a coma, or in solitary confinement for the last two years to 
    find anyone who hadn't heard of the bombing.  
    
    Apparently the prosecution is looking for one personality type,
    (trusting in the government) while the defense is looking for people
    who question the government and are independent thinkers.  Of course
    the independent thinkers could be a problem in the penalty phase of the
    trial if there is a conviction.  
    
    meg
393.1506WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Fri Apr 11 1997 19:043
    
    Does anyone know who's paying for the defense lawyers?  Were they
    court-appointed?  Is it pro bono work?
393.1507CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageFri Apr 11 1997 19:105
    Court appointed.  Jones is a very brave man, given that he may never
    get work again in Oklahoma, or anywhere else in the coutry if he gets
    Mcveigh off.
    
    meg
393.1508meg is unsure of the concept here...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri Apr 11 1997 19:375
  Bwahaha !!!  If he gets McVeigh off, he'll be SWAMPED with million
 dollar offers.

  bb
393.1509Feds only know how to do one thing, SPEND!MILKWY::JACQUESFri Apr 11 1997 19:4815
    Since McVeigh's attorney is court appointed, he gets to bill the
    US Government for all expenses, including private investigators
    and expert witnesses he hires. My understanding is that the
    defense has spent $1M/month on their investigation and billable
    hours working on the McVeigh case.
    
    It may seem ludicrous, but if the prosecution is spending millions
    of dollars building a case against McVeigh, he has to match them
    dollar for dollar or else he goes to trial with an enormous
    disadvantage.
    
    Go to court for so much as a traffic ticket and you'll realize that
    "It's all about money" anyways!  
    
    Mark
393.1510OKC crime scene. MILKWY::JACQUESFri Apr 11 1997 19:5718
    The Murrah Federal building was demolished without the defense being 
    able to examine it (or have it examined by independant investigators).
    Jones was escorted into the building and "allowed to look around" for
    less than one hour, and he is no forensics expert. I seem to recall
    that the defense asked the court to delay the demolition of the
    building and allow defense to conduct their own investigation. This
    request was denied. The government claimed the building was so
    unstable that it presented a risk to the surrounding area and had
    to be demolished immediately. Is there any way that this could be
    disputed? 
    
    This is bound to come up during the trial. How will this factor into 
    the trial? (speculation welcome). In the vast majority of criminal
    cases, both sides have equal access to the crime scene. In this
    "trial of the century" an exception has been made. 
    
    Mark
    
393.1511ALPHAZ::HARNEYJohn A HarneyFri Apr 11 1997 22:579
re: .1504 (PJ)

Well, I know Jews that harbor such feelings that they wouldn't consider
buying a Volkswagon today.

I don't think it's as easy to separate feelings and situations as you'd
like to believe it is.

\john
393.1512on and on and on and on and ooooonnnnnnnnnnnn...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed Apr 16 1997 14:534
  Still selecting the jury.

  bb
393.1513Jury Selection: A Vital part of the Justice systemKERNEL::FREKESLike a thief in the nightSat Apr 19 1997 09:1023
        RE: Jury Selection.

    The Law has to be seen to be fair and just. And when you are tried for
    breaking the law it is your right to a fair trial by your peers. (the
    jury).

    Like someone said a while back. If you were standing before a jury on a
    murder charge, you don't want some juror convicting you before he/she
    has even seen the evidence. So part of the selection process is to get
    rid of people who both sides think will cause the trial to be unfair.
    It would be unfair to try a black person by an all white jury. Because
    the whites are not truly the black persons peers. You cannot have biased
    and prejudiced people standing in judgement over other people. Which is
    in effect what you are asking a juror to do. 

    So to put this to rest, jury selection is a vital part of the justice
    system which is designed to protect the rights of the defendant. Just
    imagine it could be you one day who is going to trial charged with,
    lets say Rape. The last thing you want is an all female jury. Because
    they are going to hang you. No disrespect to anyone intended here.
    
    
    Steven
393.1514PENUTS::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Sat Apr 19 1997 13:269
>       <<< Note 393.1513 by KERNEL::FREKES "Like a thief in the night" >>>

>    imagine it could be you one day who is going to trial charged with,
>    lets say Rape. The last thing you want is an all female jury. Because
>    they are going to hang you.

	Because women can't be impartial, as we all know.


393.1515BUSY::SLABA Parting Shot in the DarkSat Apr 19 1997 14:533
    
    	At least we all agree on something.
    
393.1516KERNEL::FREKESLike a thief in the nightSat Apr 19 1997 16:3516
    re: 393.1514
    
    No that is not what I am implying. I simply used at as an example. The
    situation could be different. 
    
    A female on trial for dangerous driving, with an all male jury would
    almost certainly get convicted. 
    In order to get a conviction you have to have proved the point beyond 
    any reasonable shadow of a doubt. You might overlook this simple fact if 
    you are highly charged about a particular subject.
    Hence the reason for jury selection.
    You are selecting the fairest jury.
    
    Steven 
    
    
393.1517CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageSat Apr 19 1997 23:308
    Actually,
    
    It has been found that many women jurors tend to be harder on a rape
    victim and easier on her assailant than male jurors.  
    
    Go figure.
    
    meg
393.1518KERNEL::FREKESLike a thief in the nightSun Apr 20 1997 08:211
    Ok, I got the facts wrong, but you have just proved my point.
393.1519PENUTS::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Sun Apr 20 1997 11:358
>       <<< Note 393.1516 by KERNEL::FREKES "Like a thief in the night" >>>
    
>    A female on trial for dangerous driving, with an all male jury would
>    almost certainly get convicted. 

	hoo boy.  it just keeps getting better.


393.1520Like I said. I non biased jury is essentialKERNEL::FREKESLike a thief in the nightSun Apr 20 1997 13:332
    Well, its true. Come on deny it. Don't we all know that female drivers
    are the worst. :-)
393.1521HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleWed Apr 23 1997 12:198
in the US: ALL are EQUAL and we have amendments to adust that to include women 
and people of other races/color.  No, i wouldn't want a biased jury just like i 
wouldn't want the trial to exclude pertinent info that may prove my innocence.

let them take their time selecting because this trial just may help to shed some
light on up F'dU the fed's and buddies have become.

ogre.
393.1522ACISS1::BATTISFerzie fanWed Apr 23 1997 12:535
    
    .1521
    
    of course, the small little fact that 168 people died is of little
    consequence.
393.1523CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageWed Apr 23 1997 12:543
    the 168 people are important.  Important enough that I wouldn't want
    someone wrongly convicted and murdered by the feds, thereby sullying
    the memory of those 168 dedicated federal employees and children.
393.1524KERNEL::FREKESLike a thief in the nightWed Apr 23 1997 15:493
    >someone wrongly convicted and murdered by the feds
    
    murdered is bit of a harsh word to use. 
393.1525BUSY::SLABCrazy Cooter comin' atcha!!Wed Apr 23 1997 16:203
    
    	Deprived of the God-given right to breathe?
    
393.1526HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleWed Apr 23 1997 18:044
murder by the feds happens all the time, as well as murder by all types of other
persons, too.

ogre.
393.1527CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 24 1997 14:157
    What else do you call execution of an innocent person but
    state-sponsored murder?  Death by lethal injection?  Execution? 
    sparkified? Put down?  Or, my personal favorite when the evidence that
    pointed to another person is unearther after the person is executed,
    "oopsie?"
    
    meg
393.1528WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Apr 24 1997 14:173
    If someone broke into your house and held a plastic replica of a gun to
    your child's head, and you shot and killed the person, would you be
    guilty of murder? Why or why not?
393.1529CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 24 1997 15:4013
    If someone could manage to get through the dog you mean.
    
    Not according to law, and not according to the person's behavior. 
    According to others, yes.  Some people consider Colorado's intruder
    defense law to be state-sactioned murder.  Besides I only shoot to
    stop, not to kill.
    
    Now can we get back to OKC and the death penalty.  Unless you consider
    belonging to militia-type organizations to be a capital offense in and
    of itself, I don't get your analogy.
    
    meg
    
393.1530WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Apr 24 1997 16:2214
    >Not according to law, and not according to the person's behavior. 
    
     Why not? Isn't it true that the key is that you had a reasonable
    belief that shooting the person in fact was justifiable based on what
    you knew at the time? When you subsequently found out that the person
    couldn't have harmed your child the way you thought, did that make you
    a murderer? No.
    
     A mistaken execution is not state sanctioned murder either. If there
    are people whose misconduct for the prosecution led to the guilty
    verdict, THEN you have a case for state sanctioned murder. But if a
    fair trial was held and the result was that an innocent person was put
    to death, it is not murder, it is a mistake in which someone was
    killed. That puts it on par with the situation described above.
393.1531WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Apr 24 1997 18:033
    re; getting through the dog would be easier than getting in the door.
    
        don't kid yourself.
393.1532CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageFri Apr 25 1997 17:0414
    mark,
    
    there have been documented cases where the prosecutors have made
    greivous errors and are still fighting to have a person killed,
    regardless of the fact that new testimony, DNA, or the confession of
    the person who actually did the crime have been brought up.  The
    Supreme court even has let executions go through although there is
    evidence which clears a person because of technicalities in filing.  I
    consider them accessories to state-sanctioned murder because of this. 
    My opinion of the DA's involved in this is that they are mafia don
    equivelants, ordering a hit regardless, just to protect their pride and
    prejudice.  
    
    meg
393.1533ACISS1::BATTISFerzie fanFri Apr 25 1997 17:142
    
    opening arguements are over. time to play ball.
393.1534COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed Apr 30 1997 20:426
Feds may have screwed this up bigtime, using a former partner of McVeigh
as a star witness.  Defense may be able to create reasonable doubt that
McVeigh did it by portraying her as a liar telling the story the gummint
wants her to tell to save her own skin.

/john
393.1535Defense will certainly *try* to try the government....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Apr 30 1997 20:537
|   Defense may be able to create reasonable doubt that McVeigh did it by
|   portraying her as a liar telling the story the gummint wants her to
|   tell to save her own skin.
    
    Worked for Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1536NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed May 21 1997 18:191
Prosecution has rested.
393.1537BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed May 21 1997 18:402
Why?  Where the tired?
393.1538LJSRV1::16.125.192.74::mzdebraWe'llMeetYouThere!Wed May 21 1997 18:433
	Where indeed.

393.1539DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayWed May 21 1997 18:454
>Why?  Where the tired?

<yawn..waves hand>
393.1540wake me fer the hangin'...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed May 21 1997 18:575

   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  bb
393.1541SALLIE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 21 1997 18:584
	where the huddled masses?


393.1542WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed May 21 1997 18:581
    filtha!
393.1543KIDVAX::DESOURDISThu May 22 1997 17:003
    RE: .1541  >> where the huddled masses?
         
    <yearn..waves hand>
393.1544WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed May 28 1997 17:431
    The defense in the trial of Timothy McVeigh has rested.
393.1545BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerWed May 28 1997 17:541
    Already?  They barely had enough time to say "nuh uh!"
393.1546WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed May 28 1997 17:562
    3 days and 24 witnesses later, they have "nuh-uh" and "it was a mystery
    person that died in the blast. Really."
393.1547CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageWed May 28 1997 18:0416
    There is still the odd leg out there.  No one disputes that there is a
    left leg that goes to no identified or unidentified bodies.  the
    wierdee is that the body that the leg may have been connected to has
    never been found and no one has filed a missing person report.  
    
    this could also have belonged to John Doe #2
    
    They also brought up the fact that the FBI lab was contaminated with
    the same explosives they had "found" on McVeigh's clothes, and that one
    or more of the pieces they found traces of Ammonium nitrate on had been
    in the rain overnight and may have had all traces washed away.  
    
    Personally I think he did it, but..........
    
    
    meg
393.1548BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerWed May 28 1997 18:072
    So far, the only thing the defense has convinced me of is that it's
    possible that there may have been someone else there helping McVeigh.
393.1549SMURF::PBECKPaul BeckWed May 28 1997 18:138
>    There is still the odd leg out there.  No one disputes that there is a
>    left leg that goes to no identified or unidentified bodies.  the
>    wierdee is that the body that the leg may have been connected to has
>    never been found and no one has filed a missing person report.  
    
    Really? I thought I remember hearing that the "third leg theory" had
    been put to rest some months ago, and that the "owner" of the leg
    had been identified.  Could be I'm misremembering...
393.1550CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsWed May 28 1997 18:141
    Or disremembering even.
393.1551FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 18:154
   or redismembering.


393.1552WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed May 28 1997 18:169
    >Really? I thought I remember hearing that the "third leg theory" had
    >been put to rest some months ago, and that the "owner" of the leg
    >had been identified.  Could be I'm misremembering...

     Months ago they decided it really belongs to some woman whose body had
    already been recovered. Initially they had thought it was a man's leg
    because it had army fatigues and boots, but they announced at one point
    that it had been identified as belonging to a female victim.
    
393.1553RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 28 1997 18:1915
    Re .1546:
    
    > 3 days and 24 witnesses later, they have "nuh-uh" and "it was a mystery
    > person that died in the blast. Really."

    Isn't that the best that can be expected of an innocent person?  How
    would an innocent defendant with few resources be able to nail the
    guilty party when the federal government got the wrong person?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1554BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed May 28 1997 18:225
    
    	RE: .1551
    
    	Cut it out!!
    
393.1555BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerWed May 28 1997 18:239
I think the innocent party without money wouldn't be able to defend
himself.  Money is directly proportional to acquital (r>.5 - a statistic
entirely of anal extraction on my part).

It's just that the feds put together what sounds like a reasonably
convincing case this time.  It does bother me that there aren't any eye
witnesses, though, although having recently been called upon to read a ton
of eye witness research, I guess I shouldn't be putting too much stock in
them, anyway.
393.1556dodgy bit there...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed May 28 1997 18:254
    
      eye witnesses would have to be reassemblied...
    
      bb
393.1557SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed May 28 1997 18:3415
    
    re .1553
    
    
    >Isn't that the best that can be expected of an innocent person?  How
    >would an innocent defendant with few resources be able to nail the
    >guilty party when the federal government got the wrong person?
    
    
    	Not really, an innocent person might have an alibi. They might not
    be able to nail the guilty person, but they might be able to show that
    they were somewhere else at the time.
    
    ed
    
393.1558FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 18:357
>           <<< Note 393.1557 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Here's your sign" >>>

	took the words right out of my mou... er, fingers.



393.1559SHRCTR::PJOHNSONVaya con huevos.Wed May 28 1997 18:407
re: "...no one has filed a missing person report"

Yes, but has anyone filed a missing *leg* report!?

jtth,

Pete
393.1560BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed May 28 1997 18:443
    
    	Hmmm, strange that the leg didn't file a missing person report.
    
393.1561CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageWed May 28 1997 18:5911
    The woman who the "spare leg" was reunited with, had been buried with
    another left leg.  So, there is still an extra leg around that fits
    none of the bodies.
    
    This is one thing both the prosecution and defense stipulate, althought
    the prosecution was hoping the leg wouldn't be brought up.
    
    not that it matters, they will most likely find him guilty, the only
    real question will be around the death penalty or life.  
    
    meg
393.1562WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed May 28 1997 19:018
    >Isn't that the best that can be expected of an innocent person?  
    
     No, it is not. An innocent person ought to be capable of casting some
    level of doubt on the state's case. An alibi, a piece of evidence which
    contradicts the prosecution's theory of the case, inconsistencies in
    the state's case, exculpatory evidence of one sort or another at least
    something to provide reasonable doubt. This defendant has failed even
    that miniscule burden of proof. He's toast.
393.1563LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningWed May 28 1997 19:033
    
    Forthwith!
    
393.1564BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed May 28 1997 19:043
    
    	Uh-oh ... this is going to be interesting.
    
393.1565FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 19:0610
>              <<< Note 393.1562 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

>    that miniscule burden of proof. He's toast.

	minuscule.  gerald taught me that.

	he has a burden of proof?


393.1566BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerWed May 28 1997 19:092
    Not a burden of proof, but it sure wouldn't hurt what with the margin
    of reasonable doubt being squeezed so hard by the prosecution.
393.1567RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 28 1997 19:1037
    Re .1562:
    
    > An innocent person ought to be capable of casting some level of doubt
    > on the state's case. An alibi, . . .
    
    A randomly selected innocent person would probably have an alibi.  But
    the federal government doesn't select randomly.  There were lots of
    people in the city that day.  None of them have alibis.  Just by
    statistical chance, some of them would have anti-government sentiments. 
    Going through them, the government may well find somebody they can make
    a case against.
    
    > . . . a piece of evidence which contradicts the prosecution's theory
    > of the case, . . .
    
    And they pull it out of the air?  The government's case is
    circumstantial.  How does an innocent person disprove a circumstantial
    case?  It is perfectly legal for an anti-government activist to rent
    trucks, stay in motels, and buy firearms and chemicals.
    
    > . . . inconsistencies in the state's case, . . .
    
    Innuendos need not be false to be damaging.  The federal government can
    damn a person by painting a perfectly consistent yet misleading
    picture.
    
    > . . . exculpatory evidence of one sort or another at least something
    > to provide reasonable doubt.
    
    Redundant, addressed above.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1568not the CAHD, one hopes...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed May 28 1997 19:115
    
      yes, gerald has a burden of proof for a ridiculous spieling like
     that
    
      bb
393.1569NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed May 28 1997 19:131
Hey, it's Latin.  Blame Binder, not me.
393.1570FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 19:147
>       <<< Note 393.1568 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

	er, hanh?  that's how it's spelled - minuscule.



393.1571cantankerous geezer ?GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed May 28 1997 19:165
    
    
      now, sax, don't go curmudgeonly jest cuz you got old
    
      bb
393.1572DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayWed May 28 1997 19:185
>Yes, but has anyone filed a missing *leg* report!?


 Yes..but the authorities told them they didn't have a leg to stand on.
393.1573ambiguous hee...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed May 28 1997 19:184
    
      hey, did I get my first whoosh of Lady Di ?
    
      bb
393.1574SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed May 28 1997 19:1920
    
  >  A randomly selected innocent person would probably have an alibi.  But
  >  the federal government doesn't select randomly.  There were lots of
  >  people in the city that day.  None of them have alibis.  Just by
  >  statistical chance, some of them would have anti-government sentiments. 
  >  Going through them, the government may well find somebody they can make
  >  a case against.
    
   Just an amazing leap. No one in OKC that day had an alibi that would
    exclude them from suspicion for the bombing.
    
    The government might be able to make a case against someone, but it
    probably wouldn't be able to make a good one.
    
    And circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
    
    	An innocent person could disprove a circumstantial case by proving
    they were somewhere else when the crime happened.
    
    ed
393.1575WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed May 28 1997 19:2012
    >	minuscule.  gerald taught me that.
    
     Erf. 
    
    >	he has a burden of proof?
    
     In a manner of speaking, yes. The prosecution's burden of proof is to
    demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the
    crime. All the defendant has to do is call the state's case into
    question. Note that the defense doesn't even have to mount an actual
    defense case to do this (in some cases). Simple cross examination may
    be enough, especially in a circumstantial case.
393.1576NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed May 28 1997 19:231
Di's just being protective of me cuz I'm so old and helpless.
393.1577FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 19:275
   .1573  well apparently, because i still don't get why you
	  said that.

	  
393.1578 did i mention that pronouns is hard ?GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed May 28 1997 19:305
    
      Di, yer .1565 suffers from the ambiguous pronoun.  Which he are
     you asking has a burden of proof ?  A rewording could remove same.
    
      bb
393.1579RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 28 1997 19:3432
    Re .1574:

    > Just an amazing leap. No one in OKC that day had an alibi that
    > would exclude them from suspicion for the bombing.

    Fine, some people could show they were with others.  But you haven't
    addressed the basic point:  There are thousands of people who can't
    document where they were every minute and more people who just came
    into the city on some errand and left without making any noticeable
    impression.  So the government has plenty of candidates to choose from.

    >   And circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

    That isn't the question; the question is how can an innocent person
    disprove it?

    >   	An innocent person could disprove a circumstantial case by
    > proving they were somewhere else when the crime happened.

    No, they could not.  Being a "circumstantial case" means that the
    circumstances are consistent with committing the crime.  It means the
    prosecution shows the person was in the area (not somewhere else) and
    may have had the means -- but the prosecution doesn't show the person
    actually performed the alleged actions.


    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                           
393.1580FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 19:518
>              <<< Note 393.1575 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
    
>     In a manner of speaking, yes.

	well yeah, natch.  i was just asking if there's actually a legal
	"burden of proof" for the defendant.

393.1581LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningWed May 28 1997 19:533
    
    No.
    
393.1582SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed May 28 1997 20:0024
    
    re .1579
    
    	That is not what you said. You said noone had an alibi, now you are
    putting conditions on your statement. Fine, if you want to change the
    rules.
    
    
    They have to prove a little more than the person was in the area. Like
    you said, they rented a truck. That's one piece of evidence. An
    innocent person could disprove they rented the truck by getting the
    truch agency person to remember that that person didn't rent a truck
    from them. If the circumstantial case is so good that the renter states
    it was the person, and it was actually the same truck that was used in
    the bombing and the truck hadn't been stolen, then the person is
    probably not innocent.
    
    	Even a circumstantial case has to have some merit to usually be
    won, if it isn't pretty solid, there are too many ways to blow holes in
    it. 
    
    	No case is foolproof, even with video or eyewitness testimony. 
    
    ed
393.1583BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerWed May 28 1997 20:054
    Re: eyewitness testimony:
    
    According to most of the research I read, eyewitness testimony is
    incredibly unreliable.
393.1584SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed May 28 1997 20:088
    
    	Another item in this particular case is the bomb materials.
    
    	An innocent person COULD disprove the prosecution's case by showing
    that they still have the materials that they bought that the
    prosecution says were used in the bombing.
    
    ed
393.1585RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 28 1997 20:0937
    Re .1582:
    
    > 	That is not what you said. You said noone had an alibi, now you are
    > putting conditions on your statement.
    
    I know what I said.  And it's wrong.  So I retract it.  I offer instead
    the statement that there were thousands of people without alibis.  This
    claim is true and proves the original point:  The government had ample
    selection from which to pluck a victim to prosecute.
    
    > They have to prove a little more than the person was in the area.
    > Like you said, they rented a truck. That's one piece of evidence. An
    > innocent person could disprove they rented the truck by getting the
    > truch agency person to remember that that person didn't rent a truck
    > . . .
    
    That is not true.  An innocent person could not prove they did not rent
    a truck if they did rent a truck.  Nor could an innocent person "get"
    the rental agent to remember anything.  Eyewitnesses are often poor
    evidence.  But as it happens in this case, there are witnesses who do
    remember things that contradict the government's case.  A witness at
    the motel saw the defendant with a truck the day before the truck used
    in the bombing.
    
    > . . . then the person is probably not innocent.
    
    That is mathematically incorrect.  The probability a randomly selected
    person would be innocent given those facts is very low.  But when the
    government deliberately seeks a likely candidate, the chance that an
    accused person is actually innocent increases greatly.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1586RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 28 1997 20:1215
    Re .1584:
    
    > An innocent person COULD disprove the prosecution's case by showing
    > that they still have the materials that they bought that the
    > prosecution says were used in the bombing.
    
    Then there must be a lot of guilty farmers who have bought a lot more
    fertilizer than McVeigh but don't have it anymore.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1587FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 20:188
>      <<< Note 393.1586 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

	One would assume that's why he put "COULD" in capital letters.
	It is possible.



393.1588SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed May 28 1997 20:1911
    
    >re .1585
    
    	Do you have the last paragraph worded correctly for your case?
    
    	A randomly selected person wouldn't likely be innocent. But when
    the government follows circumstantial evidence its more likely they are
    innocent?
    
    
    ed
393.1589SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed May 28 1997 20:217
    
    re .1586
    
    	Again you said couldn't prove their innocence. I didn't say it
    would actually prove their innocence, just that it COULD.
    
    ed
393.1590DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayWed May 28 1997 20:238
    
>    	That is not what you said. You said noone had an alibi, now you are
                                            ^^^^^ 


    Yeah, he had an alibi..he and the rest of Herman's Hermits were appearing
 in a British invasion reunion with Freddie and the Dreamers and Gerry and
 the Pacemakers..
393.1591RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed May 28 1997 20:4123
    Re .1588:
    
    > Do you have the last paragraph worded correctly for your case?

    Pretty much, but let's be more precise.  There's a few hundred million
    people in the country.  Exclude everybody who wasn't in a large city on
    a given day.  That leaves a million or so.  Figure 99% of them were
    with coworkers or somebody else who can identify them.  That leaves ten
    thousand.  Maybe 99% of those can't be linked to a truck rental or
    resentment of the government or other circumstantial evidence.  That
    leaves one hundred.
    
    Out of one hundred people who fit the circumstances, only one (or maybe
    two) are guilty.  So when the government tracks down a person who fits
    the circumstances, there might be only a 1% chance the person is
    actually guilty.        
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1592SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed May 28 1997 20:5512
    .1591
    
    From your .1585:
    
    > The probability a randomly selected
    > person would be innocent given those facts is very low.
    
    Then, in .1591 you reduce the likely candidates to, say, a hundred. 
    Assuming that only one is guilty, randomly selecting one of those
    hundred gives you a 99% probability that your selected person is
    innocent.  You call that a LOW probability?  Would you care to rephrase
    what you said in .1585?
393.1593FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Wed May 28 1997 20:566
   .1591

    But aren't the chances that he's not guilty 3 million to 1? ;>


393.1594WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu May 29 1997 10:072
    -1 i believe those are the odds for winning a free ticket in Mass
    Millions :-).
393.1595RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 12:4617
    Re .1592:
    
    > Would you care to rephrase what you said in .1585?
    
    No.  The part about selecting from the whole population is irrelevant
    to the essential point, so I will just retract it rather than arguing
    about it.  The other part, about the chance that a person selected
    deliberately to fit the circumstances, is the point I am making.  Since
    there may be many people who fit the circumstances, the chance that a
    person selected from them is guilty are low.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1596SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 13:2413
    
    But the person isn't selected TO fit the circumstances, they are
    selected because they fit the circumstances. 
    
    	First they look for someone who was in OKC, then they look for
    someone who rented a Ryder truck, and someone who bought the same
    materials as used in the bomb, etc.
    
    You don't start with a name and make the circumstances fit the person,
    its the other way around so the likelyhood that that person is guilty
    is high. This isn't a mathematical equation.
    
    ed
393.1597RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 14:3821
    Re .1596:
    
    > But the person isn't selected TO fit the circumstances, they are
    > selected because they fit the circumstances. 

    Same effect.  All the government winds up with is somebody who fits the
    circumstances but whom they cannot prove actually committed the
    criminal acts.  Their scapegoat could well be an innocent person.
    
    > This isn't a mathematical equation.
    
    Math is a tool for understanding.  Reject math and you reject
    understanding.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                  
393.1598SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 14:5411
    
    
    Yes, the person could be innocent, but the more items in the profile
    that fit the person, the less likely the person is to be innocent.
    
    If it walks like a duck,etc..
    
    I don't reject mathematics, but here I prefer logic.
    
    
    ed
393.1599CADSYS::FENNELLNothing is planned by the sea and the sandThu May 29 1997 15:0111
Could McVeigh be the Bruno Hauptman (sp?) of the 90s?  Bruno was accused of
kidnapping Lindberg's baby and was executed for it.  

The government's case case against him looks like it was flawed (including
suppression of evidence) One might accuse the government of sacraficing Bruno 
to "solve" the case



Tim

393.1600SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 15:2215
    
    Re .1599
    
    McVeigh may indeed be the Bruno Hauptman of the 90s. Who knows for sure
    if Hauptman was guilty or innocent. Hell, guilty people are acquitted,
    innnocent people are convicted as well as the guilty being convicted
    and the innocent being acquitted.
    
    	I'm no fan of the government, and I think a major portion of the
    police force is at least dishonest in some of their actions. 
    
    	In this case, my opinion is that they have the correct man. And
    they came to this conclusion on solid evidence.
    
    ed
393.1601RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 15:4112
    Re .1598:
    
    > I don't reject mathematics, but here I prefer logic.
    
    Math is logic, and you are not using it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1602RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 15:4319
    Re .1600:
    
    > 	In this case, my opinion is that they have the correct man. And
    > they came to this conclusion on solid evidence.

    What is solid about tests in a laboratory that is contaminated?
    
    What is solid about tests on material picked up by a civilian who may
    have handled it improperly?
    
    What is solid about witnesses who say they saw the defendant with a
    rental truck the day before the bomb truck was rented?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1603SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 16:006
    
    Re .1601
    
    I disagree. I am using logic. 
    
    ed
393.1604SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 16:0513
    
    As has been noted many times, eyewitness testimony is notoriously
    poor. 
    
    And I did say it was my opinion. I could be wrong. Could you?
    
    I believe McVeigh is guilty. If I was on the jury, I might have access
    to more information or different information that might lead me to
    another conclusion. That's why I have not been saying that he is
    guilty, just that I believe the probability is high.
    
    ed
    
393.1605ACISS1::BATTISCNBC junkieThu May 29 1997 16:555
    
    gee, eric. you make it sound like there should almost never be a
    justified conviction in this country. think about it, you could find
    flaws in every legal trial. the dude is going to fry, guilty or
    not.
393.1606RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 17:0015
    Re .1603:
    
    > I disagree. I am using logic.
    
    No, you are not.  I have demonstrated how a hundred people might "walk
    like a duck," yet only one of them is guilty.  It is not logical to
    conclude that just because a person fits the circumstances, they are
    guilty.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1607BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu May 29 1997 17:035
    
    	What evidence is there that McVeigh rented the truck?  Guy at the
    	counter recognized him?  Or a rental agreement with his signature
    	on it?
    
393.1608BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerThu May 29 1997 17:042
    That someone said he had a driver's license with the name of the person
    who rented the truck on it?
393.1609RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 17:0520
    Re .1605:
    
    > gee, eric. you make it sound like there should almost never be a
    > justified conviction in this country.
    
    No, I do not.  I make it sound like the government ought to do a better
    job presenting its cases.  There should never be a "justified"
    conviction based upon a few circumstances, tainted lab tests, and poor
    witnesses.  There should be convictions based upon evidence tested at
    third-party labs (with controls to prevent them from knowing whether
    prosecution or defense is requesting the tests, whether the materials
    are part of a crime or are part of an evaluation of the lab, et
    cetera), et cetera.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1610SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 17:1523
    re .1606
    
    You are not listening to what I am saying. I am saying that as you fit
    more items about the person into the circumstances they become more
    likely to be the correct person. As you use more criteria, you weed out
    more people until there is a likely suspect. 
    
    	A hundred people may 'walk like a duck", but maybe only 50 people
    "walk like a duck, and quack like a duck" , and 25 people... etc. If
    you use enough criteria, you can get to the duck.
    
    	I do admit this is predicated on the fact the the person actually
    DOES walk like a duck, etc.
    
    	Every case it seems goes into the discussion on contaminated
    evidence from police,FBI labs. If a defense attorney is good, he can
    cast a doubt on anything.
    
    I also believe that the gov'ment has and will continue to railroad some
    people. I just don't think it did this time. And that's a separate
    issue.
    
    ed
393.1611RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 17:4521
    Re .1610:
    
    > As you use more criteria, you weed out more people until there is a
    > likely suspect. 
    
    When?  How do you know?
    
    Suppose you are given a coin and asked to determine whether the coin is
    fair or is rigged.  You flip it ten times and get six heads and four
    tails.  Is the coin fair or rigged?  You flip it 100 times and get 53
    heads and 47 tails.  Is the coin fair or rigged?  You flip it 1000
    times and get 700 heads and 300 tails.  is the coin fair or rigged?
    
    When is it "likely" that the coin is fair and not rigged?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1612BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu May 29 1997 17:486
    
    	You keep questioning people until one of them says "I was home
    	alone that night, reading".
    
    	Then you know he's the guilty one.
    
393.1613SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 18:0431
    
    We're not talking about coin flips. That is totally different.
    
    In the OKC case,
    
    	the likely suspect would be someone who:
    
    	1. Was in OKC at the time
    	2. Rented the truck used in the blast
    	3. Bought the bomb materials.
    	etc.
    	
    	And remember I predicated this on the fact that the info is
    correct and not a government frameup.
    
    	So question everyone who was in OKC at the time. Some will have
    alibis. They were a likely supect but now are not likely
    
    	Of the remaining, try to determine if anyone rented a truck like
    the blast truck. 
    
    	Of those, try to determine if anyone bought materials like the bomb
    materials.
    
    	It doesn't mean you will find a common element, but if someone fits
    these facts and maybe some more, they are a likely suspect. 
    
    	But hey, they may not be the actual guilty party.
    
    
     ed
393.1614RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 18:3232
    Re .1613:

    > We're not talking about coin flips. That is totally different.
    
    No, it is not different.  They are both problems in conditional
    probability.

    You gave a list of events -- being in Oklahoma City, et cetera.  We can
    estimate the probability that a randomly selected person would match
    the events.  But we cannot estimate the probability that a person
    matching those events is guilty.  It is mathematically and logically
    impossible for the same reason that you cannot calculate the
    probability that a coin is fair rather than rigged even after you have
    flipped the coin thousands of times.  There is a crucial piece of data
    missing in each case.  This is the same reason this next statement of
    yours is false:
    
    > It doesn't mean you will find a common element, but if someone fits
    > these facts and maybe some more, they are a likely suspect. 

    It is not logically correct to conclude that somebody who fits the
    facts is a likely suspect unless you have other data about how many
    people fit the facts.  The government simply has so many resources that
    it can have found an innocent person with the misfortune to fit the
    facts.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1615FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Thu May 29 1997 18:386
>      <<< Note 393.1614 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

	So then there's no such thing as a likely suspect?


393.1616SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 19:0020
    
    re .1614
    
    	Yes, The way you presented it, the coin flip is different than what I 
    am talking about. They ARE both conditional probabilities. 
    
    	In the coin flip you are presenting a case based on one condition,
    the number of heads vs the number of tails. If I add another condition
    of examining the coin for atlerations, and I find that the coin has
    been altered, then the coin is more likely to be rigged than fair.
    
    
    	I keep saying, that you need enough separate conditions before
    stating a conclusion. There can always be multiple people that fit the
    same profile, but the more conditions you add, the fewer are likely to
    fit the total.
    
    ed 
    
    
393.1618RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 20:0525
    Re .1615:
    
    > So then there's no such thing as a likely suspect?

    No, that is not true.  A likely suspect could be based on direct
    evidence instead of circumstantial or on circumstantial evidence with
    sufficient statistical support.
    
    
    Re .1616:
    
    > 	In the coin flip you are presenting a case based on one condition,
    > the number of heads vs the number of tails. If I add another condition
    > of examining the coin for atlerations, and I find that the coin has
    > been altered, then the coin is more likely to be rigged than fair.
    
    That passage makes it quite clear you haven't got a clue about math or
    logic.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1619Hmmm....SPECXN::CONLONThu May 29 1997 20:0925
    So, Eric, are you really convinced that something on the order of 
    100 people (or thereabouts) were in Oklahoma City that day, after
    purchasing the exact materials needed to make the bomb, and who
    looked like the guy who rented THE Ryder truck which blew up the
    building (and who had told some of their friends that they planned
    to do this?)

    You can chip away at every piece of evidence (as if each piece is the
    entire case), but in the end, it starts to sound contrived that all
    these various pieces just happened to come together to 'make' this
    one guy appear to be a 'likely suspect' in the first place.

    Tim McVeigh wasn't just some random guy on the street.  He was leaving
    OKC with traces of the bomb material on his person.  He's been identified
    as the guy who used the same name as the guy who rented THE bomb truck.

    He was captured on videotape a short distance from the truck rental
    business a short time before THE bomb truck was rented (using the name
    he was identified as using when he bought Chinese food, or whatever.)

    How many other people look exactly like him and used his same fake name
    (after buying bomb materials and going to OKC that day)?

    After awhile, it starts to be very doubtful that this guy could be one 
    of a large crowd of people who fit these circumstances.
393.1620yawn...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu May 29 1997 20:114
    
      when's the hangin ?
    
      bb
393.1621SPECXN::CONLONThu May 29 1997 20:123
    
    When would you rather set him free?
    
393.1622RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu May 29 1997 20:1534
    Re .1619:
    
    >     So, Eric, are you really convinced that something on the order of 
    > 100 people (or thereabouts) were in Oklahoma City that day, after
    > purchasing the exact materials needed to make the bomb, and who looked
    > like the guy who rented THE Ryder truck which blew up the building (and
    > who had told some of their friends that they planned to do this?)
    
    That's a faulty analysis.  How many people were in Oklahoma City and
    looked like the guy who rented the truck OR for whom the FBI could have
    found some other link, et cetera.  The chance that 1000 coin flips will
    produce exactly 503 head is extremely unlikely, but the event would not
    be considered remarkable.  Although any one outcome is itself unlikely,
    there are many outcomes which are likely.  Similarly, the government
    put a massive amount of resources into finding a scapegoat, and while
    any one combination of factors they came up with may be unlikely to
    have more than a few matches, there are many possible factors they
    could have used.  A correct analysis must consider the sum of all
    possible circumstantial cases the government could have put together.
    
    >     Tim McVeigh wasn't just some random guy on the street.  He was
    > leaving OKC with traces of the bomb material on his person.
    
    That is incorrect.  I will not repeat the explanation because it has
    been repeated previously and because the issue in this thread that I
    raised is NOT whether McVeigh is guilty or not but is what an innocent
    person can be expected to be able to prove.
    
    
    				-- edp
                                                                         
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1623FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Thu May 29 1997 20:2225
>      <<< Note 393.1618 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

   >> So then there's no such thing as a likely suspect?

>    No, that is not true.  A likely suspect could be based on direct
>    evidence instead of circumstantial or on circumstantial evidence with
>    sufficient statistical support.

	I see what you're saying.  Part of the problem is with the term
	"likely suspect", I guess.  To me, if he is one of one hundred
	people, out of three hundred million people in the country,
	who matches the set of criteria you've laid out, that makes him
	a "likely suspect".  The other 99 are likely suspects as well.
	As more circumstantial evidence mounts against any of them, the
	likelihood increases.  Do you not consider him a likely
	suspect until the 1% chance of him being guilty increases to
	over 50%?  Over 80%?  95%?

	





393.1624SPECXN::CONLONThu May 29 1997 20:2515
    RE: .1622  EDP

    > That's a faulty analysis. 

    It wasn't an analysis - it was a question, Eric.

    > ...the issue in this thread that I raised is NOT whether McVeigh 
    > is guilty or not but is what an innocent person can be expected 
    > to be able to prove.

    So, I guess all the stuff which implies that McVeigh is a victim
    (and a 'scapegoat') of the evyl government is just being tossed
    in as icing on the cake, eh?  :>

    Ok.
393.1625SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu May 29 1997 20:3116
    
    re .1622
    
    	You keep changing the argument. You said in the coin flip , can you
    tell if the coin is rigged or fair. Not how likely a particular number
    of heads will occur.
    
    	I am not argueing that the government could trump up evidence, I
    have repeatedly said that with accurate circumstantial evidence you can
    start to pick a likely suspect. 
    
    
    	And I also showed how an innocent person could prove they are
    innocent. With the location, with the truck, with the bomb material.
    
    ed
393.1626They have all the resources in the world, remember...SPECXN::CONLONThu May 29 1997 20:3610
    
    If they were going to trump up evidence against Timothy McVeigh,
    why didn't they also fabricate a "John Doe #2"?

    If it was easy enough to build Tim McVeigh, surely it would have
    been just as easy to build the second guy (after all the publicity
    about there being a John Doe #2?)

    Why stop at half-measures?  :>

393.1627BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu May 29 1997 20:424
    
    	Maybe they couldn't find a scapegoat that resembled their composite
    	sketch of Doe #2.
    
393.1628If not 100 people - at least ONE. :>SPECXN::CONLONThu May 29 1997 20:517
    
    They have all the resources in the world - surely a hundred people
    could be found that looked like the John Doe #2 sketch (and also
    happened to be into fertilizer explosives, etc.)

    How tough could it be?  :>

393.1629CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu May 29 1997 21:233
    It's the leg I tell ya.
    
    meg
393.1630SPECXN::CONLONThu May 29 1997 21:2616
    
    Come to think of it, they also could have fabricated a Unabomber
    guy every year until they caught the real one (by saying that each
    successive Unabomber guy was a copycat Unabomber.)

    They could have had 20 or so by this time - just think of all the
    great publicity for their crime-solving prowess.  :>

    Every federal crime could be solved instantly, in fact.  They'd 
    never need a '10 Most Wanted List' again - they could just fabricate
    a 'likely suspect' and convict the person for each federal crime
    committed in the U.S.

    They have all the resources in the world - why hunt criminals at all
    (when they could manufacture suspects instead)?
    
393.163132168::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Fri May 30 1997 11:423
    They had 'their man' with Richard Jewell too.
    
    Some people had the rope ready for him
393.1632BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerFri May 30 1997 12:102
    Yabbut, if they had the same quantity of evidence against Jewell, they
    wouldn't have let him go.
393.163332168::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Fri May 30 1997 12:441
    Did they (givmint) apologise...?
393.1634defense is hoping this goes till next week...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri May 30 1997 12:446
    
      jury's out.  if it's quick, it will be guilty.
    
      if slow, could be anything.
    
      bb
393.1635ACISS1::BATTISCNBC junkieFri May 30 1997 13:233
    
    billbob, that was indeed insightful, but incorrect. quick doesn't
    always mean guilty. OJ comes to mind.   hth.
393.1636SPECXN::CONLONFri May 30 1997 13:5812
    
    The government has all the resources in the world - if they'd 
    intended to railroad Richard Jewell, he'd be in prison as we
    speak.

    They investigated a possible suspect - the information went out
    (when it shouldn't have), and the investigation didn't pan out
    for Jewell to be the perp.  So they dropped it.

    If the Tim McVeigh investigation hadn't panned out, they would
    have dropped that one, too.

393.1637BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerFri May 30 1997 14:047
    Let's face it,
    
    A world without conspiracy theories just isn't as fun.  Not nearly
    anything interesting enough to rant about.
    
    Personally, I'm all for the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, the
    UN, "World Government" and compulsory Esperanto.
393.1638SPECXN::CONLONFri May 30 1997 14:054
    
    Good point, Dawn...   :>
    
    
393.1639SALEM::DODAJust you wait...Fri May 30 1997 14:111
70% of all Americans believe it as well.
393.1640POWDML::HANGGELIWe'll meet you there!Fri May 30 1997 14:1612
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    						aaaaagh
    
393.1641Huh??? :>SPECXN::CONLONFri May 30 1997 14:236
    
    Wait - I thought it was 80% !!!

    (Look how things deteriorate around here when I'm not watching...)  :>


393.1642DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayFri May 30 1997 15:153

 What do the people in the Netherlands think about it?
393.164332168::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Fri May 30 1997 15:3921
In the real world;

A. Has the government ever convicted a person wrongly?
B. Has the Government ever lied to us?
C. Has the Government ever experimented on us w/o out knowledge?
D. Has the government ever abused its power?
E. Has the Government ever put someone out of business because they sold a pair
    of pants to a suspect?


Answers:

A. Probably
B. Definately:  CIA spying on radicals in the 60's  FBI vs MLK
C. Definately:  The sphylis (sp) tests on African Americans (see article today)
                 http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9705/16/nfm.tuskegee/index.html
D. Definately:  Watergate
E. Yup:         George Hilton
    
    
    Therefor a Polyanish view of the government would be unwise.
393.1644definitelyDECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayFri May 30 1997 15:422

393.1645FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Fri May 30 1997 15:428
    yes, always remember and never forget - whenever there's a crime
    committed in the US, whoever's trying to find the criminals and
    prosecute them are the bad guys.  

    i thank you.


393.1646LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningFri May 30 1997 15:464
    .1645
    
    it's a very weird way of thinking, eh?  
    
393.164732168::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Fri May 30 1997 15:4810
RE Note 393.1645 FUTURE::DDESMAISONS 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    yes, always remember and never forget - whenever there's a crime
    committed in the US, whoever's trying to find the criminals and
    prosecute them are ALWAYS the good guys.  

    i thank you.


393.1648LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningFri May 30 1997 15:543
    
    now i'll never forget it.
    
393.1649FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Fri May 30 1997 15:595

   .1646  yes, indeedy.


393.1650DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayFri May 30 1997 16:014

 
 Should that be taken literally?
393.1651And clean up your own literSMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Fri May 30 1997 16:011
    With a glass of water, twice daily.
393.1652FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Fri May 30 1997 16:048
   .1650  i'm sorry to say that you have discredited yourself
	  once again with that remark.  life is tough.





393.1653SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Fri May 30 1997 16:042
    If he keeps on discrediting himself, we'll have to put a check on his
    credit.
393.1654LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningFri May 30 1997 16:054
    
    i think it has to do with a lot of them never
    getting over their daddies as authority figures.
    
393.1655POLAR::RICHARDSONA desirable weirdoFri May 30 1997 16:095
    ha! try dealing with getting over your daddy as an action figure!
    
    Sincerely,
    
    GI Jr.
393.1656ACISS1::BATTISPunctuation impairedMon Jun 02 1997 12:513
    
    jury begins their 4th day of deliberations. Some of the victim's
    families are worried about an aquittal.
393.1657with fear and trepidation...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersMon Jun 02 1997 12:576
  This is tough, Batti's... but that should be victims' families, not
 victim's families, which is for a singular victim with more than one
 family...

  bb
393.1658SALEM::DODAJust you wait...Mon Jun 02 1997 13:157
                     <<< Note 393.1641 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
                                -< Huh???  :> >-

    
   > Wait - I thought it was 80% !!!

    The other 10% were hacked to death with a kitchen knife.
393.1659CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsMon Jun 02 1997 13:371
    Victimses is a hard concept.
393.1660Geeeesh. ;>SPECXN::CONLONMon Jun 02 1997 14:3610
    RE: .1658 
    
    > The other 10% were hacked to death with a kitchen knife.
    
    No, no, no, no, no!!
    
    Hacked to death with a KNIFE (not a "kitchen knife".)
    
    Things are going to hell around here.  :>
    
393.1661verdict to be announced shortlyCTHU26::S_BURRIDGEMon Jun 02 1997 19:092
    According to the CBC Newsworld web site, a verdict has been reached and
    will be announced at 3:30 pm Eastern time.
393.1662TROOA::BUTKOVICHgot a rubber pencil thing happeninMon Jun 02 1997 19:1685
    Jury reaches verdict in McVeigh case
    
    DENVER - Jurors in the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh
    reached a verdict
    today after 23 1/2 hours of deliberations over four days. 
    
    Court officials said the verdict would be announced at 3:30 p.m. EDT. 
    
    McVeigh, a 29-year-old Gulf War veteran, could get the death penalty if
    convicted in the
    April 19, 1995, blast that killed 168 people - the deadliest act of
    terrorism on U.S. soil. 
    
    Through the long wait for a verdict, victims' relatives have passed the
    time in the
    courthouse area and near a hot line phone set up in a nearby church for
    word on a verdict. 
    
    ''They're playing games, watching videos, putting together puzzles,
    anything to pass the
    time and avoid looking at the clock,'' Marsha Kight, who lost her
    23-year-old daughter in
    the bombing, said this morning as she waited in a cafeteria in a
    federal building next to
    the courthouse. 
    
    Stephen Jones, McVeigh's attorney, said he has waited for a lot of
    juries, and agrees it is
    never easy. 
    
    ''I've never been able to decide what's more difficult, waiting for the
    jury or waiting for
    the birth of yet another child. I think both involved a lot of
    patience,'' he said as he
    left the federal courthouse. 
    
    The seven-man, five-woman panel cut short its third day of
    deliberations without a verdict
    Sunday after its request to attend individual church services was
    turned down by a federal
    judge. 
    
    Sources close to the case who asked that they not be identified said
    U.S. District Judge
    Richard Matsch was concerned the sequestered panel might be influenced
    by sermons. The judge
    gave them the afternoon off instead. 
    
    ''I am going to grant your request that you recess your deliberations
    now and take the rest
    of the day off,'' Matsch told jurors after their 3 1/2-hour session.
    ''Take advantage of
    this time now to rest and relax a bit.'' 
    
    In Oklahoma City, where bombing survivors and victims' friends and
    relatives watched the
    trial over a closed-circuit feed, the short day came as a relief to
    some. 
    
    ''I think it's a blessing in disguise,'' said Vicki Hamm, a friend of
    many victims. ''I
    think that's because people watching the trial here will need all their
    energy when the jury
    resumes tomorrow.'' 
    
    Anxiety over the wait for a verdict also arose in a sermon in Oklahoma
    City, where the
    congregation of the First United Methodist Church was told to seek
    justice - not revenge. 
    
    ''There's a lot of people here in Oklahoma City that are getting hate
    in their hearts,''
    Associate Pastor Todd Scoggins said. ''I don't know what the outcome
    may be, but the thing
    we have to watch is that hate does not plant a seed in our hearts.'' 
    
    Several voices in the congregation called out in response, ''Amen!'' 
    
    Jones said McVeigh is coping relatively well. 
    
    ''This is a man that went to war in the Persian Gulf and was in the
    Army, so he's used to
    waiting,'' Jones said. 
    
    By The Associated Press 
393.1663BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Mon Jun 02 1997 19:311
    Guilty on all counts ...
393.1664BRAT::tay1dhcp112-18.tay1.dec.com::JennisonSueJMon Jun 02 1997 19:361
YES!
393.1665TROOA::BUTKOVICHgot a rubber pencil thing happeninMon Jun 02 1997 19:40159
    06/02/97 - 03:44 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
    
    Jury finds McVeigh guilty in Oklahoma City bombing
    
    DENVER - Timothy McVeigh was found guilty of this nation's most deadly
    terrorist act. The
    jury apparently believed prosecution -- including testimony about bomb
    residue on McVeigh's
    clothing and the testimony of a former Army buddy -- and turned aside
    attempts to muddy the
    evidentiary waters. A total of 168 people died in the bombing of the
    Alfred P. Murrah
    Federal Building on April 19, 1995. The penalty phase of the trial is
    next and McVeigh could
    be sentenced to die. Also ahead: Trial of McVeigh co-defendant Terry
    Nichols. 
    
    The verdict, like the trial, was completed more quickly than believed.
    The seven-man,
    five-woman jury was sequestered since Thursday night following closing
    arguments. Jurors
    began deliberating after U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch gave his
    instructions. 
    
    "Members of the jury, you will at this time retire and begin your
    deliberations," Matsch
    said after an hour of legal instructions. 
    
    Matsch urged the sequestered panel to set aside sympathy, prejudice and
    public opinion as
    they deliberate the case of the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil. 
    
    "You must completely disregard anything you have read, seen or heard
    outside the courtroom
    related to this trial," Matsch said. "You must not allow public opinion
    to play any role in
    your deliberations." 
    
    Matsch then read from the 11-count indictment that charges McVeigh with
    conspiracy and
    murder in the April 19, 1995, federal building blast. And he told them
    to set aside
    McVeigh's possible punishments if convicted, which include the death
    penalty. 
    
    "Under your oath as jurors, you cannot allow a consideration of the
    punishment .. to
    influence your verdict or even enter into your deliberations," Matsch
    said. 
    
    When the judge asked if the sequestered jurors felt well enough to
    deliberate, the all
    nodded. One, a man, turned to the juror next to him and grinned
    sheepishly. 
    
    After the jury retired for deliberations, McVeigh was smiling as he
    stood and shook hands
    with lawyer Rob Nigh. Another lawyer, Jeralyn Merritt, patted him on
    the back. 
    
    Marshals then escorted the 29-year-old Gulf War veteran through a door
    to his cell. He
    walked out with his hands buried in the pockets of his khaki pants. 
    
    In closing arguments Thursday, McVeigh attorney Stephen Jones also
    pleaded with jurors to
    rely on reason, not compassion. He urged them not to let sympathy rule
    this case like race
    ruled the O.J. Simpson murder trial. 
    
    "All of us understand the victims' plight. They are not the property of
    any side to this
    lawsuit. Their collective loss belongs to the country," Jones said. 
    
    Prosecutor Scott Mendeloff followed Jones' summation with the
    government's rebuttal, the
    final argument jurors heard. 
    
    "That fresh-faced young man over there is a mass murderer," Mendeloff
    said, pointing across
    the courtroom at McVeigh. 
    
    Earlier, Assistant U.S. Attorney Larry Mackey described how McVeigh set
    the fuse on the
    truck bomb within sight of the federal building's day-care center, with
    only a ``wall of
    windows'' to protect the children from the blast. 
    
    Speaking just above a whisper, Mackey looked at the jury and said, "It
    is now time to render
    justice. ... On behalf of the United States, I ask that you render a
    verdict of guilty." 
    
    By the end of his statement, one juror and more than dozen bombing
    survivors and relatives
    were crying. 
    
    The defense's sharpest challenge was aimed at the FBI crime laboratory.
    FBI chemist Stephen
    Burmeister testified that he found ammonium nitrate crystals on a scrap
    of Ryder truck panel
    and traces of explosives on McVeigh's clothing. 
    
    "This is a lab without a rudder, without a sail and without a captain,"
    defense attorney
    Christopher Tritico said. "But this ship is making judgment calls that
    affect people's
    lives." 
    
    Tritico asked how ammonium nitrate crystals could have remained on the
    truck panel after
    heavy rain fell on Oklahoma City that night. 
    
    "Magic, magic, more like smoke and mirrors," Tritico said. 
    
    During his summation, Jones contended that the prosecution's star
    witnesses, Michael and
    Lori Fortier, implicated McVeigh to save themselves from prosecution
    and they hoped to get
    rich by selling their story. 
    
    "They're not believable," Jones said. "Put everything they said aside.
    Forget them." 
    
    He stressed that no witnesses saw McVeigh building a bomb or saw him in
    Oklahoma City the
    day of the bombing. He also attacked the testimony of the witness who
    identified McVeigh as
    the man who rented the truck. 
    
    Raising the issue of a severed left leg found in the rubble, Jones
    suggested the real bomber
    died in the blast. "That's certainly the experience with other
    terrorists," he said. 
    
    But prosecutors said the defense failed to damage an interlocking case
    built out of evidence
    from diverse sources. 
    
    Mackey said McVeigh was either the bomber or "the unluckiest man in the
    world," who happened
    to be arrested 75 miles from the bomb scene carrying literature
    announcing his intent, with
    explosives residue on his clothing. 
    
    McVeigh's own writings and anti-government literature showed he was
    motivated by rage over
    the deadly 1993 government siege near Waco, Texas, Mackey said. And he
    said McVeigh was
    fixated on The Turner Diaries, a racist novel that describes the
    terrorist bombing of a
    federal building. 
    
    Mackey used McVeigh's fondness for revolutionary rhetoric against the
    defendant, saying the
    victims were not "tyrants whose blood had to be spilled to preserve
    liberty." 
    
    By The Associated Press 
393.1666CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsMon Jun 02 1997 19:561
    Let the appeals begin.....
393.1667LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningMon Jun 02 1997 20:013
    
    rot in your cell, timmy mcveigh.
    
393.1668DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayMon Jun 02 1997 20:047

 At least he won't be joining OJ on the golfcourse looking for the killer(s).



Jim
393.1669BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Mon Jun 02 1997 20:094
    
    	Maybe OJ will spend some of his spare time helping him find the
    	real killers.
    
393.1670ACISS1::BATTISYou name it, I probably screw it up regularlyTue Jun 03 1997 12:116
    
    unlike in state courts, federal appeals are rarely if ever overturned.
    Should he get the death penalty, he will be executed. No federal death
    sentence has ever been overturned. He will die by lethal injection,
    as the feds don't use the gas chamber or the electric chair. No
    possible sentence, but death in this case.
393.1671comma abuseFUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Tue Jun 03 1997 13:029
><<< Note 393.1670 by ACISS1::BATTIS "You name it, I probably screw it up regularly" >>>

> No possible sentence, but death in this case.

	If there's no possible sentence, there most likely won't be a death.



393.1672should be death!SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 13:028
    
    	Most analysts are saying that the judge in this case did an
    excellent job. He left little room for a successful appeal. 
    
    	But now the emotional part of the process comes. If the defense can
    get just one juror to waivor, he can get a life sentence for McVeigh.
    
    ed
393.1673ACISS1::BATTISYou name it, I probably screw it up regularlyTue Jun 03 1997 13:052
    
    di, i'm so ashamed.
393.1674DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayTue Jun 03 1997 13:089



 I managed to avoid all TV coverage of this last night.



 Jim
393.1675death by punctuation...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersTue Jun 03 1997 13:094
  once injected, does timmy sink into a ,comma, ?

  bb
393.1676RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 13:1739
    Re .1622:
    
    > Do you not consider him a likely suspect until the 1% chance of him
    > being guilty increases to over 50%?
    
    I suppose the term "likely suspect" is a problem.  Is a "likely
    suspect" a person who has a good chance of being a suspect?  No, that's
    not what most English speakers would mean by the term.  So what can
    "likely" mean in the phrase except that the person has a good chance of
    being the specific criminal?  I do not consider 1 in 100 likely.  More
    than 50% is likely.
    
    
    Re .1624:
    
    >> ...the issue in this thread that I raised is NOT whether McVeigh 
    >> is guilty or not but is what an innocent person can be expected 
    >> to be able to prove.
    >
    > So, I guess all the stuff which implies that McVeigh is a victim
    > (and a 'scapegoat') of the evyl government is just being tossed
    > in as icing on the cake, eh?  :>
    
    What stuff that implies?  You inferred, but that is your error.  In
    order to accurately assess what defense an innocent person might be
    able to put forth versus what a guilty person might, it is necessary to
    consider what the government might have done in bringing the case to
    trial.  That requires considering, for the purposes of analysis, the
    possibilities of a zealous government hunt for somebody to prosecute. 
    I am quite capable of considering and discussing the possibility
    hypothetically without asserting or believing it must be true.  Are
    you?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1677BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 13:222
I thought something was missing from the last couple dozen posts to this
topic.
393.1678RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 13:3135
    Re .1625:
    
    > 	You keep changing the argument. You said in the coin flip , can you
    > tell if the coin is rigged or fair. Not how likely a particular number
    > of heads will occur.
    
    If you would like me to justify how one of those is needed for the
    other, let me know.
    
    > . . . I have repeatedly said that with accurate circumstantial
    > evidence you can start to pick a likely suspect.
    
    Since you refuse to consider the mathematics involved, either
    abstractly or with the analogy of the coin flips, you fail to see that
    there is no way to determine how much evidence is needed to determine
    that a suspect is "likely" without additional information.
    
    > 	And I also showed how an innocent person could prove they are
    > innocent. With the location, with the truck, with the bomb material
    
    No, you did not.  You showed how an innocent person _might_ be able to
    prove they are innocent _if_ they are lucky enough to find some
    evidence the government did not.  But the fact that the government is
    bringing the caes to trial in the first place means that they have used
    their enormous resources to locate somebody for whom there is little or
    no exculpating evidence.  The issue I raised is:  When the government
    has accidentally found such a person who is innocent, what defense
    could the innocent person be expected to present?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1679NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Jun 03 1997 13:351
I think Mr. Battis meant to say that his sentences are impossible.
393.1680RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 13:3617
    Re .1626:
    
    > If they were going to trump up evidence against Timothy McVeigh,
    > why didn't they also fabricate a "John Doe #2"?

    Nobody suggested the government trumped up evidence.  The hypothesis is
    that the government uses its resources to _find_ a person who fits the
    circumstances and has little or no exculpating evidence.  There is
    NOTHING in the hypothesis to suggest the government uses its resources
    to fabricate or "trump up" evidence.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1681ACISS1::BATTISYou name it, I probably screw it up regularlyTue Jun 03 1997 13:402
    
    gerald, hence my new p_name. <sigh>
393.1682SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 13:4621
    
   > Nobody suggested the government trumped up evidence.  The hypothesis is
   > that the government uses its resources to _find_ a person who fits the
   > circumstances and has little or no exculpating evidence.  There is
   > NOTHING in the hypothesis to suggest the government uses its resources
   > to fabricate or "trump up" evidence.
    
    	If that person fits the circumstances so well , the government
    probably found the right person. They weed out the people that don't
    fit the evidence and because they are not fabricating any evidence,
    there is a good chance that the person is guilty. A good chance, not
    100 , but good. 
    	You may be right that we are using "likely suspect" differently,
    and I know you are correct that I am looking at this differently than
    you. I have stated an opinion that I believe in this case, the guilty
    man has been found. I don't recall if you have made your opinion known
    on this. The jury, who may have more information than either of us has
    also concluded that he is guilty. They thought the government found the
    most likely person to fit the circumstances.
    
    	ed
393.1683RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 13:5116
    Re .1682:
    
    > If that person fits the circumstances so well , the government
    > probably found the right person.
    
    The government probably found the right person ONLY IF there is only
    one person who fits the circumstances so well.  If there are two or
    more people that fit the circumstances, then there is NOT a greater
    than 50% chance that a particular one of them is guilty.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1684FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Tue Jun 03 1997 13:596
>      <<< Note 393.1683 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

	Can't argue with that.


393.1685BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 14:031
    But I bet someone's gonna try...
393.1686SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 14:0827
    
    re .1683
    
    
    Well we can never know that for sure unless he confesses. That's why I
    said that we are looking at this differently. I'm lettin my emotion get
    into the situation. I believe that sometimes the situation calls for
    intuition, hunch, luck, not math. 
    
    	I'm satisfied with this case, except for one thing, so I'll change
    the subject.
    
    	I think McVeigh did this. It seems to be pretty clear that he had
    anti-govenment feelings. I do believe he talked about doing something
    like this, and that he did do this. 
    	If someone who has these convictions stands up and takes the
    responsibility for them then I could at least say that he followed thru
    on his beliefs. But this man is a coward, not only because he killed
    innocent people, but because he can't even own up to it. 
    	If this had to happen, I would have rather it been done by foreign
    terrorists, they usually have the 'nads' to stand up and claim
    responsibility.
    
    	It McVeigh thinks he's a patriot, then he should be proud of what
    he did.
    
    ed
393.1687LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningTue Jun 03 1997 14:095
    
    i sincerely hope that mcveigh does not become a "martyr"
    for the right-wing lunatic fringe in this country.  but
    he probably will.
    
393.1688So he was alone?CSC32::R_GOLLEHONTue Jun 03 1997 14:159
    >The government probably found the right person ONLY IF there is only
    >one person who fits the circumstances so well.  If there are two or
    >more people that fit the circumstances, then there is NOT a greater
    >than 50% chance that a particular one of them is guilty.
    
    .1685...I'll argue on this one...
    
    There is a greater than 50% chance if more than one person was involved
    in the bombing.
393.1689SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 14:166
    
    re .1687  "martyr"
    
    	I don't think that will happen. 
    
    ed
393.1690prediction : meatGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersTue Jun 03 1997 14:2513
  By the way, Texas executed its 17th of the year yesterday.  The Tex AG
 has set a goal of offing 27 this year, for a personal best.

  While Okla has had some executions, Colo mostly abstains.  Note that
 T McV was convicted of murdering the eight federal officers, not of
 blowing up all those civilians, although now the verdict on those seems
 a foregone conclusion.

  Given the guilty verdict and the utter lack of extenuation, this seems,
 to us execution fans anyway, as a dandy case in point.

  bb
393.1691BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 14:304
>  By the way, Texas executed its 17th of the year yesterday.  The Tex AG
> has set a goal of offing 27 this year, for a personal best.

I think that last line's gonna haunt me for the rest of the day.
393.1692SPECXN::CONLONTue Jun 03 1997 14:4028
    Eric, my apologies - I hadn't read the rest of the string, so I wasn't
    aware that you were speaking about Tim McVeigh in a strictly hypothetical
    sense (as in, 'WHAT IF he were a scapegoat', etc.) without meaning to
    suggest that Tim McVeigh was wrongly or maliciously accused.

    As for your questions about what it might mean if at least one other
    person 'fit' the circumstances for the specific actions he has been
    convicted of committing, we have no reason to believe that such a
    person exists.  
    
    (Remember, it would have to be someone who was also photographed a 
    short distance away from the Ryder rental place 20 minutes before the 
    bomb truck was picked up.  It would have to be someone who ordered 
    Chinese food using the same name as the one used to rent the Ryder 
    bomb truck.  It would also have to be someone with a fingerprint on 
    a sales receipt for the exact materials used in the bomb, without 
    being able to explain whatever happened to those materials.  It would 
    also have to be someone seen leaving OKC after the bombing with 
    'bomb junk' on his clothes.  Also, it would have to be someone who 
    had described himself - in letters to friends - as being pretty much 
    inhuman when it came to dealing with his anger at the government.)

    In other words, if such a person existed - it would have to be
    Tim McVeigh's identical twin, pretty much.

    It would be an unbelievably wild coincidence for two people to fit
    these exact circumstances (while just happening to be in the area
    on the same day.)
393.1693RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 14:4346
    Re .1686:
    
    > Well we can never know that for sure unless he confesses.
    
    That's incorrect on both counts.  First, confession is not the only way
    to know something.  As I keep telling you, there are other ways to
    learn things.  You simply refuse to consider them.  Second, you cannot
    know for sure even if somebody confesses.  Some people confess falsely.
    
    > I'm lettin my emotion get into the situation.
    
    No, really?
    
    > I believe that sometimes the situation calls for intuition, hunch,
    > luck, not math.
    
    But this is not such a situation.  Math can tell us a great deal about
    probability and "likelihood".  There was a court case in which a
    witness reported something like a black man and a white woman with red
    hair in a yellow Volkswagen van.  The state found a couple meeting the
    circumstances and brought them to court.  The prosecution presented the
    jury with statistics about how rare this combination was.  Fortunately,
    the defense presented a good mathematical explanation (or maybe it was
    the judge who realized the prosecution's error).  Although there was
    only a one-in-a-million (for example) chance of a match to these
    circumstances, there were millions of people in the area, so it is
    "likely" there were other matches.  By itself, this circumstantial
    evidence only shows the accused couple were one of several possible
    pairs.  That's not even probable cause let alone proof beyond a
    reasonable doubt, so it is not enough to convict.
    
    If the prosecution told you as a juror that they had absolutely proved
    the accused person was one of only two or three people fitting the
    circumstances, would you vote to convict?
    
    What if three separate people with no connection were on trial together
    and each of them matched the circumstances.  Would you vote to convict
    each of them?  Or would you pick out only one, since only one can be
    guilty?  How would you pick out which one?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1694RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 14:5232
    Re .1692:
    
    >     As for your questions about what it might mean if at least one
    > other person 'fit' the circumstances for the specific actions he has
    > been convicted of committing, we have no reason to believe that such a
    > person exists.
    
    Can you prove that?  That is precisely the issue.  You can't just lump
    together a bunch of circumstances and claim they are a case.  The
    prosecution should have the burden of presenting statistical evidence
    to show how all their evidence narrows down the suspects so there is
    little doubt that an innocent person could have been caught in the net. 
    The prosecution should present demographics and information about how
    many people are likely to have been in a place near the Ryder rental
    place and also purchased explosive ingredients.
    
    If juries convict in cases where the prosecution does NOT do that, then
    the system permits innocent people to be convicted when there would be
    more than reasonable doubt if the jury were fully informed.
    
    > It would also have to be someone seen leaving OKC after the bombing
    > with 'bomb junk' on his clothes.  Also, it would have to be someone 
    
    No, it would not have to be.  You keep neglecting that this evidence
    may have been tainted.  The jury is entitled to dismiss it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1695SPECXN::CONLONTue Jun 03 1997 15:1027
    Eric, the circumstances were not 'ordinary, everyday' things that
    many people are likely to do (such that it would be fairly easy 
    for a big number of people to 'fit' into the entire collection of 
    circumstances if you looked at our population as a whole.)

    How many people who do NOT own farms (and who are pretty much homeless
    without much of an income) buy a ton of fertilizer for no apparent
    reason without being able to explain where it went after they bought 
    it?

    Lots of people have red hair.  Lots of people are African American.
    The prosecution (in the case you mentioned) was wrong to base an entire
    case on the hair and skin colors of these individuals.

    If these individuals ALSO had a long list of unusual circumstances
    which fit the crime (such as buying a ton of fertilizer when they
    were pretty much homeless, and being photographed in a little town
    where a bomb truck just happened to be picked up 20 minutes later
    - and they were actually identified as renting THE bomb truck) -
    they would have been convicted, probably.

    The more unusual the circumstances get (and the more they add up to
    a particular suspect), the less likely it is that there are many who
    fit the circumstances.  Juries know this.

    The prosecution was right on the money to stick with the evidence
    rather than bringing statistical probability into the court room.
393.1696SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 15:1020
    
    
    re .1693
    
    	I'm the one telling you that you can look at things differently but
    you refuse to consider anything but a hypothetical situation. 
    
    	I've said that there are ways to know things about this case, but I
    doubt anyone is going to investigate this case further so in this case
    the only way to know is if he confesses and I will add that only if the
    confession is sincere.
    
   	Math can tell us some things but there is still room for the other
    things I mentioned. I never said that even in this case the suspect was
    100% guilty, I said it was very likely. My opinion is that he is guilty
    but that is opinion not fact.
    	
    	Just as an aside , what's your opinion? Guilty or not?
    
    ed
393.1697ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQTue Jun 03 1997 15:185
>    	Just as an aside , what's your opinion? Guilty or not?

Guilty. He was in several places doing odd things which he never presented
alibis for. Those things fit the crime rather well, although they COULD have
been legitimate under some strange circumstances.
393.1698BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 15:214
    Why would someone who doesn't own a farm, with no job or visible means
    of support buy a ton of fertilizer?
    
    Maybe he's getting into politics.
393.1699SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 15:246
    
    	Re .1698
    
    	He could just be wacked! Oh sorry, you already said politics.
    
    ed
393.1700LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningTue Jun 03 1997 15:245
    
    /buy a ton of fertilizer
    
    he needed it to plant the seeds of revolution.
    
393.1701ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQTue Jun 03 1997 15:268
>              <<< Note 393.1698 by BULEAN::BANKS "Goose Cooker" >>>
>    Why would someone who doesn't own a farm, with no job or visible means
>    of support buy a ton of fertilizer?

Because his cousin the farmer asked him to...? (or whatever... it's possible)

McV never suggested any possible alternate explanation, so the jury had no
reason to doubt.
393.1702RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 17:2047
    Re .1695:
    
    > Eric, the circumstances were not 'ordinary, everyday' things that
    > . . .
    
    Going to a restaurant is ordinary.  Staying in a motel is ordinary. 
    Buying fertilizer is ordinary for many people.  Disliking the
    government to some degree is also ordinary, and after the bombing, the
    media claimed extreme dislike was more prevalent than commonly
    believed.
    
    If circumstances really amount to something uncommon, then the
    prosecution should prove that.  It would be too easy to characterize a
    person as "different" from the mainstream, thus invoking in the jury
    the eternal human prejudice against strangers rather than the rational
    consideration of probability.
    
    > How many people who do NOT own farms . . .
    
    That's like asking how many people who don't meet the circumstances
    meet the circumstances.
    
    Also, you repeated the error I pointed out previously:  The probability
    an innocent person could be accused in this way is NOT the probability
    of a person meeting all of the circumstances presented by the
    prosecution.  In particular, these statements in .1692 are false:
    
    .1692> ... it would have to be someone who was also photographed ...
    .1692> ... It would have to be someone who ordered Chinese food ...
    
    It would NOT have to be such a person.  Suppose the defendant did NOT
    meet these circumstances.  Then the prosecution would not use them. 
    Instead, the government would have found something else.  The search
    could have found somebody who did not order food nearby but did make a
    phone call nearby, or somebody who was not photographed near the truck
    rental place but did get a parking ticket near where the truck was
    stored overnight.  The probability of any single path of coincidences
    may be small, but the addition of the many possible cases the
    government could have prepared is much larger.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    
393.1703RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 17:2524
    Re .1696:
    
    > I'm the one telling you that you can look at things differently but
    > you refuse to consider anything but a hypothetical situation.
    
    I have considered your emotions.  You have not considered the math.
    
    > . . . I doubt anyone is going to investigate this case further . . .
    
    Again you speak from ignorance.  Historians will investigate for
    decades or longer.
    
    > Math can tell us some things but there is still room for the other
    > things I mentioned.
    
    Room for them?  That is not what you are claiming.  You are claiming
    the use of emotion and guesswork to the EXCLUSION of mathematics.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1704RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 17:3965
RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest  Thursday 29 May 1997  Volume 19 : Issue 19

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker)
Subject: Oklahoma bombing trial transcripts

RISKS readers may find the following transcript from the OK bombing trial
to be particularly interesting:
  http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/transcripts/may/050697.eve.txt
(Note CNN's Y2K problem, but that's for another time!)

This transcript was brought to the attention of another usenet group due to
its details of how the debit-card business works.

The bulk of this transcript deals with the testimony of a Mr. John Kane, an
executive of the company that handled the telephone debit card that was
allegedly used.

Problems:

There was no one computer that had all of the information necessary to
connect a phone debit-card number, the phone number from which a call was
made, and the phone number to which the call was made.  3 different logs
from 3 different computer systems whose clocks were not synchronized must be
related in order to determine this information.  Therefore, it is difficult
to relate the logs in an unambiguous manner.  Furthermore, the logs indicate
only a physical port number, and the only way to determine the
correspondence is to _physically inspect_ the connectivity of the cables.

Q. How often were the cables rearranged?  Since the system would work fine
with a different permutation of the cables, what assurance do we have that
the cables had not been rearranged by a technician who many never have told
anyone, or not even realized himself?

Due to the large sizes of these files (2.5 billion calls!), the 'matching'
process allowed for +/- 4 minutes 'slop' in comparing the clock times of the
different logs.  Q.  Did they take into account Daylight Savings Time
(especially given the problems we're recently been talking about)?

Q. Did they take into account the fact that on different days the clocks may
have had different discrepancies?

There are key items missing from the most important transaction log.  This
is because this computer was _intentionally rebooted_ 3 times every day
(perhaps at midnight, 8AM, 4PM, all Los Angeles time).  Each time the
computer was rebooted, some transactions were lost; whether from not having
been saved from the write buffer, or not being logged during a length boot
process, was not made clear.  Apparently, a very critical phone call was one
of the transactions that were not logged due to this rebooting.  (What are
the chances of this??)

Why was this computer rebooted 3X per day?  Because it had apparently been
crashing of its own accord prior to this, and those crashes had been very
inconvenient, so it was decided that purposely rebooting would result in
fewer complaints.  This rebooting may have resulted in a slight loss of
revenue, as well, as the missing calls may never have been logged.

There is a presumption that if a PIN (in this case a 14-digit PIN) is being
used, that only one person could possibly have used it.  However, apparently
this system did not check to see that multiple people (perhaps in different
parts of the country) were not using the same PIN number at the same time.
(Unlike many prepaid phone cards in Europe, there is no physical card to
plug into the phone -- the _only_ proof of identity is the PIN.)

Henry Baker  ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
393.1705SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 17:4016
    
    
    Re .1703
    
    
    	I've considered the math. I disagree with your conclusion.
    
    	I'll clarify my statement about the investigation. First off,I said
    I doubt anyone will investigate any further. And I meant from a
    standpoint of investigation leading to a trial. Historians may
    investigate but even they may never come to a positive conclusion.
    
    
    	I used the hunch and luck as PART of my process not the total.
    
    ed
393.1706RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 18:1714
    Re .1705:
    
    > I've considered the math.
    
    Have you?  How many coin flips does it take to make it "likely" the
    coin is rigged rather than fair?  How much circumstantial evidence does
    it take to make it "likely" the accused is guilty rather than innocent?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1707APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Tue Jun 03 1997 18:243
    Did they ever ask at the trial where all the federal agents especially ATF
    agents were on the day of the explosion. I remember that there were
    rumors that they had been told not to com in that day.
393.1708LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningTue Jun 03 1997 18:273
    
    timmy baby was the guy on trial.
    
393.1709SPECXN::CONLONTue Jun 03 1997 18:286
    
    Do ATF agents usually spend most of their time in offices?
    
    I was under the impression that they go out into the field to work
    on actual cases.
    
393.1710SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 18:3117
    
    	We've already gone thru this. I stated it takes more than knowing
    the number of flips of the coin to determine whether the coin is rigged
    or fair. 
    
    	The more circumstantial evidence the more 'likely'. 
    
    	I belive the evidence in this case (OKC bombing), it seems logical
    to me, maybe some of it is not in fact correct, and I am sure there is
    a mathematical probability that Tim MvVeigh is innocent of the charges,
    but after reading about and hearing accounts of the investigation and
    evidence, I'll make the leap to a conclusion. 
    
    I guess you can't come to a conclusion because all facts are not known
    to you.
    
    ed
393.1711nnttmBULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 18:339
    Actually, you can rig coin flips without rigging the coin.  Apparently,
    people can be trained to do much better than chance on flipping heads
    (or tails, if you like).
    
    Just to point out that the glass doesn't have to be half empty or half
    full; it could just be the wrong glass.
    
    Just one more irrelevant observation from someone intent on disrupting
    conversations.
393.1712BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Tue Jun 03 1997 18:378
    
    	RE: .1710
    
    	If it were YOU in the spotlight for a slew of circumstantial evid-
    	ence all indicating that YOU committed a serious felony, and you
    	knew you were not guilty, what is the likelihood that you did in
    	fact commit the crime?
    
393.1713RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 18:3824
    Re .1710:
    
    > I stated it takes more than knowing the number of flips of the coin
    > to determine whether the coin is rigged or fair.
    
    What does it take?
    
    > The more circumst[Dantial evidence the more 'likely'. 
    
    The question isn't "more", then question is "how much".  _How much_
    circumstantial evidence makes it likely the accused is guilty?
    
    Your claim to have considered the math is false because you don't know
    the math.  You don't know what the math says.  You don't even know what
    the math could say.  You haven't considered it; you have merely
    dismissed it as something you do not understand and therefore cannot
    use.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1714BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Tue Jun 03 1997 18:398
    
    	And what are the chances that Timothy rented the truck and bought
    	the fertilizer, but someone stole both and committed the crime?
    
    	Either 100% or 0%, right?
    
    	Should we flip a coin to decide which it was?
    
393.1715SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 18:394
    
    	0% likelyhood
    
    ed
393.1716BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Tue Jun 03 1997 18:403
    
    	It was tails, eh?
    
393.1717SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 18:419
    
    re .1713
    
    
    About the math, that is your opinion.
    
    	And I told you what it takes to determine the sttus of the coin.
    
    ed
393.1718APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Tue Jun 03 1997 18:423
    RE .1709
    
    Some # would normally be in the office...
393.1719SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 18:425
    
    
    	Now I understand the math - its binary.
    
    ed
393.1720RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 18:5021
    Re .1717:
    
    > About the math, that is your opinion.
    
    No, it is not.  Math is a matter of logic, not opinion.
    
    > And I told you what it takes to determine the sttus of the coin.

    No, in .1616 you described one possibly _sufficient_ way to determine
    the status of the coin.  The question is what is _necessary_.  Here,
    I'll make it easier for you.  The coin is either fair (50-50 heads to
    tails) or rigged to come up heads 90% of the time.  By flipping the
    coin, how can you determine when it is "likely" the coin is rigged
    rather than fair?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1721FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Tue Jun 03 1997 18:575
    please phrase your answer in the form of a question!  just
    to confuse everyone!  i thank you.


393.1722NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Jun 03 1997 19:003
>    Some # would normally be in the office...

Maybe they were having a woods meeting.
393.1723GLDX02::ALLBERYJimTue Jun 03 1997 19:006
     >>Now I understand the math - its binary.
                                 
    Its binary what?  Oh, you mean "it's binary."  Why argue over math when
    we can correct each other's grammar?
    
    Jim ;^)
393.1724SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 19:1413
    
    
    Let me restate again. About what you know about my knowledge of math is
    your opinion.
    
    
    	For your specific question in .1720. I've said that you can't
    determine it by flipping. I've said that all along. An infinite number
    of flips will not determine it. And what I described in .1616 was a way
    to determine the 'likelyhood' of the status of the coin, not the actual
    status of the coin that you are asking here.
    
    ed
393.1725ACISS1::BATTISYou name it, I probably screw it up regularlyTue Jun 03 1997 19:338
    
    well, i'm not as smart as eric or some of you other highbrow types.
    I do know this though, Timmy was found guilty on all 11 counts.
    Timmy's sentencing phase starts tomorrow. I'm 100% positive that Timmy
    will be sentenced to die. I'm 100% positive Timmy will die by lethal
    injection some time in the future. 
    
    oh, this is opinion and not math.
393.1726BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 19:4111
Oh, I'm not so sure he's gonna get the needle (or "get the prick?").

They did go and pick one of the most liberal cities in the west to pick
their jury from.

Anyway, it'd be a whole lot more entertaining, from a news standpoint, to
trot him out every 10 years or so, just like James Earl Ray or Charles
Manson.

Who knows?  Maybe 10 years from now, the widow of one of the victims will
ask that the burnt truck axle be subjected to newer tests.
393.1727DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayTue Jun 03 1997 19:437

 If I recall, most if not all the jury panel said they didn't have a problem
 with the death penalty, when asked.


Jim
393.1728NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Jun 03 1997 19:432
But isn't the alternative to the death sentence "life without chance of
parole?"  If so, they wouldn't have periodic hearings.
393.1729NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Jun 03 1997 19:444
> If I recall, most if not all the jury panel said they didn't have a problem
> with the death penalty, when asked.

I'm sure they would have rejected if they'd been opposed to the death penalty.
393.1730RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Tue Jun 03 1997 19:4518
    Re .1724:
    
    > For your specific question in .1720. I've said that you can't
    > determine it by flipping.
    
    Why not?  Let's make it even easier for you.  A coin is selected
    randomly with a 90% chance of being a fair coin that yields 50% heads
    and 50% tails and a 10% chance of being a rigged coin that yields 90%
    heads and 10% tails.  The selected coin is flipped 1000 times.  How
    many times must it come up heads in order for the probability that it
    is rigged to exceed 50%?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1731DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayTue Jun 03 1997 19:484

 
Uh...Chicago?
393.1732ACISS1::BATTISYou name it, I probably screw it up regularlyTue Jun 03 1997 19:542
    
    hey, i don't do math. i'll trust eric's answer. i only do fluff noting.
393.1733SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signTue Jun 03 1997 19:567
    
    
    re .1730
    
    	OK, I don't know , how many times?
    
    ed
393.1734DECWET::LOWEBruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910Tue Jun 03 1997 20:536
.1730:

Are you talking about std dev calculations etc? Is the answer in the ballpark
of 630?, i.e., +/- 1 std dev = 50% confidence level? <sound of escaping
methane>
393.1735BULEAN::BANKSGoose CookerTue Jun 03 1997 20:553
    *SIGH*
    
    Try binomial.
393.1736FUTURE::DDESMAISONSAre you married or happy?Tue Jun 03 1997 20:556
  .1734

   standard deviant calculations


393.1737ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQWed Jun 04 1997 12:192
I'd have a tough time frying him with the (circumstantial) evidence that
convicted him.
393.1738hthbidiGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed Jun 04 1997 13:137
  I don't understand that argument.  If you aren't convinced beyond a
 reasonable doubt, vote not guilty, hanging the jury.  If you ARE convinced
 beyond a reasonable doubt, vote guilty.  Now that he's guilty, forget
 that one and decide what punishment is appropriate.  The two are unrelated.

  bb
393.1739sotaagphtfBULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 13:141
    
393.1740ACISS1::BATTISYou name it, I probably screw it up regularlyWed Jun 04 1997 13:155
    
    .1737
    
    Tom, rest assured my friend. The government won't fry him under any
    circumstance. however, they will numb him up permanently.
393.1741RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 13:3016
    Re .1724:
    
    > About what you know about my knowledge of math is your opinion.
    
    So what?  You fit the circumstances of somebody who knows little or no
    math.  By your own standards, we are entitled to use emotion and
    intuition to conclude that you are ignorant of math.  Do you want a
    higher standard applied to you than you would have applied to judgment
    when a human life depends on it?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1742WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 13:343
    Is he still beating that drum? Must be nice to have such a surfeit of
    energy and lack of better things to do. I've got a little segmentation
    fault problem for you, if you have that much unused processing power...
393.1743RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 13:3726
    Re .1734:
    
    > Are you talking about std dev calculations etc? Is the answer in the
    > ballpark of 630?, i.e., +/- 1 std dev = 50% confidence level?
    
    I do not know how you figure 630 is a standard deviation above the
    mean.  There are two distributions involved:  that of the fair coin and
    that of the rigged coin.  The standard distribution of 1000 flips of a
    fair coin is about 15.8.  The standard distribution of 1000 flips of
    the rigged coin is about 9.5.
    
    
    Re .1735:
    
    > Try binomial.
    
    For 1000 trials, the normal distribution is a good approximation of the
    binomial distribution.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                 
393.1744BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 13:386
>    > Try binomial.
    
>    For 1000 trials, the normal distribution is a good approximation of the
>    binomial distribution.

Exactly so, but why go for a good approximation, when you can be exact?
393.1745RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 13:5111
    Re .1744:
    
    Why compute the distribution exactly when an approximation is good
    enough to get the exact integer answer?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1746BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 14:041
    Just pointless nitpicking, for fun and entertainment, that's why.
393.1747SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed Jun 04 1997 15:0216
    
    
    	re .1741
    
    	  I fit that by reason of one example, that's real good logic.
    
    	For the last time, I don't use emotion and intuition in place of
    math, I use both to a degree. I've also said that if I were on the jury
    in this case I would have more facts and I WOULD hold myself to a
    higher standard at that time. I'm just giving an opinion in this forum
    and no ones life is on the line because of it.
    
    	And you till haven't answered two questions, how many flips does it
    take, and is McVeigh guilty(in your opinion).
    
    ed
393.1748ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQWed Jun 04 1997 15:2114
>       <<< Note 393.1738 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>
> The two are unrelated.

Sez who?

I've long been against any sort of capital punishment, except for heinous
cases that are totally unambiguous. For instance, the Long Island RR killer
is one where I'd consider death to be an acceptable sentence. The guy killed
out of blind hatred, and was basically knocked down and sat upon in the act
of committing the crime. No question whatsoever that the right man was
caught.

At this point, it IS still possible that McVeigh didn't do it. The defense
did a lousy job, IMO.
393.1749WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 15:3116
    >At this point, it IS still possible that McVeigh didn't do it. 
    
     Based on what? It's pretty difficult to catch the perp in the actual
    act when to be caught in the actual act would subject one to
    experiencing the forces of a 5,000 lb ANFO bomb. Are you saying that
    short of the authorities catching a perp in the physical act of
    committing the crime, some tiny doubt exists, no matter how
    unreasonable, and that alone is reason to avoid the death penalty?
    
    >The defense did a lousy job, IMO.
    
     You don't suppose that's because he did it and admitted it to his
    lawyers so they couldn't possibly put him on the stand and the
    remaining evidence was far too great to overcome with "the real bomber
    was killed in the explosion", do you?
    
393.1750ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQWed Jun 04 1997 15:4617
>              <<< Note 393.1749 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
>    Are you saying that
>    short of the authorities catching a perp in the physical act of
>    committing the crime, some tiny doubt exists, no matter how
>    unreasonable, and that alone is reason to avoid the death penalty?

No. I'm saying that only unambiguous cases should be eligible for death
sentences. The means of resolving the ambiguity need not be catching the
person in the physical act.
    
>     You don't suppose that's because he did it and admitted it to his
>    lawyers so they couldn't possibly put him on the stand and the
>    remaining evidence was far too great to overcome with "the real bomber
>    was killed in the explosion", do you?

The FBI crime lab fiasco wasn't even brought up. If it were my neck on the
gurney, I would. Grounds for appeal, if you ask me.
393.1751FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 16:018
>No. I'm saying that only unambiguous cases should be eligible for death
>sentences. 

   i have to agree with Billbob on this.  if there was any ambiguity,
   a vote for guilty shouldn't have been cast in the first place.


393.1752WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 16:119
>The FBI crime lab fiasco wasn't even brought up. If it were my neck on the
>gurney, I would. Grounds for appeal, if you ask me.
    
     The report was brought up insofar as it concerned this case. That's
    what the judge allowed. The probative value has to be greater than the
    prejudicial for the evidence to be admitted.
    
     I don't understand why the defense wasn't allowed to present its
    terrorists from NI and the Middle East defense.
393.1753ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQWed Jun 04 1997 16:156
>             <<< Note 393.1751 by FUTURE::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
>   i have to agree with Billbob on this.  if there was any ambiguity,
>   a vote for guilty shouldn't have been cast in the first place.

Yup, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. Go ahead and tell me that it really
does.
393.1754FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 16:2113
>             <<< Note 393.1753 by ASIC::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>

>Yup, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. Go ahead and tell me that it really
>does.

	I'm not trying to tell you how it works.  I'm telling you I agree that
	it doesn't make sense to be basing the punishment on whether
	there was any ambiguity.  If you didn't have a problem convicting,
	you shouldn't have a problem with doling out the punishment that you
	think fits the crime.  


393.1755NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 04 1997 16:477
Many people who oppose the death penalty do so because there's almost always
some ambiguity, Colin Ferguson notwithstanding.  This ambiguity is enough
to put them off from supporting something with the finality of death.  In
the McVeigh case, the circumstantial evidence _was_ overwhelming, but there
are still some troubling ambiguities (the leg, for example).  Of course, since
I strongly suspect that potential jurors who opposed the death penalty were
excluded, this line of reasoning is irrelevant.
393.1756FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 16:5311
>  <<< Note 393.1755 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

	It simply doesn't make sense, though.  Troubling ambiguities _should_
	lead to a hung jury, not an avoidance of the death penalty.

  
        - polly

  

393.1757NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 04 1997 16:551
He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond _any_ doubt.
393.1758SX4GTO::OLSONDBTC Palo AltoWed Jun 04 1997 17:0510
    In the case of a pseudo-patriot nutcase like McVeigh, there is a
    certain sadistic pleasure in contemplating his state of mind 30
    seconds, thirty minutes, thirty days, and then, ah... thirty years
    after a life-w/o-parole sentence is passed on him.  Let him wonder
    what he did wrong for long enough to figure it out, if he ever can,
    and live with his guilt thereafter.
    
    Or fry him, I won't miss him.
    
    DougO
393.1759FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 17:069
>  <<< Note 393.1757 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond _any_ doubt.

	Yes, that is true, of course.  But if there was enough doubt that
	one would then let it dictate the punishment, that sounds like too
	much doubt to have convicted.  

393.1760RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 17:1023
    Re .1755:
    
    > In the McVeigh case, the circumstantial evidence _was_ overwhelming
    > . . .
    
    Not, it was not.  It was probably direct evidence that convinced the
    jury.  Did you see the handwriting samples from the signature for the
    rental truck and from other writing linked to McVeigh?  That
    establishes a direct link from the defendant to the truck identified by
    its serial number.  Yet the media barely reported it.
    
    These samples were shown in closing arguments, so the evidence must
    have been admitted earlier, when the prosecution was presenting its
    case.  The media should have caught this earlier and highlighted it,
    rather than merely reported about circumstantial evidence of
    questionable value.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1761IYHO?ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQWed Jun 04 1997 17:154
>             <<< Note 393.1759 by FUTURE::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
>	Yes, that is true, of course.  But if there was enough doubt that
>	one would then let it dictate the punishment, that sounds like too
>	much doubt to have convicted.  
393.1762GOOEY::JUDYThat's *Ms. Bitch* to you!Wed Jun 04 1997 17:168
    
    
    	One of the relatives/friends of a victim said that she didn't
    	want him to get the death penalty.  She wanted him to get life
    	without the possibility of parole, with a special stipulation
    	that the pictures of all his victims were put up on the walls of
    	his cell.  Not that I think this guy even has a conscience, but....
    
393.1763WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 17:1817
    >	Yes, that is true, of course.  But if there was enough doubt that
    >	one would then let it dictate the punishment, that sounds like too
    >	much doubt to have convicted.  
    
     I don't entirely agree. It so happens that some people are convicted
    of crimes that they did not commit, even though the jury felt there was
    no reasonable doubt that they had committed the crime. Coincidences
    happen. Sometimes, especially in a circumstantial case, a couple of bad
    coincidences can occur that, when combined with the other evidence,
    make it appear that the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence
    is that the defendant is guilty when that is not the case. In such a
    case, a guilty finding makes sense, but a vote against the death
    penalty even in the face of horrible crimes may not be unreasonable.
    
    Don't ask me to come up with a case in point, but I've seen them before
    (some even were cases where subsequent information showed the defendant
    had been wrongly convicted, etc.)
393.1764RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 17:1939
    Re .1747:
    
    > And you till haven't answered two questions, how many flips does it
    > take, and is McVeigh guilty(in your opinion).
    
    I have not answered lots of questions.  Live with it.
    
    I haven't commented on McVeigh's guilt because I am more interested in
    how this country administers justice than in any single defendant. 
    That's why I started the thread about what an innocent person could be
    expected to prove in defense when confronted with a circumstantial
    case.  What good does it do you to convict McVeigh if an innocent
    person could also be convicted?  Will you have no interest in improving
    the justice system until it is your life on the line?
    
    And the question is not how many flips it takes but how many heads in
    1000 flips would make the probability of a rigged coin greater than the
    probability of a fair coin.  Giving you the answer would teach you
    little; the goal is for you to think for yourself.
    
    > I fit that by reason of one example, that's real good logic.

    I said it was not logic; I said it was emotion and intuition.  I have a
    great deal of experience in this, and it is pretty clear you know very
    little mathematics.
    
    > For the last time, I don't use emotion and intuition in place of
    > math, I use both to a degree.
    
    No, you do not.  You have no grasp of the extent or limits of
    mathematics.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    
393.1765LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningWed Jun 04 1997 17:214
    
    what's the jury make-up?  7 men and 5 women?  
    life imprisonment, i would guess.
    
393.1766FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 17:237
>             <<< Note 393.1761 by ASIC::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>
>                                   -< IYHO? >-

	doy - no, in someone else's opinion.


393.1767WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 17:243
    >	doy - no, in someone else's opinion.
    
     There you go again.
393.1768FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 17:265
>              <<< Note 393.1767 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

    there i go again what??

393.1769BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 17:3315
Re: Handwriting,

Granted, my source of information on this is entirely tautological, but the
admittedly not-all-there press did seem to state that the handwriting
samples presented in closing arguments were the first time they were
presented at all.

Granted, if it had been presented before and the press missed it, it would
obviously be in their best interest not to mention that factoid, either.

Still, it did really make me wonder about the limits of things that could
just be popped into the closing arguments.  It was definitely persuasive,
but if it indeed wasn't presented until closing, it does feel a bit
chilling to me.  Kinda like being able to present evidence without the
defense having a chance to assemble a refutation.
393.1770WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 17:424
    >there i go again what??
    
     Stating things in other peoples' opinions. I mean, it must be a habit
    since everyone keeps asking you if it's in your opinion or not. ;-)
393.1771RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 17:4320
    Re .1769:
    
    > . . . the admittedly not-all-there press did seem to state that the
    > handwriting samples presented in closing arguments were the first time
    > they were presented at all.
    
    I find that hard to believe.  There are strict rules about admitting
    evidence.  First it has to be offered to the court for identification. 
    Then it has to be identified -- it has to be authenticated by a
    witness.  Then the court has to be asked to accept it into evidence. 
    Then the court has to rule on that.  That second step cannot be
    accomplished without a witness on the stand.  There is no witness on
    the stand in closing arguments.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1772FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 17:456
>              <<< Note 393.1770 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

	oh.  yeah, it's some sort of sickness.


393.1773BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 17:453
Yeah, I found it hard to believe, too, but that's what they were saying.

I certainly hope it ain't true.
393.1774WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 17:483
    Nope- you can't introduce evidence in closing except under very limited
    circumstances. The defense would have had to open the door during their
    closing arguments for this to be introduced in rebuttal.
393.1776BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 18:014
    The one I keep hearing suggested is the bomb suppository.
    
    I still think there's a fair amount of future entertainment value in
    keeping the guy alive in some federal prison for the rest of his days.
393.1777DECXPS::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayWed Jun 04 1997 18:089


 I'm actually favoring keeping him in jail for life.  Problem is some 
 future Barbara WaWa is going to come along and want to interview him, 
 and we'll be seeing him on TV.


 Jim
393.1778SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:104
    If he goes to jail for the rest of his life, he is quite likely to
    become Bubba's girlfriend, and soon thereafter he is likely to become
    another Jeffrey Dahmer.  The Convicts' Code of Ethics has certain
    clauses about mass murderers of children.
393.1779WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Wed Jun 04 1997 18:1221
    ONe year before the OKC bombing, McVeigh was a peaceful protester at
    Waco, Texas, handing out leaflets, trying to bring about the end of the
    seige.
    
    Then the tanks rolled in.
    
    A lot of Americans died, their right to due process totally
    disregarded; a lot of kids burned to death, and no one in Washington
    lost their job or got penalized at all.
    
    Peaceful protester McVeigh went into "action mode", and became a 
    "political terrorist." 
    
    I doubt he'll escape the death penalty, and I don't know that he
    should, but I'm dismayed that every night on the news one still hears
    people asking, "why did he do it?"
    
    
    
    
    
393.1780JAMIN::prnsy5.lkg.dec.com::osmanEric, dtn 226-7122Wed Jun 04 1997 18:1312
    in the middle of Oklahoma City, with lots of pre-release 
publicity.  It
    was suggested that McVeigh would survive very long under such
    conditions.




Please explain why "survive very long" ?  I would think someone might
attack him out of anger...


393.1781BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed Jun 04 1997 18:164
    
    	Don't worry, Eric ... Binder will have a new and corrected copy
    	put in its place very soon.
    
393.1782SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed Jun 04 1997 18:1831
    
   > I haven't commented on McVeigh's guilt because I am more interested in
   > how this country administers justice than in any single defendant. 
   > That's why I started the thread about what an innocent person could be
   > expected to prove in defense when confronted with a circumstantial
   > case.  What good does it do you to convict McVeigh if an innocent
   > person could also be convicted?  Will you have no interest in improving
   > the justice system until it is your life on the line?
    
    	You can be more interested in the system and still have an opinion on
    this case.
    	It does a lot of good to convict McVeigh if he is guilty, and there
    is the possibility that he is. Each case must be examined separately
    for the individual crime. I have plenty of interest in improving the
    justice system, but I think it worked just fine this time.
    
   > 	    > I fit that by reason of one example, that's real good logic.

   > I said it was not logic; I said it was emotion and intuition.  I have a
   > great deal of experience in this, and it is pretty clear you know very
   > little mathematics.
    
    	The statement you made was that I don't know very much about math
    and you base that on this one thread. How do I design these computers
    with my limited knowledge of math :-).
    
    
    Oh, now not only don't I know math , I don't know the extent or limit
    of math.
    
    ed
393.1775SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:2111
    A guy I know suggested that McVeigh shouldn't be numbed - that would be
    too easy on him.  The guy suggested we set up Ol' Sparky with the
    voltage cranked down so that it won't kill, and fry McVeigh to within
    an inch of his life 167 times, once per day.  Then fry him good.
    
    Unfortunately, that lowers the state to the bestial level of its victim.
    
    Another proposal was simply to turn McVeigh loose.  In broad daylight,
    in the middle of Oklahoma City, with lots of pre-release publicity.  It
    was suggested that McVeigh would survive not very long under such
    conditions.
393.1783SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:213
    .1781
    
    Done.
393.1784BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed Jun 04 1997 18:244
    
    	Had you used a PC, Binder, you would have had that corrected
    	minutes ago.
    
393.1785SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:248
    .1782
    
    > How do I design these computers
    > with my limited knowledge of math :-).
    
    Probably the same way I designed peripheral adapters and controllers
    for 14 years.  (Remember, I don't know anything about math, either.)
    You must be pulling it all out of your posterior excretory orifice.
393.1786SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:243
    .1784
    
    Had to see the commentary on it, Slabbo, becore I could fix it.
393.1788Or was that a Mac joke?BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed Jun 04 1997 18:269
    
    	Well, then, read this and fix .1786:
    
    
    
    	You screwed up again.
    
    	8^)
    
393.1789RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:2831
    Re .1782:
    
    > You can be more interested in the system and still have an opinion on
    > this case.
    
    I can, but the repeated drifts off the thread by other authors shows
    they have some trouble keeping the concepts separate.  I will not add
    to the confusion by mixing the discussions.
    
    > I have plenty of interest in improving the justice system, but I
    > think it worked just fine this time.
    
    Now it is you who did not answer a question, but this one is on-topic:
    Will you not support improvements in the justice system until it is
    your life on the line?
    
    > How do I design these computers with my limited knowledge of math
    > :-).
    
    Rather poorly.  I have seen plenty of people who do not know what they
    are doing manage to just get by in their jobs, producing deplorable
    results, and you give us no reason to think you are any different. 
    Please, enlighten us with your qualifications, and tell us what you
    remember of mathematics.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1790BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed Jun 04 1997 18:2812
    
    >> How do I design these computers with my limited knowledge of math
    >> :-).
    >
    >Rather poorly.  I have seen plenty of people who do not know what they
    >are doing manage to just get by in their jobs, producing deplorable
    >results, and you give us no reason to think you are any different.
    
    
    	Meet Ed Neumyer, the designer of the Pentium CPU.  Ed is a retired
    	4.999999-time ping pong champion ...
    
393.1791SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:282
    Naw, I think I'll leave .1786.  It'll remind me that I should be humble
    because I'm no longer among the infallible people who note in the box.
393.1792BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Wed Jun 04 1997 18:303
    
    	That is a very valiant attitude, Binder.
    
393.1794EVMS::MORONEYTis but a flesh wound...Wed Jun 04 1997 18:327
re .1778:

On the other hand, many prisoners are anti-government and may sympathize with
him a little.  Just enough so that he may get some "protection".

(after all, it was the evyl gummit that put them in the prison in the first
place, hence some anti gummit feelings)
393.1793SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:3312
    .1789
    
    >> How do I design these computers with my limited knowledge of math
    >> :-).
    >
    > Rather poorly.  I have seen plenty of people who do not know what they
    > are doing manage to just get by in their jobs, producing deplorable
    > results, and you give us no reason to think you are any different
    
    Eric, please answer a direct question.  Had the fourth through sixth
    lines of the above quoted text been directed at you, would you have
    been sufficiently insulted to demand a retraction or rephrasing?
393.1795RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:3814
    Re .1793:
    
    >     Eric, please answer a direct question.
    
    Okay.  For fifty dollars cash, paid in advance.  But here's a freebie
    for you to think about:  If somebody chooses to sell me a meal for $10
    and I buy, does that mean I have to sell meals to anybody else?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1796SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed Jun 04 1997 18:4222
    
    
    > I have plenty of interest in improving the justice system, but I
    > think it worked just fine this time.
    
    >Now it is you who did not answer a question, but this one is on-topic:
    >Will you not support improvements in the justice system until it is
    >your life on the line?
    
    Yes, I support improvements in the justice system.
    
    My qualifications are that I am a college graduate 2Yr technical
    school, Worked my way up through DIGITAL from tech 1 to Principle
    Hardware Engineer by helping to design several option devices which
    brought me enough recognition to pass the Engineer review board. I've
    continued my training on many subjects relavent to my career. So far
    that has been good enough to keep me employed for these many years.
    
    	I remember enough of mathematics to keep my job and balance my
    checkbook.
    
    ed
393.1797RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:4814
    Re .1796:
    
    > My qualifications are that I am a college graduate 2Yr technical
    > school, . . .  I remember enough of mathematics to keep my job and
    > balance my checkbook.
    
    Hee hee hee.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1798SPECXN::CONLONWed Jun 04 1997 18:5317
    RE: .1779  John Griffin
    
    > A lot of Americans died, their right to due process totally
    > disregarded; a lot of kids burned to death, and no one in
    > Washington lost their job or got penalized at all.
    
    > I doubt he'll escape the death penalty, and I don't know that he
    > should, but I'm dismayed that every night on the news one still
    > hears people asking, "why did he do it?"
    
    So, he was so mad about Americans dying and children being burned
    to death that he decided to kill whole lot MORE Americans while
    blowing up a building which housed dozens of American infants and 
    toddlers at the time.
    
    If he got mad at his car being vandalized, would he have blown up
    and destroyed every other car in town to make himself feel better?
393.1799SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Jun 04 1997 18:569
    .1795
    
    >>     Eric, please answer a direct question.
    >
    > Okay.  For fifty dollars cash, paid in advance.  But here's a freebie
    > for you...
    
    How clever.  You have diverted the discussion and have, as usual,
    failed to answer the question.
393.1800WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Jun 04 1997 19:001
    he's got a reputation to uphold
393.1801Let me know where to send my cash to you.SPECXN::CONLONWed Jun 04 1997 19:0112
    
    Eric is always clever.

    He's earned the right to treat people differently than he allows them
    to treat him (because his notes are so interesting, even if a bit
    severe at times.)

    I'd pay $50 in subscriber dues each year to read what he has to say.

    Hey, Eric - you should start your own magazine and get people to pay
    for all this stuff.  Seriously!!  

393.1802The day after my board, I dreamt I hadn't gone yet. Horrors!! :>SPECXN::CONLONWed Jun 04 1997 19:0712
    RE: .1796  Ed
    
    > Worked my way up through DIGITAL from tech 1 to Principle
    > Hardware Engineer by helping to design several option devices which
    > brought me enough recognition to pass the Engineer review board.
    
    Great work, Ed - I passed a Digital review board myself some
    years back (given to field service engineers, before I became
    a software engineer) - they can be very rough!!
    
    Sounds like you've done very well in your career.
    
393.1803BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Wed Jun 04 1997 19:092
    I'm still waiting for a proof (preferably mathematic) that Latin Boy
    does his job rather poorly.
393.1804SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed Jun 04 1997 19:129
    
    	re .1802
    
    	Thanks, I can't complain. Congrats to you too. The review material
    wasn't bad, but the pressure of facing the board was nerve-wracking.
    
    	When all is said and done, I'd rather be wealthy!
    
    ed
393.1805LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningWed Jun 04 1997 19:133
    
    i bet eric's wealthy.
    
393.1806Very nerve-wracking indeed!!SPECXN::CONLONWed Jun 04 1997 19:1915
    RE: .1804  Ed
    
    > The review material wasn't bad, but the pressure of facing the board 
    > was nerve-wracking.
    
    Agreed!!  Unbelievably nerve-wracking!  :|
    
    When I left the house to go to my board that day, my son shook my hand
    and said to me, "Allow me to be the first to congratulate you on passing
    the board - I'm sure I won't be the last."  :>
    
    What a sweet kid.  He'd watched me studying for this thing day and night
    for months - it was his victory, too, when I got through it.
    
    I passed with a unanimous vote from the board, too, which was cool.  :>
393.1807BRAT::16.124.24.174::mzdebraWe'llMeetYouThere!Wed Jun 04 1997 19:193
	Money can't buy me love.

393.1808LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningWed Jun 04 1997 19:223
    
    but it _can_ buy you $200 cakes!
    
393.1809SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed Jun 04 1997 19:3212
    
    	.1806
    
    
    	I guess my boss had faith in me, because when I got back from the 
    	board, he already had my business cards printed up and waiting on
    my desk.
    
    
    	Its nice to have that kind of support from your family!
    
    ed
393.1810NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 04 1997 19:361
Your boss is family?  Isn't that against company policy?
393.1811ACISS1::BATTISSoapbox spelling champion 1997Wed Jun 04 1997 19:412
    
    debra, will it rent it for awhile?
393.1812back to the topic...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed Jun 04 1997 19:444
  so, when's the hangin ?

  bb
393.1813SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signWed Jun 04 1997 19:546
    
    re .1810
    
    	The family comment wasn't about my boss. 
    
    ed
393.1814NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Jun 04 1997 19:581
Whoosh!
393.1815POLAR::RICHARDSONMilk carton candidateWed Jun 04 1997 20:021
    feels good don't it? Nothing like a good bowel movement.
393.1816FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Jun 04 1997 20:094
   .1815  the POLAR crowd continues to demonstrate their sophistication.
	  impressive.

393.1817POLAR::RICHARDSONMilk carton candidateWed Jun 04 1997 20:111
    oh ya, bathroom homour. sorry.
393.1818BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Wed Jun 04 1997 20:136
| <<< Note 393.1778 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>

| If he goes to jail for the rest of his life, he is quite likely to
| become Bubba's girlfriend, 

	Bubba Beeler?
393.1819blind hatred alert!WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 11:182
    Still not funny. I bet you can try that a few more times and still fail
    to garner so much as a smirk.
393.1820HOTLNE::BURTthe psychiatrist is inThu Jun 05 1997 12:464
the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions will now 
reside in history books [mind you, _not_ text books].

ogre.
393.1821BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 12:471
    eh?
393.1822don't pussyfoot aroundWAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 12:504
    >the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions
    
     Are you saying that you do not think McVeigh bombed the building?
    Speak up, speak clearly, and say exactly what you mean. 
393.1823WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Jun 05 1997 13:012
    i wanna see the proof that the jury reached its verdict "solely" on
    emotions.
393.1824it's simpleGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Jun 05 1997 13:3520
  It is amazing to me the sophistries, mathematical and political, that
 are concocted to exculpate mass murderers, and this is a case in point.

  Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building.  He rented a Ryder truck using
 a fictitious name, but he was recognized and remembered, and the dates
 and handwriting are consistent.  He cased the joint - he saw the children
 playing in the daycare center, he watched more than a hundred strangers,
 the American people's employees, come and go.  He went and bought bomb
 ingredients, getting some on his clothes.  He had an associate, who once
 nabbed, sang like a canary.  Then he drove his truck bomb and parked it,
 consigning all those people to a horrible death, out of nothing more than
 vile hatred for his country and everybody in it.

  It is terribly dangerous not to execute Timothy McVeigh, quickly and
 publicly.  There are others out there, circling us everywhere.  We must
 send these people a message, and we must reassure our populace that our
 system is just.  Only the execution of McVeigh does the job.

  bb
393.1825BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 13:403
    Unfortunately, the job it does may be to make him a martyr to his ilk.
    
    Then again, that may be unavoidable no matter what happens.
393.1826ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Jun 05 1997 13:516
>  It is terribly dangerous not to execute Timothy McVeigh, quickly and
> publicly.  There are others out there, circling us everywhere.  We must
> send these people a message, and we must reassure our populace that our
> system is just.  Only the execution of McVeigh does the job.

The sky is falling.
393.1827TWA or ValuJet ?GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Jun 05 1997 14:184
  Dunno about the sky, but the building did.

  bb
393.1828LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 14:204
    
    Maybe murdering 168 people is not such a 
    terrible thing after all.
    
393.1829WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 14:232
    Well, beebee's "circling us everywhere" speech was a bit
    chicken-littlesque.
393.1830LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 14:275
    
    there may be quite a few gun-obsessed, sexually inadequate,
    socially retarded dorks who read garbage like the "Turner
    Diaries" and get the same ideas McVeigh did.
      
393.1831Unless things change, it's a de facto life sentenceACISS2::s_coghill.dyo.dec.com::CoghillSSteve Coghill, NSIS Solution ArchitectThu Jun 05 1997 14:286
Re: executing him quickly

According to the G-Man this last Tuesday, the only Federal
facility capable of executing anyone is in Terra Haute, IN.
He said they haven't executed anyone in about 30 years. The
Fed's death-row is pretty well packed at the moment.
393.1832BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 14:293
    Well, McVeigh certainly did get himself squarely into the spotlight. 
    Who knows?  Maybe some of those Turner Diary clowns figure that their
    life is reasonable payment for this sort of fame.
393.1833NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 14:3429
No, don't execute the bastard. The worthless little gobshite deserves
nothing other than to be locked in a dank, windowless room for the rest
of his miserable days.  Let him have his own filthy mind for company and
muse on the horror that it is, and let him come to a fast realisation of
it.  

I wouldn't honour him with the fate of his victims, let alone risk making
him a blighted martyr for the pathetic few who share his warped and
twisted view of the world.  Dead martyrs are the best kind.  They have
provide no opportunity for reintertpretation, yet plenty of opportunities
to screw up their "cause" royally.  History will write up Mcveigh as
a cowardly traitor - as it wrote up Benedict Arnold, ignoring the fact
that Arnold once was a loyal and brave patriot who nobly served his people.

If a person is are prepared to mix a bomb, pack a truck with explosive
and detonate it, the death penalty is no deterrent - they have already
decided to end their own life metaphorically, and they understand the
very real possibility of being killed in the act.  The humane death penalty
is no deterrent.  It would make no difference if you resorted
to the most barbaric and painful method.

The worse punishment for McVeigh would be to take him out every ten
years and show him that the loonies still occupy only the barest
fringes of society, and that people who were not born when he
perpetrated his crime will still spit on him.



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1834BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu Jun 05 1997 14:405
    
    	RE: .1831
    
    	Take him outside and shoot him ... simple as that.
    
393.1835BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 14:426
.1833:

Quit beating around the bush.  What are you really trying to say?

I'm glad that at least one other person sees the entertainment value for a
life-without-parole sentence.
393.1836POLAR::RICHARDSONMilk carton candidateThu Jun 05 1997 14:431
    Firing squad, line 'em up!
393.1837ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Jun 05 1997 14:466
Of course murdering 168 people is a terrible thing. But "circling us
everywhere"? Please. Don't forget to check under the bed for commies.

That kind of talk is why Clintoon is calling for 100,000 new storm troo, uh,
cops. Meanwhile, back in the real world, crime continues to drop. The latest
report came out a few days ago.
393.1838NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Jun 05 1997 14:504
Crime has dropped largely as a side-effect of a decline in the population
of teens and young adults.  Crime will rise in a few years when the number
of men in this age group goes up again.  The solution is simple -- preventive
detention of all males between, say, 13 and 23.
393.1839BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 14:521
Or, retroactive birth control?
393.1840BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Thu Jun 05 1997 15:0110
>Crime has dropped largely as a side-effect of a decline in the population
>of teens and young adults.

 You mean ...  Clintons policies aren't the force behind the reductions?!!!??!!

 My view of the world is crushed I tell you, CRUSHED!

 Well, at least he fixed the economy ....

 Doug.
393.1841BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Jun 05 1997 15:026
| <<< Note 393.1819 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

| Still not funny. I bet you can try that a few more times and still fail
| to garner so much as a smirk.

	As long as it pisses you off, I get quite the smirk.
393.1842WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 15:061
    boredom != pissed_off
393.1843CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsThu Jun 05 1997 15:084
    What facilities are needed to kill someone?  Wheel in a gurney, hook up
    a few electordes to monitor life functions, hook up an IV and you are
    off.  It could be done in any available room, the cafe, the gym, the
    infirmary etc.  
393.1844NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 15:114
Better still, give 'em a mountain bike.

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1845BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 15:116
    Death by injection has been botched more often than any other
    contemporary form of execution.  (So says some sappy A&E Bill Kurtis
    Production.)
    
    Not a fact, but a good jumping off point for another pointless
    argument.
393.1846CADSYS::FENNELLNothing is planned by the sea and the sandThu Jun 05 1997 15:344
I've got an old battery.  They can use the fluid out of that.  Eventually it
should work

Tim
393.1847Found the second bomb yet?PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Jun 05 1997 15:479
| the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions will now 
| reside in history books [mind you, _not_ text books].
|
| ogre
    
    Such "history" books will no doubt be found next to
    _The_Journal_Of_Historical_Review_.
    
    								-mr. bill
393.1848APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 16:2844
    
Some more victims of the OKC Bombing:


George and Valerie Hilton use to live in upstate NY. George would go to Europe
to buy military surplus parts and vehicles (WW2 vintage). All perfectly legal.

A few years ago, George and Valerie moved to a small town in Arizona. They
opened/bought an Army-Navy store which they ran well in addition to the parts
business.

One day, some guys in suits show up with a picture and ask if he has ever seen
this person. George states that he doesn't remember seeing that particular
person. He sees lots of people in his store. The 'suits' show him a cancelled
check that the person in the picture used to buy some camo pants from George
and Valerie at their Army-Navy store. The US government agents promptly present
a search warrant and proceed to take the place apart. They take his rolodex,
they want him to ID everyone in any pictures he has. They even came back again
and searched all over. 

After that, the 'suits' would sit in their black Ford Crown Vic 4dr sedan
across the street from this legitimate business and 'take notes and license
plates' of everyone going into the store. This AZ town is not a place where
'suit' would blend in. Soon, business started to drop as people were affraid to
go in. George and Valerie are informed that their phone is being tapped.

Business continues to decline as the 'suits' continue to watch the store.
Locals, local officals and federal represenatives all object to the harrassment
of George and Valerie, all to no avail.

They move to a lower rent district. The 'suits' follow. Eventually, the
business folds...

If George and Valerie were people you knew, if they were people  you had
purchased parts from, If they were nice people who had your name on the 
rolodex, if they  were people with  whom you had talked and had the
conversation recorded by 'suits', how would you feel about their treatment




    George and Valerie are NEVER charged, much less convicted of ANY crime.
    This was done to them because they sold a pair of camo pants to Timothy
    McVeigh from their Kingman AZ Army-Navy store.
393.1849NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 16:397

Still, they've got their health.



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1850BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Thu Jun 05 1997 16:442
That can't be, cause Oliver said it was all about guns!
393.1851BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 16:523
Hey, it's just how witch hunts work.  Sorta the same reasons why the
"suits" woulda come around to visit in the late '80s, just because you
ordered stuff from mail-order gardening supplies catalogs.
393.1852LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 16:584
    .1850
    
    if it's true, unfortunate fallout, fyfe.  to be expected.
      
393.1853APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 17:0314
    Until it happens to you!
    
    
    "Unfortunate fallout..."
    
    "to be expected..."
    
    UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
    
    
    
    
    PS: It is true
    
393.1854SSDEVO::RALSTONPasteurization is for wimpsThu Jun 05 1997 17:043
    >It is true
    
    Yes, and not surprising.
393.1855NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 17:107

If it's true you won't mind providing the source then?



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1856RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 17:1610
    When McVeigh bombed the federal building killing 168 people, United
    States citizens moaned.  When the United States bombed Iraq, United
    States citizens cheered, while a hundred thousand civilians died.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1857APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 17:176
    You are noting with him
    
    I have talked to George (twice) (said hi to Frank, suit listening)
    
    I have written to my Congessman  (no response)
    
393.1858WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 17:194
    >When the United States bombed Iraq, United States citizens cheered,
    >while a hundred thousand civilians died.
    
     You lie. Why do you lie?
393.1859LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 17:197
    .1853
    
    /Until it happens to you!
    
    i don't own an army surplus store.  i don't even
    own a gun.
    
393.1860BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 17:229
.1856:

Extremely good point.

When the building in OKC went up, my then office mate asked me "How could
anyone do such a thing."  My reply was that we (our armed forces, with the
support of every yellow ribbon sporting citizen in the US) had been doing
that several times a day in Iraq not too long ago.  It was very easy to
imagine bombing a federal building.
393.1861BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 17:234
.1859:

So, people who own guns should be afforded less protection of the law than
people who don't own guns?
393.1862RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 17:2423
    Re .1824:
    
    > It is terribly dangerous not to execute Timothy McVeigh, quickly and
    > publicly.  There are others out there, circling us everywhere.  We
    > must send these people a message, and we must reassure our populace
    > that our system is just.  Only the execution of McVeigh does the job.
    
    Instead of thinking of what you want, think of how other people will
    react.  There are many people who believe the government is too
    oppressive.  Will executing McVeigh change their minds?
    
    Punishing McVeigh might be justice, but it will not change the fact
    that growing numbers of people are fed up with the United States
    government.  The solution for that is for the government to get better
    -- to simplify and reduce laws, to cut back on government programs, to
    make punishment proportionate to crimes, and so on.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1863ACISS1::BATTISSoapbox spelling champion 1997Thu Jun 05 1997 17:255
    
    i believe dawn and edp are missing a big point. while we were bombing
    Iraq, it was in a time of war. The OKC bombing was a terrorist attack.
    
    big difference.
393.1864LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 17:255
    .1861
    
    no.  the likelihood of "it" happening to me is
    somewhat diminished, though, isn't it?
    
393.1865WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 17:272
    Until they decide the subversive element prefers Falkner to Grisham, in
    whic case you'll be up a creek.
393.1866LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 17:296
    .1865
    
    faulkner.
    
    i'll take my chances.
    
393.1867APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 17:291
    Was I asleep when the US Senate declared war on Iraq?
393.1868WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 17:293
    >faulkner.
    
     indeed.
393.1869Death is too good for himUSPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Thu Jun 05 1997 17:304
    My vote is to put McVeigh on display in a plexiglass cage in the lobby
    of BATF headquarters for life.
    
    FJP
393.1870RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 17:3114
    Re .1863:
    
    Yeah, when did Congress declare war on Iraq?  And if they had, would
    that make the dead people feel better?
    
    Sanctioning the killing of humans by calling it "war" just makes it
    more deplorable, not less.
    
                              
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1871ACISS1::BATTISSoapbox spelling champion 1997Thu Jun 05 1997 17:344
    
    excuse me, military action. when a country takes military action,
    there are bound to be lots of deaths. that is one of the drawbacks
    of being involved. still, comparing Iraq to McVeigh is ludicrous.
393.1872SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signThu Jun 05 1997 17:3832
    
    re .1862
    
    
   > Instead of thinking of what you want, think of how other people will
   > react.  There are many people who believe the government is too
   > oppressive.  Will executing McVeigh change their minds?
    
    In most cases, no. 
    
    Punishing McVeigh might be justice, but it will not change the fact
    that growing numbers of people are fed up with the United States
    government.  The solution for that is for the government to get better
    -- to simplify and reduce laws, to cut back on government programs, to
    make punishment proportionate to crimes, and so on.
    
    For me, punishing McVeigh is justice. 
    I also believe that the government needs to change. I don't see much
    evidence that what you stated will happen without some form of
    conflict between the government and its citizens. Voting new people
    into power doesn't seem to change much. At some point, I think that it
    will come down to violent conflict. I will not like to see that happen.
    	If the bomb in OKC had been directed at the people that McVeigh
    actually thought were responsible at Waco and he had stood up and said
    that he did it and what he reasons were, I could say that he had gotten
    to the point of hopelessness and decided in his mind that the time for
    violent conflict had arrived. 
    	Absent that, I don't know what this was supposed to prove, except
    that this guy is nuts, and dangerously nuts.
    
    ed 
    
393.1873NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 17:4010
.1857

What was the name of George's former business?






[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1874The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one) ...BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Thu Jun 05 1997 17:4210

  >  if it's true, unfortunate fallout, fyfe.  to be expected.

  Interesting if not a sick viewpoint of justice ...
  This speaks volumes .... and not in a favorable light....


  Doug.
  
393.1875BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu Jun 05 1997 17:446
    
    	I question the "hundred thousand civilians" number in Iraq.
    
    	Number one, I don't think that 100K died.  Number two, not all that
    	died were civilians.
    
393.1876LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 17:467
    
    it's reality, fyfe.  what do you think?  excesses in
    government agencies first started in the '80s?  get
    a freakin' clue.  
    
    and keep your sick to yourself.
    
393.1877APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 17:4611
    RE .1857
    
    I don't recall if he ever told me. 
    
    Look. This is true. I verified it myself with him. Save your 5th degree
    and revulsion for the 'suits' and their actions.
    
    Last time I checked, the US had a Constitution. 
    
    BTW: My nephew, a police officer in FL said he loved to work with the
    feds as all the rules he had to go by went out the window
393.1878NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 17:5228
Coupla days ago, I had occasion to track down someone that
I had not seen for over 10 years, and who had since changed
their name.  It took me about 15 minutes to find them, their
business, their college year book, their town of residence
and their 'phone number.

I'm having a hard time finding George and Valerie.  This is
indeed a heinous miscarriage of justice, but you wouldn't
want me to write to my congressman on their behalf without
checking the facts would you?

Right now, I suspect that even if the suits had not got them,
they would have gone out of business as a result of no-one
being able to find their store.

Don't they have a support group or something?











[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1879Individual is less than a State...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Jun 05 1997 17:5420
  Irrelevant.  There is no crime by We, the People, in justly executing McVeigh
 now.  We are the people of the United States and we kill people who deserve
 it, by right, by law, and because we have overwhelming force which is
 ours by earning it.

  The killings by McVeigh are not the acts of a people, and are thus a
 usurpation of a monopoly power he has no right to, and no power to
 defend.  The only thing standing between the USA, and the counterexample
 of Bosnia or Rwanda, is that nobody but the State has a right to useforce
 here.  Subvert that principle, and all civilization vanishes, to be replaced
 by the image of hyenas round a carcass.

  The State can bomb Iraq.  You can't.  The State can order  a soldier to
 shoot you, and it is OK.  If the State did not so order, it isn't OK.

  Do not expect to challenge the State's monopoly of force and live.  You
 might, but probably not.

  bb
393.1880BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Thu Jun 05 1997 17:543
Reality is the use of the term 'unfortunate' as an expression of
acceptance of such government behavior on your/our behalf.
393.1881BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 17:5615
Re: Military Action

Unfortunately, those Turner Toting Wackos believe they are at war with the
US government, and when they take "action," they see it as a military
action, just as we saw our bombing the **** out of Iraq as a justified
military action.

Iraq did not fire the first shot at us.  We were the aggressors, albeit for
reasons that most 'muricans feel are justified (i.e. to get back for their
aggression toward a non-broccoli producing country).

The difference between the US Military action against Iraq and any TTW
military action against the USgov is that we, as part of the USgov are
bigger, tend to win such confrontations, and therefore get to define the
terms and write the history books.
393.1882SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZAre you from away?Thu Jun 05 1997 18:008
<-<<.1879 

>  The State can order  a soldier to
> shoot you, and it is OK.  

  Is this like crossing the Rubicon?  

kb
393.1883LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 18:015
    .1880
    
    compared to what the family members of mcveigh's victims
    went through, i would call this couple's plight unfortunate.
    
393.1884RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 18:0616
    RE .1875:
    
    > 	Number one, I don't think that 100K died.  Number two, not all that
    >	died were civilians.

    Number one, 100,000 is the low estimate.  They did not all die in bomb
    blasts.  The United States bombed power stations and other
    infrastructure components, causing many people to die of starvation and
    other consequences.  Number two is not relevant.  100,000 civilians can
    be killed with or without killing soldiers.
    

    				-- edp
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1885RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 18:0815
    Re .1871:
    
    > still, comparing Iraq to McVeigh is ludicrous.

    Is that a literal "ludicrious" or an illustrative "ludicrous". 
    Comparing the two is ludicrous only if your ethics condone murder when
    it is cloaked in authority.  For people with stricter regard for human
    life, the two are very similar.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1886APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 18:157
    It is "unfortunate" that I now have a longer ride to work
    
    It is "unbelieveable, unacceptable, etc" what was done to them
    
    "unfortunate" is not anyway near the correct term here.
    
    They don't live in Kingman anymore
393.1887POLAR::RICHARDSONMilk carton candidateThu Jun 05 1997 18:163
    <---- I've often seen it that way too. When the state says it's okay to
    kill, it's not murder and if civilians get killed, they're not victims,
    they're casualties.
393.1888power comes from the People as a whole, not individuals, is the theory of the USA...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Jun 05 1997 18:1629
  Yeah, well, in the USA (not everywhere else), all power ultimately
 arises from the People.  We make our own rules, and rules about rules,
 through the process of elective politics, by voting, etc.

  Our own rules say that to be executed, like McVeigh, you get "due process",
 and we have a Court that decides how much process is enough.  Hence the
 current proceeding (you should here the spectacular "impact" testimony
 from victims and survivors and witnesses, which the prosecution is
 finishing up this afternoon.  Grisly.)

  There is an exception in our Constitution for those occasions when
 Congress declares we are in a state of rebellion or invasion.

  In the Gulf, there was permission, by vote, to President Bush, from
 the Congress, from the coalition allies, and from the United Nations,
 if you care.  There can be little question that the occupation of Kuwait
 was an Act of War, although perhaps not against the United States.  But
 the US had made no promise not to aid Kuwait if invaded, nor had we any
 treaty with Iraq against it.  Meanwhile, Iraq had signed treaties
 renouncing the acquisition of territory by force, and violated them.

  It was our call, what was right.  We decided to take action.  I respect
 the view that we should not have gone in.  There is nothing unpatriotic
 about taking the view that we were insufficiently provoked.  But once
 the vote is taken, it would be treason for an American to join our
 enemies, or give them aid and comfort.

  bb
393.1889BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu Jun 05 1997 18:2918
    
    >> 	Number one, I don't think that 100K died.  Number two, not all that
    >>	died were civilians.
    >
    >Number one, 100,000 is the low estimate.  They did not all die in bomb
    >blasts.  The United States bombed power stations and other
    >infrastructure components, causing many people to die of starvation and
    >other consequences.  Number two is not relevant.  100,000 civilians can
    >be killed with or without killing soldiers.
    
    
    	Like I said, I wasn't sure.  Maybe 100K+ people did die as a result
    	of this "conflict".
    
    	However, number two certainly would have been relevant if number
    	one were correct.  How could 100K civilians die if less than 100K
    	civilians + soldiers died?
    
393.1890BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Thu Jun 05 1997 18:325
 
>   compared to what the family members of mcveigh's victims
>    went through, i would call this couple's plight unfortunate.
 
 and your point is ????
393.1891BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 18:349
Back in the '60s, General Curtis Lemay (ret.) suggested that we should
"Bomb Vietnam back to the stone-age."

This is what we did with Iraq.  When we destroyed their military
infrastructure, we also destroyed their civilian infrastructure (such as
power, water purification, communications and transportation).  With the
subsequent sanctions hindering any sort of timely rebuild (and with a wacko
government taking what resources there are away from the public at large),
there has been a continual die-off going on over there.
393.1892NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Jun 05 1997 18:353
>    Look. This is true. I verified it myself with him.

Clearly an unbiased source.
393.1893BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 18:382
Hey, c'mon.  This isn't a FOAF.  Does everything have to be published in a
peer-reviewed journal here?
393.1894HOTLNE::BURTthe psychiatrist is inThu Jun 05 1997 18:4418
+              <<< Note 393.1822 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
+                          -< don't pussyfoot around >-
+
+    >the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions
+    
+     Are you saying that you do not think McVeigh bombed the building?
+    Speak up, speak clearly, and say exactly what you mean. 
+

is there enough evidence between .1822 and .1882 [or further in case i haven't 
read them all yet] to extrapolate how my opinion could be spread out through the
rest of america, to include the jurorists?  

regardless of whether i believe tm bombed the building or not, he has not been
100% involved, without a doubt, enough for me to find guilty; i want proof and 
not any amount of circumstantial evidence, tainted or not.

ogre.
393.1895ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Jun 05 1997 18:493
This is somewhat interesting, too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/yearlater.htm
393.1896was he 99 44/100ths involved?WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 18:5020
>is there enough evidence between .1822 and .1882 [or further in case i haven't 
>read them all yet] to extrapolate how my opinion could be spread out through the
>rest of america, to include the jurorists?  
    
    I don't want to play games with "extrapolation" in which I say "so you
    mean this?" and you say "I didn't say that." You tell us how you feel.
    Are you up to that? Or are you content to merely throw rocks without
    taking the time and putting forth the effort to put your own thoughts
    to paper?
    
>regardless of whether i believe tm bombed the building or not, he has not been
>100% involved, without a doubt, enough for me to find guilty; 
    
    What does that mean? Do you or do you not believe that the prosecution
    proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tim McVeigh committed the crimes
    with which he was charged? Why or why not?
    
>    i want proof and not any amount of circumstantial evidence, tainted or not.
    
    What proof do you feel the government was missing?
393.1897LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 18:527
    .1890
    
    /and your point is ????
    
    i'm tired of talking about a story i have no
    way of knowing is true or not.
    
393.1898BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 18:522
I guess he was waiting for the proverbial station-wagonload of nuns as
witness.
393.1899re: .1897WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 18:531
    and even if true, matters not a whit to you
393.1900LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 18:554
    .1899
    
    and how much sleep will you lose over it, mark?
    
393.1901APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Thu Jun 05 1997 18:571
    Will you sleep better tonight knowing this?
393.1902LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 18:594
    .1901
    
    knowing what? 
    
393.1903if you don't like regulation, change your line of merchandise...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Jun 05 1997 19:036
  What's George and Valerie's beef ?  That their rights (Fourth Amendment)
 were violated ?  Sorry, they weren't.  SCOTUS already ruled that virtually
 any search of a weapons business is "reasonable".  Same for liquor.

  bb
393.1904SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Thu Jun 05 1997 19:056
    .1882
    
    > Is this like crossing the Rubicon?
    
    No.  Not even a little bit.  Do you have any concept at all of the
    source for the phrase "crossing the Rubicon"?
393.1905HOTLNE::BURTthe psychiatrist is inThu Jun 05 1997 19:056
fer cripe sakes, mark: are you really that slow?  if'n you can figger out what i
said [writ down], it ain't werth 'splainin'.  i ges if'n it had a sexual 
overtone to it, y'all'd figger it out rat fast like; maybe i said something to 
oo er over.

ogre.
393.1906WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 19:1114
    >fer cripe sakes, mark: are you really that slow?  
    
     Yeah, that's it. It's not that you are being evasive and refusing to
    commit your thoughts to words for fear that they will be systematically
    shown to be the products of ignorance, misinformation and prejudgment.
    It's that you're simply too damn smart for me. Ho ho!
    
     You lack the courage of your convictions to write it all down, because
    you know that your opinions are borne of emotion and anti-government
    prejudice rather than fact, and because you lack the capacity to
    counter even the most rudimentary challenge to your opinions. You're
    just another loudmouth with strong opinions based on vapor.
    
     Fellow boxers, welcome Fred Flintstone.
393.1907WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Jun 05 1997 19:141
    BTW, Ogre, have you read ANY of the trial transcripts?
393.1908SX4GTO::OLSONDBTC Palo AltoThu Jun 05 1997 19:149
    > SCOTUS already ruled that virtually any search of a weapons business
    > is "reasonable".
    
    .1848 doesn't describe a 'weapons' business, more like a surplus store.
    
    but camping out on the doorstep to record the customers isn't a search,
    it's harassment.
    
    DougO
393.1909CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsThu Jun 05 1997 19:1414
    Did the feds also stake out the Ryder place?  What about the McDonald's
    he was spotted at?  Any of the gas stations he may have purchased fuel
    from?  This sounds like an abuse of power not unlike the Jewell lynch
    job they performed after the Atlanta bombing.  
    
    IMO, they should have done all they could have to advertise the fact
    the Feds were watching.  Serve them coffee throughout the day.  Have
    pizza delivered to the car.  Put up a sign in the street indicating 
    reserved parking for federal surveilance teams.  Place a call to
    another local number, leave the phonw off the hook and play and endless
    loop tape of Barney songs.  
    
    It may have been a lawful stakeout but They could have made it
    uncomfortable for them to be there.  
393.1910and also deliberate ....BRITE::FYFEWhat's his name ...Thu Jun 05 1997 19:2818
 >   but camping out on the doorstep to record the customers isn't a search,
 >   it's harassment.
  
  Yes. How "unfortunate"....


 > This sounds like an abuse of power not unlike the Jewell lynch
 > job they performed after the Atlanta bombing.  

 Also "unfortunate" ....


 Oh, and the entrapment of the fellow on Ruby Ridge 

 Again, "unfortunate"


 Doug.
393.1911ACISS1::BATTISSoapbox spelling champion 1997Thu Jun 05 1997 19:427
    
    eric, while civilians were killed in the bombings, so were many of
    Iraqs soldiers. If they had not invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't have
    had to bomb them. We told them to get back into Iraq, they refused.
    
    One shouldn't mess with the U.S. military, not the best idea in the
    world.
393.1912some concept SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZAre you from away?Thu Jun 05 1997 19:5021
<-<<.1904 
    
>    No.  Not even a little bit.  Do you have any concept at all of the
>    source for the phrase "crossing the Rubicon"?

 It seemed apropos (sp?) that Herr Binder would ask this question :-)

 If my memory serves me correctly, Caesar was barred from bringing his
 legions into Rome (or whatever the Rubicon was the border for).

 When he did, he was rebeling(sp) against the (then) current government.

 Am I close enough?

 I was under the belief that it is against the law for members of the armed 
 forces to be used against American citizens.

 So if it becomes okay for U.S. armed forces to shoot and kill its citizens....
 it seems like there may be a parallel here. 

kb
393.1913RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 19:5214
    Re .1911:
    
    > eric, while civilians were killed in the bombings, so were many of
    > Iraqs soldiers. If they had not invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't have
    > had to bomb them. We told them to get back into Iraq, they refused.
    >
    > One shouldn't mess with the U.S. military, not the best idea in the
    > world.
    
    Mark, while civilians were killed in the bombings, so were many federal
    officers and agents.  If they had not invaded Waco, McVeigh would not
    have had to bomb them.
    
    One shouldn't mess with U.S. citizens, not the best idea in the world.
393.1914POLAR::RICHARDSONMilk carton candidateThu Jun 05 1997 19:551
    {quivering in my Canadian boots}
393.1915he raises one conundrum, to be sure...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Jun 05 1997 20:0331
  Well, it would be news to the (former) confederates that all those
 yankees were lawbreakers...

  By the way, edp DOES raise an important point when he suggests that
 my proposed response (roughly, fry mcveigh) may not deter other terrorists.

  After all, they caught the NYC World Trade Center terrorists.  But somebody
 set off a bomb at the Olympics.  It's unrealistic to suppose that ANY
 response to the OKC bomb will prevent such events in the future.

  This argument, that punishments don't actually deter anybody, seems to
 be true, unfortunately.  The perps are fanatics and don't care, they don't
 even know what the punishments are, they're dumb enough to think they'll
 get away, and sometimes they get lucky, and some bleeding heart on the
 jury gets them off, or the prosecution commits some gaffe that sets them
 free in our complex jurisprudence.

  I certainly don't believe any method of rehabilitating Timmy exists.
 I'll leave that one for the left.

  So this raises the question, "Why punish anybody ?"  I have my own
 answer, but I'm sure nobody will find it satisfying.  I think that the
 punishments are not really about the criminals at all - they are about
 the non-criminals, and their perception of justice.  By punishing the
 now mostly irrelevant McVeigh, we do the best we can to achieve closure
 for the survivors, and their kin, and the ruined community that got
 terrorized.  That is why, in cases of this kind of gross crime, I like
 the death penalty.  Its finality is good.

  bb
393.1916NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 20:0467
Apologist bollocks.

There is precious little rationalisation of or justification for
the murder and maiming of innocent bystanders to make a
political point about some tyranny, either real or imagined.  
Particularly when he cowardly crumb of dog-dirt has the luxury of
living in a free and open society.   Justification for the IRA, ANC,
or Palestinian groups I can understand.  Justification for Islamic
fundies in the case of the NY bombing is a lot harder to come by, but
not impossible given the amount of Western meddling.  Justification
for the likes of Mcveigh can only be architected from lies, paranoia
and from the excesses that arise out of being fat, dumb, and happy.

Most acts of terrorism are committed by disenfranchised, displaced
peoples who are at the mercy of a government that was imposed upon
them and treats them unjustly.  They did not have the luxuries of ballot
box and a free press.  They could not form political parties, until they
had won those rights by force of arms. That doesn't mean that I agree
even remotely with their heinous methods. I can simply recognise that
they had few alternatives. 

McVeigh has absolutely no such justification, either personally or 
stemming out of membership of a large disenfranchised group (except
in his limited imagination). He has never bothered to exercise few of his
peaceful options, unless you count "handing out leaflets at Waco".  But
then, where, oh where,  were McVeigh and his ilk on the occasions that
the hated gumment stooges were beating up or killing black Americans?
If they are so keen on redressing all such wrongs, shouldn't they have
been at least handing out leaflets outside the court when Rodney King's
assailants were being acquitted?  

No such luck.  He picks an incident involving a group that has the same
looney fringe beliefs with which he identifies.  Not that there's
anything wrong with being on the looney fringe.  Go lock yourself up 
in your compound and have a blast.  Just keep the blast well within
the compound.  

Waco turned ugly as was was bound to happen sooner or later.  However,
in the mind of Mcveigh, it's somehow equivalent to that bunch of
farmers standing shoulder-to-shoulder at Lexington.   There's no way
Waco gave a hanger-on like McVeigh the "justification" to go straight
to waging war against the people of this country, and their legitimate
and democratically elected government.  He wasn't protecting any rights,
he was attacking both those rights and the people in the absurd hope of
fomenting rebellion.  A rebellion that HE hoped would realise HIS
dreams of imposing HIS  interpretation of what the country should be
like.   You can guess at some of the features of 'USA My veigh' based
on his hightly specific selection of worthy causes.  You won't find guys
like McVeigh speaking out for Debs,  helping MLK hand out leaflets, or
riding the segregated buses in protest.

It's just incomprehensible to me that the casual murder of children
can be offered up as justification in this case.  And not just children.
One of the McVeigh's murdered victims lost a son-in-law in the Gulf war -
some poor guy who fought alongside McVeigh.  (Leaving a poor woman without
a husband and a father, and one little kid without a father and a
grandfather. I have to wonder how, exactly, does this serve to avenge
the people at Waco and free other suppressed Americans.) Some of his
other victims were US vets who had fought for the very freedom that
this pathetic, gutless, little worm enjoyed.

There's only one thing that puzzles me. If they all hate it here so
much why don't they fork off somewhere else.  There are no guards on
the exits.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1917LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 20:083
    
    oh, the injustice at waco.  how unfortunate.
    
393.1918BUSY::SLABAudiophiles do it 'til it hertz!Thu Jun 05 1997 20:1010
    
    	From .1:
    
    	Did they ever catch these guys?  Or what came of it ... nothing?
    
    
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an all-points bulletin for
    three suspects seen fleeing the area in a rented brown pickup truck,
    including two described as appearing to be of Middle Eastern origin.
    
393.1919RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 20:1336
    Re .1916:
    
    > Particularly when the cowardly crumb of dog-dirt has the luxury of
    > living in a free and open society.
    
    How can you call the United States a free society when it puts more of
    its citizens in jail than any other country on the planet?
    
    And you fail to recognize that it does not matter if _most_ of society
    is free.  When the government wrongs people, those people will get
    angry, even if most other citizens are not wronged, or are only
    irritated.  The more people the government wrongs, the more enemies the
    government creates.
    
    > They did not have the luxuries of ballot box and a free press.  They
    > could not form political parties, . . .
    
    In a recent decision, the Supreme Court wrote that states have a right
    to protect the two-party system -- effectively disenfranchising third
    parties and their members.
    
    >  Waco turned ugly as was was bound to happen sooner or later.
    
    No, it was not bound to happen.  The events there were precipitated by
    an overzealous government.
    
    > There are no guards on the exits.
    
    Yes, there are.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1920RUSURE::EDPAlways mount a scratch monkey.Thu Jun 05 1997 20:1824
    Re .1915:
    
    > So this raises the question, "Why punish anybody ?"
    
    The proper way to punish people is from the moral high ground.  If the
    government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example. 
    A government that honors freedom and punishes people proportionately
    for transgressions will be respected.  But a government that calls
    disfavored religions "cults" and sets draconian penalties for minor
    crimes and creates so many complex laws that no citizen can understand
    them will earn distrust.
    
    It is futile for the distrusted government to punish transgressors
    because the populace no longer has faith in the rightness of the
    punishment.  But a government that remains on the moral high ground
    will reap the benefits.  Its punishments will be trusted, and they will
    teach people right and wrong.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
393.1921HOTLNE::BURTthe psychiatrist is inThu Jun 05 1997 20:23108
(for dear mr. levesque)


let's see, 1st said: (in .1820)

+the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions will now 
+reside in history books [mind you, _not_ text books].
+
+ogre.

for as long as i've been reading soapbox, i've gathered that sheeple referred to
the multitudes of Americansd being led blindly down thwe wrong paths due to 
political stronghold, no? if that's not the case, then my assertion above is 
wrong.

part 2 of the statement eludes to the position that the majority of Americans 
are driven emotionally over this incident as it happened on American soil and 
where would anyone find a jury that wouldn't be sitting in on the case not 
filled with emotion after sitting arounf for so long being pumped by the media, 
etc.?

kay? i really didn't think that needed to be spelt out, but some folks...

next: mr. levesque asks:

+WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj"                           4 lines   5-JUN-1997 08:50
+                          -< don't pussyfoot around >-
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+    >the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions
+    
+     Are you saying that you do not think McVeigh bombed the building?
+    Speak up, speak clearly, and say exactly what you mean. 
+

to which i reply:

++Note 393.1894                      OKC bombing                      1894 of 1910
++HOTLNE::BURT "the psychiatrist is in"                18 lines   5-JUN-1997 14:44
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++              <<< Note 393.1822 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
++                          -< don't pussyfoot around >-
++
++    >the sheeple have been fed and the verdict derived solely on emotions
++    
++     Are you saying that you do not think McVeigh bombed the building?
++    Speak up, speak clearly, and say exactly what you mean. 
++
+
+is there enough evidence between .1822 and .1882 [or further in case i haven't 
+read them all yet] to extrapolate how my opinion could be spread out through the
+rest of america, to include the jurorists?  
+
+regardless of whether i believe tm bombed the building or not, he has not been
+100% involved, without a doubt, enough for me to find guilty; i want proof and 
+not any amount of circumstantial evidence, tainted or not.
+
+ogre.

from my 1 para, i offer the above mentioned extraploation to fit into answer 
here, also: after sitting and investigating for yrs with media hoopla and all,
where would you find a group of Americans that don't have some sort of emotional
reservations/responsibility in this case?

2ndly, you ask me if i didn't believe TM bombed the bldg or not; to which i 
answered that my belief of him doing it or not doesn't matter 'cause 
[reiterating and paraphrasing at same time] there isn't enough 100% evidence 
that points the fuse at TM [if any at all].  is that any clearer????

and then [sigh...]

(i'll paraphrase but can point to the topic [.1896]) you want me to tell you my 
feelings? feel this. i'm not one of your touchy feely feel-good type of people 
and what does my feelings have to do with this case?
[from .1896]

+    What does that mean? Do you or do you not believe that the prosecution
+    proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tim McVeigh committed the crimes
+    with which he was charged? Why or why not?

didn't i say prior to and including here again, that there wasn't enough 
evidence presented to me that would point exactly at TM; was that too hard to 
comprehend?
+    
+>    i want proof and not any amount of circumstantial evidence, tainted or not.
+    
+    What proof do you feel the government was missing?

and then i backlashed and dr duh continued with his usual evasiveness himself 
[of which i was accused] and the the soap cast was introduced to fred 
flintstone.

and he ask me:
================================================================================
Note 393.1907                      OKC bombing                      1907 of 1910
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj"                            1 line   5-JUN-1997 15:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BTW, Ogre, have you read ANY of the trial transcripts?

to which i point to his own question from .1896

+    What proof do you feel the government was missing?

yes, i've read some of the transcipts, not all [yet], but enough.


ball's in your court,

ogre.
393.1922LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 20:376
    .1916
    
    thank you, colin, for summing up the situation
    most eloquently.
    
    
393.1923BRITE::FYFEHow 'unfortunate'Thu Jun 05 1997 20:412
Did someone try to justify TM actions?
393.1924BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Thu Jun 05 1997 20:543
    .1620:
    
    Yeah, what he said.
393.1925SBUOA::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundThu Jun 05 1997 21:003
    Couple of replies here remind me of the men I described in .361
    
    Why am I not surprised?
393.1926NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 21:0228
.1919

It has taken a couple of thousand years to get democracy from
its Greek origin to its present form in the USA, where it has
evolved for a couple of hundred years.  A hundred or so years
into that democracy you waged a huge and bloody war between
yourselves, and failed to emerge with a perfect, or even better
system.

Not until 1920 did women get the vote, although they
somehow managed to refrain from blowing up children in order to
attain that goal.  Still the system was not perfect.

A mere thirty years ago the majority still denied it to a large
chunk of your population solely on the colour of their skin, and
killed and maimed them for being uppity enough to ask for it.
yet that 17% of the population showed massive solidarity
and demonstrated peacably and legally in the face of violence and
intimidation.

There is not yet a perfect system anywhere in the world.
What makes you think that you're going to get it in your lifetime
and by anything other than participation?




[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1927LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 21:083
    
    a complete lack of historical perspective, perhaps?
    
393.1928SBUOA::GUILLERMOBut the world still goes round and roundThu Jun 05 1997 21:1514
    >A mere thirty years ago the majority still denied it to a large
    >chunk of your population solely on the colour of their skin, and
    >killed and maimed them for being uppity enough to ask for it.
    >yet that 17% of the population showed massive solidarity
    >and demonstrated peacably and legally in the face of violence and
    >intimidation.
    
    That was only one front though. Don't forget those who even *looked*
    like they would address their issues with violence (i.e. the Black
    Panthers). I think the combination was responsible.
    
    But the understanding available in some quarters would not countenance
    the same under similar conditions.
    
393.1929NNTPD::&quot;walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com&quot;Thu Jun 05 1997 21:2611
I have a vague memory that one of the black power
groups was the target of a waco-like attack by the
police.  No doubt an event that caused massive
outcry on the part of the guardians of freedom and
liberty.




[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
393.1930SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Thu Jun 05 1997 21:2813
    .1912
    
    Excellent.  I misinterpreted what you were saying.
    
    But it wasn't illegal for Roman soldiers to be used on Roman citizens -
    it was only illegal for Roman armies to be brought into Rome.  The
    Rubicon was the geographical boundary that was established.  Roman
    armies could be, and were, used against Roman citizens in the
    provinces.
    
    Actually, the Romans extended that prohibition a little further.  It
    was illegal for a general who held command of an army to enter the city
    of Rome, as bounded by the Servian Wall.
393.1931LANDO::OLIVER_Blooking for deep meaningThu Jun 05 1997 21:324
    
    oh, they literally took to the streets.  massive
    protests, massive.
    
393.1932WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjFri Jun 06 1997 12:5750
>part 2 of the statement eludes to the position that the majority of Americans 
>are driven emotionally over this incident as it happened on American soil and 
>where would anyone find a jury that wouldn't be sitting in on the case not 
>filled with emotion after sitting arounf for so long being pumped by the media, 
>etc.?
    
     I could judge this case and be objective. I don't see any reason why
    it would not be possible to seat a dozen people who could be objective.
    
     What I find most objectionable about your comment is the "derived
    solely from emotion" quip. That means that the verdict was not based on
    any evidence, but only on emotion. I find such a comment to be patently
    unfair to the jury. That is why I've pressed you about WHY you've made
    that comment. You are accusing the jury of having abandoned their
    responsibility to arrive at a just and fair result based on the
    evidence. You have maligned their integrity. It is only natural that
    you are challenged on such a bold assertion.
    
>2ndly, you ask me if i didn't believe TM bombed the bldg or not; to which i 
>answered that my belief of him doing it or not doesn't matter 'cause 
>[reiterating and paraphrasing at same time] there isn't enough 100% evidence 
>that points the fuse at TM [if any at all].  is that any clearer????
    
     Again you equivocate. Your position is that the government's case had
    insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilty to the charges.
    Again I ask you, "What evidence are they missing?" The government's
    streamlined case included an awful lot of evidence. What didn't they
    have that would be sufficient to sway you?
    
>(i'll paraphrase but can point to the topic [.1896]) you want me to tell you my 
>feelings? feel this. i'm not one of your touchy feely feel-good type of people 
>and what does my feelings have to do with this case?
    
     Ok, so you're Mr. Objective. Well, Mr. Objective, I'm trying to get a
    handle on how it is that you concluded that the government failed to
    prove its case, and why you believe that the jury ignored the evidence
    to arrive at this verdict. Give me some specifics. Merely saying that
    there wasn't enough "100% evidence" to convict doesn't make it so. I
    expect you to back up your claims with some offer of proof, with some
    litany of facts, with any substance whatsoever. So far you have
    resisted doing so, and instead have attacked me and accused me of being
    stupid.
    
>ball's in your court,
    
     Hardly. With all the strutting, squawking and flapping of wings in
    which you have engaged, you haven't even come close to getting off the
    ground.
    
     You made the accusation, now prove your case. If you can.
393.1933FUTURE::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Jun 06 1997 13:197
   .1916  Wow.





393.1934CSC32::M_EVANSdancing lightly on the edgeFri Jun 06 1997 13:2221
    This is scary,
    
    I find myself agreeing with edp.  A "free" nation shouldn't need to
    lock up so many of its citizens.  
    
    The "collateral" damage of destroying the livelihood of a couple, is
    not an example of a free country.  It is an example of government
    sponsored terrorism against members of society who aren't breaking
    laws, but associate with people who are on the fringe.  Read the first
    few chapters of "The Gulag Archipelago" for an example of another
    country that did this sort of crap.  Tell me you really want to emulate
    them with "If you have nothing to hide, don't worry," asttitudes.
    
    Lock McVeigh up permanently.  It avoids making him the martyr du jour
    for the next right-wing whacko who needs an excuse to destroy lives and
    buildings.  Of course, then you are likely to have kidnappings and
    hijackings by same whackos demanding McVeigh's release. 
    
    I really am getting cynical in my middle age.  
    
    meg
393.1935SUBSYS::NEUMYERHere's your signFri Jun 06 1997 13:2710
    
     re. 1934
    
    >I find myself agreeing with edp.  A "free" nation shouldn't need to
    >lock up so many of its citizens.  
    
    
    	Even if there are legitimate crimes being committed?
    
    ed
393.1936APACHE::KEITHDr. Deuce(s)Fri Jun 06 1997 13:3215
    Meg:
    
    You and I don't agree on many things, but you have no idea how glad I am
    to see that you see the problem with Valerie and George!
    
    I actually suspected that you would feel this was as your views on the
    WOD are well known and I am leaning in that direction more and more.
    
    Personally, I believe that due to the forfeiture (sp) laws based upon
    the WOD, free speech has probably ended. What is to prevent someone
    from showing up with a search warrant and 'finding' something (i.e
    planted by them) in your abode and taking it away from you. If they
    have no problem doing this to George and Valerie...
    
    Steve
393.1937CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsFri Jun 06 1997 13:323
    Crime is a relative term.  Any normally harmless activity can be 
    labelled a crime and many have with penalties not comensurate with the
    "crime" involved.  See also the W.O.D. 
393.1938the tooth fairy again...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri Jun 06 1997 13:3427
  "the moral high ground".  It may surprise edp, but the officers at
 Waco thought they were on it.  People do NOT agree where the moral
 high ground is, nor is this difference a result of ignorance or failure
 to think things through.  It's due to the tenuous nature of morality
 itself.  If we agreed abound some basic axioms, there might be some
 basis for a generally recognized morality.  But we as a people agree
 on no basic axioms, so there isn't, and never will be.  In fact, there
 are many amongst us, particularly the horrid multiculturalists, who think
 it's just peachy that we cannot agree where the high moral ground is.
 And there are others who deny its existence.

  And anyway, the contention that if the government took some different
 stance, terrorism would be averted and people would obey laws they
 disagree with, is a pollyanna fairy tale.  If you put, say, Manson,
 McVeigh, Salvi, Koresh, the Unabomber, and the Muslim NYC World Trade
 Center fanatics in the same compound, they'd bomb and terrorize EACH
 OTHER.  There is no moral ground our society could conceivably occupy
 that would satisfy all these jerks, even in a madhouse.

  We are left with a phenomenon like volcanoes or earthquakes, and all
 we can do is clean up the messes as best we can, throwing the carcasses
 of the vermin like McVeigh on the rubbish pile and getting on with
 our lives.  I wonder if the sentence even matters.  I suspect, if he
 gets life, it will be as short as Salvi's.  Looks like a rope case to me.

  bb
393.1939BULEAN::BANKSAre you correct or happy?Fri Jun 06 1997 13:5933
Crime.

Yeah, I'm on the verge of becoming a criminal, just because of my hobby.

One of the reasons we lock so many people up is that we make so many things
illegal.

This business with the couple's life being ruined is totally believable,
and totally reprehensible.  It follows years of similar travesties, such as
the fallout from the War on Hackers (ref: those who were broken into at
gunpoint, had their computers confiscated (often permanently), and never
charged with any crimes), the War on Drugs (ref: gardening supplies
distributors having their customer records siezed, and customers getting
unexpected visits from suits implying that a search warrant was only a
phone call away), and Zero Tolerance (ref: The State of XX against Joe's
really big wad of C-Notes).

We make it illegal to tune our old TV sets to channel 80.  We make it
illegal for me to own a little bent piece of metal with a flimsy wire
spring on it (despite the fact that it has absolutely no use to me). People
go really overboard and outlaw squirt gun sales in the state of MA (ref:
Supersoaker).  And above all (and this is the point that wackos like
McVeigh go way overboard with), we make it illegal to defend ourselves.  I
mean, guns I can sorta understand outlawing (although I don't agree with
it), but outlawing pepper spray?  Yes, in some places, you can't carry
that.

One by one, we erode our bill of rights under the name of security, and we
all know the quote about trading liberty for security.

McVeigh should be locked up, preferably in solitary confinement, for the
rest of his (I hope very long) life for being the mass murder that he is. 
This is not justification for the government ruining other peoples' lives.
393.1940This can be so confusing ....BRITE::FYFEHow 'unfortunate'Fri Jun 06 1997 14:1116
>This business with the couple's life being ruined is totally believable,
>and totally reprehensible.

 You are clearly mistaken. It is only "unfortunate" that it can and does happen
 and it should be expected if not embraced, by the masses.

>One by one, we erode our bill of rights under the name of security, and we
>all know the quote about trading liberty for security.

 Once again, you must be mistaken. We've already been told its all about
 GUNS ...


 NOT!

 Doug.