Exactly. When federalized, such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.
The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,
So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do. What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?
The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.
The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling. You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument. So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?
You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".
I'm sure any response will be just as factual and logical as your previous posts.
Exactly. When federalized,
To a lawyer, maybe. Not to a grieving mother. If my child is killed by a bullet the army, in any manner, bought, paid for housed, and shipped, and advised on the deployment of, I really don't give a tinker's poop whether it was "federalized" at the exact moment it was fired.
such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.
This is legalistic BS, put in place to avoid addressing the embarassing fact that a Guard that is substantially paid for with federal funds, & can be deployed at any time by "federalizing" it, isn't the state's militia the constitution allowed for at all. If the army pays for a substantial part of it, and can control it at will, it is the army. And a standing army on domestic soil is not provided for in the Constitution.
.The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,
So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do.
Right. And the FBI only came in because the DEA requested help. So the FBI must be off the hook as well, right? In fact--isn't the DEA press secretary that scheduled the initial attack the only blameworthy party here?
What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?
No. What they should do, especially if they are smart guys like Clark, is understand that this is a weasily way of skirting around the intent of Posse Cometatas and exercise adult levels of care about servicing such requests.
.The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.
The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling.
Oh, give it a rest. The 7th was little big horn, a direct result of the action at Sand Creek, and more than a little connected, historically, with the militia at Sand Creek. This is an argument, not a history test. You cannot make an argument for the defense by grouching about my rhetorical bombasts.
You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument.
You don't have an argument, so you substitute caviling at any rhetorical irrelevancies you can desperately grasp at.
So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?
Wes Clark, a very smart guy, was in command of the unit that supplied help to WACO--a many month's long siege of US citizens on domestic soil using tanks high caliber ammo, and flashbang grenades, broadcast over the airwaves on national television. Even a hedgehog could have figured this one out, and no amount of legalistic weaseling can change that.
You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".
What a hot air merchant. For Wes Clark not to be aware of what was being done with his equipment with such a public display, day after day, going on over the public airwaves, is beyond credibility. It is, in fact, patent, apparent, absurd BS. Wes Clark was the commander, and the buck stops at Wes Clark's desk.