At a siege using military equipment, that lasted for month's being broadcast on the national airwaves. Wow, what responsible behavior that is.
--where do you come up with this stuff? Second, Clark's unit was one of several at Fort Hood that provided support for the civil law enforcement agencies at Waco--why do you think he had some special role? The military support provided by the Army at Waco was in accordance with Posse Comitatus and applicable laws--it has been investigated exhaustively to include by people who are no friends of the military and there is no evidence of military wrongdoing--because there wasn't any!
I see, the flashbangs marched over the WACO and fired themselves off. I've got it now.
As for following orders, soldiers are obligated to follow legal orders just as they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. The orders were correct and legal, irrespective of whether or not donh liked them or not.
Legal orders killed the jews in the ovens at Auschwitz.
Write your congressman & change the law if you don't like it. Don't fault the U.S. Army for following it.
Everyone has a conscience, and a duty to exercise it at all times--not just congresscritters. I think most ordinary people can tell that it's kinda wrong to ventilate a building full of children and fill it with flammable gas when a fire is about to be set off. Or is that just me?
And again, on the National Guard, you profoundly misunderstand its role. The U.S. Army CANNOT call it up at its own volition, as you say.
That is an irrelevant point. It the fact of federalization that levers my argument--whether the army can call reserves up directly, or has to get some other federal entity to do it, it is still a federal standing army on domestic soil.
There are separate and distinct chains of command and it would not matter if the Chief of Staff of the Army showed up in person at the Waco Armory and ordered the National Guard commander to take his tanks, tear gas and a basic load of matches to link-up with Wes Clark at the Koresh compound to receive his Branch Davidian genocide instructions. The Chief of Staff of the Army has no authority to do so and the National Guard troop has no obligation to follow those orders or any others issued by an Active Army officer. The National Guard commander's boss--at least then--was Ann Richards.
It was provisionally Ann Richards, at any time, at federal whim, it could have been federalized. If, for example, the Texas Rangers had asked them to intervene and throw the lawless brigands of the FBI out, before they murdered any more Texas citizens, for example.
The Army did not have operational involvement, so whatever you say based on that premise is nothing other than your fevered imaginings.
Besides making no sense, your once again exhibit your seemingly impregnable ignorance about the differences between the National Guard and the Regular Army.
YOU: I see, the flashbangs marched over the WACO and fired themselves off. I've got it now.
Don, your posts are filled with combinations of false premises, generalized comments, and unsupported assertions. Let me help you. To counter an argument which says that the Army followed the law, to include Posse Comitatus, and that there is no evidence of military wrongdoing, you should cite something the Army did wrong, the law that was violated, and your evidence for that violation. A reference to self-detonating, marching pyrotechnics is not a counter-argument.