Lessons of Waco: Proposed Changes in Federal Law Enforcement

Front Cover
DIANE Publishing, Jan 1, 1993 - 752 pages
0 Reviews
Describes events during the stand-off from Feb. 28 to April 19, 1993, at Waco, Texas, between law enforcement agents & David Koresh & the Branch Davidians. Includes a brief history of the Branch Davidian sect; day-by-day chronology of the stand-of; documents & evidence developed during the investigation; evaluation of the handling of the Branch Davidian Stand-Off; report to the Deputy Attorney general on the events at Waco, Texas; lessons of Waco: proposed changes in federal law enforcement; & recommendations of experts for improvements in Federal law enforcement after Waco.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

I
1
II
3
III
5
IV
6
V
8
VI
10
VII
14
VIII
15
XI
24
XII
26
XIII
28
XIV
30
XV
32
XVI
42
XVII
45
XIX
56

IX
21
X
22
XX
58

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 61 - Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference.
Page 36 - It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
Page 38 - The question whether speech is, or is not, protected by the First Amendment often depends on the content of the speech. Thus, the line between permissible advocacy and impermissible incitation to crime or violence depends, not merely on the setting in which the speech occurs, but also on exactly what the speaker had to say.
Page 34 - ... issues. The most powerful attack on the bill would be that the selective exemption it creates is based on the content of speech, and that content-based regulation is subject to careful judicial scrutiny, which the bill could not survive. This attack is, however, unpcrsuasive in light of the fact that S.
Page 37 - ... of the media voluntarily agreed not to publish or broadcast inflammatory material. Behavior of this general sort has of course occurred throughout our history. Whether or not such behavior is commendable, one...
Page 36 - ... be no constitutional objection. The Supreme Court has never indicated that the government is under an affirmative obligation to ensure a "free market
Page 38 - ... pressure distributors to remove particular items that it dislikes. Indeed, the FCC has no role to play here. A full factual record showed that the Rhode Island system had coercive effects. There is only speculative, and no such record here. Under the Simon bill that served as predecessor to S. 539, there is no evidence of government pressure, and little or no evidence of serious adverse effects on the broadcasting market At this stage. Bantam Books is a far stronger case for invalidation than...
Page 36 - Court has never indicated that the government is under an affirmative obligation to ensure a "free market" in speech. Ou the other hand, it is quite possible that a governmental decision to permit collusion and monopoly in the broadcast industry would raise serious constitutional questions. Under current law. the matter is not free from doubt. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC. 395 US 367 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the fairness doctrine in...
Page 38 - ... been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions — the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation — the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable
Page 62 - The antitrust laws shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, review, action or agreement by or among persons in the television industry for the purpose of, and limited to, developing and disseminating voluntary guidelines designed to alleviate the negative impact of violence in telecast material. (d) Limitations. (1) The exemption provided in subsection (c) shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, review, action or agreement which results in a boycott of any person.

Bibliographic information