Janet Reno Is No Hero
A new biography by Judith Hicks Stiehm ignores Janet Reno's many failures as attorney general.

Janet Reno: A Life, by Judith Hicks Stiehm, University Press of Florida, 224 pages, $35
In April 24, 2000, a day after Easter and two days after she sent 130 federal agents to storm Miami's Little Havana neighborhood, Attorney General Janet Reno received reverential treatment on NBC's Today show. "One of the things that is so very important," Reno declared, "is that the force was not used. It was a show of force that prevented people from getting hurt."
This was news to the people who had been brutalized by federal agents, including two NBC cameramen left writhing in pain from a stomach kick or a rifle butt to the head. Reno had authorized a massive no-knock raid to seize 6-year-old Elián González and send him back to Cuba, even though the court battles regarding his fate were ongoing. Her attempt to portray the federal assault as the equivalent of a Girl Scout cookie delivery was debunked by an Associated Press photo of a Border Patrol agent pointing his submachine gun toward the terrified boy being held by the fisherman who had rescued him from the Atlantic Ocean.
Reno counted on maximum media deference for her "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" shtick. She brushed off the photo: "If you look at it carefully, it shows that the gun was pointed to the side and that the finger was not on the trigger." Admittedly, the muzzle of the gun was not in the boy's mouth. But that Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun sprays 800 rounds a minute, and the agent didn't even have both hands on the weapon.
The aftermath of the González raid epitomized Janet Reno's career. The Washington Post praised her for ensuring that not all journalists would be beaten during the raid, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in a piece headlined "Reno for President," declared that the machine-gun photo "warmed my heart." But Cuban Americans never forgot Reno's lies, and their fierce opposition torpedoed her 2002 Florida gubernatorial campaign.
***
You'll find almost nothing about Reno's failures and frauds in Judith Hicks Stiehm's new biography, Janet Reno: A Life. What is the point of sending a 200-page love letter to a dead politician? That is just one of many questions that Stiehm, a retired professor of political science, fails to answer in a book whose style sometimes resembles Fun with Dick and Jane. Her biography is the last place to seek the truth on one of America's most blood-stained attorneys general.
For Stiehm and much of the media, the fact that Janet Reno was a progressive and the first female attorney general absolved all her failures and abuses of power. Such pandering will be the death of civil liberties.
Stiehm endlessly reminds readers that "Reno's first commitment was to truth" (italics in original). This is a Mount Sinai biography, treating whatever Janet Reno said as the word of God.
For Reno, government was always the avenging savior. She saw public employees as a Brahmin class: In 1995, she told federal law enforcement officers, "You are part of a government that has given its people more freedom…than any other government in the history of the world." Thank you, Masters! In a 1996 speech to government prosecutors, she declared, "All of you public lawyers are but little lower than the angels, and I salute you."
Since government officials were practically angels, there was no need to hinder their public service by compelling them to obey the law.
Reno's most vivid abuse of power occurred 36 days into her reign as U.S. attorney general, after she approved an FBI tanks-and-toxic-gas assault on the Branch Davidians besieged near Waco, Texas.
On February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms launched an unprovoked attack on the Davidians' sprawling wooden home. Four agents and seven Davidians were killed in the gunfire. The FBI was then sent in to bring the Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, to heel.
Stiehm's discussion of Waco could have been written by the FBI press office. But her perspective was widely shared inside the Beltway, where almost no one gave a damn at the time about the innocent civilians killed on April 19, 1993. That contempt was epitomized by the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia creating a Janet Reno Torchbearer Award.
Reno approved the bureau's final assault after she was told that Koresh was abusing babies. She later claimed that she could not remember which FBI official suckered her with that false claim. Reno portrayed the assault as nonviolent, but the official plan called for collapsing the entire building atop the Davidians if they refused to come out. Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles had collapsed more than 20 percent of the building before a fire broke out, likely killing many people inside.
Reno approved pumping the Davidians' home full of toxic CS gas—gas the U.S. government had just pledged, in the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, never to use against enemy soldiers. (The treaty still allowed governments to use it on their own people.) Prior to approving the attack, the FBI notified Reno that the impact of the CS gas on "infants and children cannot be ignored because gas masks are not available for infants and younger children." Chemist George Uhlig later testified to Congress that the FBI gas attack probably "suffocated the children early on."
Before the fire, the FBI had thrown flash-bang explosives—which have started many fires during police raids—at Davidians attempting to exit the building. The FBI also fired pyrotechnic devices at the Davidians before the fire erupted. Once the fire started, FBI agents blocked local fire trucks from dousing the flames. The assault ended with 80 dead men, women, and children.
In the aftermath of the fire, the Los Angeles Times hailed Reno as a "folk hero" and The Washington Post said she had "superstar status." She achieved this by pretending to take responsibility for the outcome as she vehemently blamed it all on David Koresh. Reno exploited her newfound popularity to orchestrate a cover-up so sweeping that even the press started to object: A New York Times editorial denounced the "Waco whitewash."
Reno faced few questions on Waco until House Republicans held hearings in mid-1995. When Rep. John Mica (R–Fla.) presented Reno with a gas mask to illustrate that it could not have fit children, Reno casually tossed the mask on the floor and announced that "it's not very helpful, in terms of trying to understand what happened there, to just show gas masks."
Reno previously described the CS gas as a mere "irritant." When asked why she approved the use of 54-ton combat vehicles to assail the Davidians, Reno replied that these were "not military weapons….I mean, it was like a good rent-a-car." The media mostly ignored that howler, instead heaping praise on Reno's demeanor for standing up to Republicans that day.
***
The charred corpses of April 1993 didn't matter to such people because Reno's devotion to children was beyond dispute—at least according to official scorekeepers. She had risen to national prominence as a crusader against child abuse, thus securing her selection as attorney general.
Yet it was one of those child abuse cases that provoked what is practically Stiehm's only critical comment on Reno. In the Country Walk case, Stiehm writes, "there was a possibility that she had been part of an unjust conclusion."
A "possibility"? Starting in 1984, Reno—at that point the state attorney in Dade County—prosecuted a husband and wife who ran a preschool, relying on ludicrous testimony about chants to Satan and about snakes and guns put into vaginas. Reno relied on the novel "Miami Method," in which therapists endlessly interviewed kids to gin up evidence for prosecution. PBS' Frontline slammed Reno in 2002 for mercilessly coercing a false confession, withholding exculpatory evidence, and exploiting children in a charade that boosted her reelection.
In fact, Reno's child abuse frauds had been exposed even before she became attorney general. On March 3, 1993, Debbie Nathan, writing in the Miami New Times, revealed how the Country Walk prosecution was "fueled by opportunism, zealotry, and highly unusual behavior" by Reno. Here's how Nathan summarized the case: "An election was near. Janet Reno was going to send someone to jail. No matter what."
Stiehm writes that Reno's "consistent, ethical conduct reinforce[s] what a good civics class teaches students: that one can successfully engage in the political while remaining both human and honest." Actually, Reno's greatest achievement was to teach Americans that there isn't much justice in the Justice Department. But never trust the professors, pundits, and other official scorekeepers to admit that truth.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's one horrible, ugly guy.
Yeah, but why use a photo of Glen Campbell?
I knew that photo looked familiar. I just couldn't put my finger on who it was. Thank you for figuring that out.
You mean one ugly they/them
Oh, the case of Elian Gonzalez. I remember that one. Where government agents had to use force to return an illegal immigrant trespasser back to his shithole country.
It was a case of a (D) president with a totalitarian attorney general using excessively overwhelming government force. The boy’s father was in Cuba, wanting to stay in Cuba, and his mother had drowned while attempting to reach Florida. Iirc, Reno’s goons assaulted and battered some NBC reporters there covering the developing situation.
Jeff is desperate to try to make the 100% Dem criticism into a criticism of the right some how. He isnt a leftist, but he never criticizes the left.
Jeff is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Fair.
True story.
Definitely not inaccurate.
I’m surprised he didn’t somehow shoehorn some narrative about having the kid raised by gay trannies, or other groomer bullshit too.
excessively overwhelming government force.
You mean like shooting penniless Guatemalans at the border? What countless border restrictionists around here advocate that the military do routinely?
Reno’s goons assaulted and battered some NBC reporters there covering the developing situation.
Sounds like you should be pleased with this outcome.
"You mean like shooting penniless Guatemalans at the border?"
You've become your own parody.
Mexicans shooting Guatemalans in Mexico? I do know the current US president, Joe Biden (D), drone strike murdered eight children and an aid worker in Afghanistan during his botched evacuation of the failed occupation that he voted for as senator then helped oversee for eight years as vice president. I think he should be extradited to Kabul for trial.
Countless? Is that the majority of the people here or do you have challenges getting past three?
Do you have cites for your assertion I was pleased that the thugs of Reno (D) reportedly got physical with the press or is this you trying to wish things into existence?
Mexicans shooting Guatemalans in Mexico?
No, numbnutz. I’m talking about commenters here who jack off to the thought of the US military shooting unarmed migrants in the desert because they think they are TEH INVADERZ.
And isn’t the media “the enemy of the people”? Why aren’t you pleased that “the enemy of the people” got a bit of ‘rough justice’?
You have a cite that commenters here masturbate to the scenario you have created?
That day the media was certainly the enemy of the then attorney general who was a member of the Democratic Party. They got assaulted and battered by Reno’s goons.
I’m a libertarian and practice the NAP. I desire others to do so as well. There are cases such as this under Clinton (D) and those dead, innocent kids and aid worker under Biden (D) where that didn’t occur. I can still hear the words from secretary of state Albright (D) telling a reporter that sanctions on Iraq that resulted in an estimated 500,000 dead children was worth it.
"You have a cite that commenters here masturbate to the scenario you have created?"
He masturbates to Democratic Party scenarios so why wouldn't his enemies do the same?
The lengths of idiotic deflection you will go to to pettifog any criticism of Leftist Democrats is indeed astounding
It should also be noted she admitted, despite black letter law forbidding it, to creating a gun registry with the National Instant Background Check (NIBC). Congress was notified by a whistleblower and convened hearings to ask Reno about it.
The law mandated records from NIBC be purged within 24 hours of approving a sale/transfer to go through. Reno claimed the Department of "Justice" was keeping those records for "auditing" (DOJ) purposes. It was pointed out there was no "auditing" exception in the law and creating a registry was expressly forbidden - meaning the DOJ was in violation of the law. Reno very arrogantly doubled down. The cowardly Republicans did not issue articles of impeachment despite the brazen violation of the law. Compared to the body count she was responsible for this civil rights infringement was comparitively minor but it perfectly illustrated her contempt for the law.
Elian Gonzalez and the Waco massacre/cover up further demonstrated what a corrupt and bloodthirsty monster she was. G. Gordon Liddy nicknamed her "Ol' Gas 'Em and Burn 'Em" z a most appropriate moniker if ever there was one!
Yeah she was a total piece of shit.
The (D) president in question had an abiding hatred of Cuban exiles dating back to when he was governor of Arkansas. During the Mariel Boatlift of 1980 some of the Cuban refugees were temporarily relocated to Arkansas. Riots broke out and the governor's response was both feckless and incompetent. Voters, witnessing his incompetence, showed him the door in 1982.
That governor blamed his loss on "those people" and harbored that grudge throughout his presidency. Elian Gozalez was rescued Thanksgiving Day 1998 by a fisherman (Donato Darymple) out in the Straits of Florida. He was the sole survivor of that escape to freedom. The courts placed him in the custody of some relatives he had in Miami. When this hit the news wires it became a cause celebre for Castro and his syncophants in the US.
Elian's father was sent on a propaganda tour to the US demanding the return of his son (he was, of course, escorted by KGB trained Cuban DGI agents. To make sure he towed the party line, Castro held the Cuban family hostage (no chance of a defection or giving up custody).
The President and First Lady, still holding their grudge against Cuban exiles (and being Castro sympathizers), wanted the situation to go away. Whilst it was wending its way through the courts the White House and Reno went judge shopping. They found one who was willing to issue a warrant and it was on!
The goon squad showed up, violently assaulted everyone who was in the area (not just reporters) without justification or provocation, and kidnapped Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint. (Subsequent lawsuits for the assaults and beatings were dismissed under qualified immunity). Being in the area was enough to warrant being pepper sprayed, smacked across the face with a rifle butt, etc.
Congress bloviated and wrung their hands in the aftermath. They held hearings. Reno sanctimoniously and arrogantly dared Congress to do anything about it. The cowards they were, they did nothing. (Cutting the budgets of the Border Patrol and INS by 50% would've been an effective attention getter and communicated disapproval in the only language the buraeucracy understands)!
Jeffy, once again, you completely twist what was going on and lie about it. There’s a reason everyone here calls you “Lying Jeffy”. This is Exhibit A.
This, as Chumby explained, was purely a custody battle between the father, who wanted to remain in Cuba, and the relatives in the US. It should've remained a custody battle to be fought in the courts. Janet Reno, in her infinite wisdom with the Clinton Administration, stuck their big fat nose in where it didn't belong.
Perhaps Jeff is jealous of whoever got custody of the boy.
Oh I see. So biting sarcasm is only okay if it is directed at me. When it's directed at your tribe, then it's "lying". Got it.
Biting sarcasm is okay if it is directed at you because you're a disingenuous troll and a Nazi piece of shit.
Dude, you wouldn't know how to do proper sarcasm even if it ripped your moobs off.
It's only sarcasm now because it is biting you in the ass you leftist cunt. As presented it was an honest attack on your part on those you see as political enemies.
Oh it absolutely was an attack on the border restrictionist crowd with insane ideas like trying to deport all the illegal immigrants. The sarcasm bit was the intentional misrepresentation of Elian Gonzalez's plight to make the point.
At the time Cubans had a special immigration status. It was the dry foot, wet foot policy. If the coast guard intercepted them in the ocean they were returned to Cuba. If they managed landfall they were allowed to stay. The boy had family in the US and was staying with them. By the law of the time he was a legal immigrant.
My recollection is that fisherman picked up the young Gonzales while he was still in the water and handed him over to the USCG prior to reaching land.
Either way, once he got to land he got the special exemption.
But once the family courts got involved they would default to family reunification so returning him to his father's custody would be correct. Doing a raid to do so was not correct but it was Reno's style of overcompensation.
Was that a law or one of those executive order things?
My understanding of the then policy and this situation is that the USCG picked up Elian while still in “wet foot” status, which per policy obligated them to return him to Cuba. The USCG instead brought Elian to the US for medical care (he was hanging onto debris after the boat had capsized when fishermen had discovered him). An audible was called. The boy’s father in Cuba complained to Castro, who called for Elian’s return. The AG for Clinton (D), Janet Reno, sicced her armed thugs on the relative who was housing the boy after his release from medical care.
As for “wet foot, dry foot” it appears to be a Clinton admin change in policy based on talks with Cuba. Not sure if the legislative branch had a say.
It was always some non legislative deal. I think it was an executive order going back to JFK or LBJ. Meant to be a compromise on Cubans being they were by default escaping a communist dictatorship. I think Obama officially ended it. I'd have to do more research on it than I'd remember to do and it really doesn't matter.
Yup, exactly the same, you ignorant cunt.
Ah, the forced repatriation of an actual refugee. Totally not surprised by your opinion on this one.
Jeff is all "economic migrantz R the real refugees", until it's a kid who's mom died escaping one of his communist utopias.
I wonder if Jeff would have sent Jews back to Auschwitz like FDR?
I'm sure he'd be cool with it today. "From the river to the sea!!"
Johnny Cash had a few lyrics dedicated to this horrible Clinton (D) administration dude.
She was trans before being trans was cool.
She wasn't trans. She was merely a woman so ugly in mind, body, and soul that turning lesbian was the only way to get laid. Wouldn't be surprised if she munched on The Hitlery's carpet.
Reno was only the third or fourth choice for Attorney General. Bill Clinton wanted a female AG at all costs, but his first nominee had knowingly hired an illegal alien as her children's nanny. His next choice, same problem. It seemed that in 1993, the only way a prominent Democratic attorney could be in compliance with immigration law was to be childless.
Reno fit that requirement, whether it was because she was 100% lesbian, she wouldn't settle for any man who was desperate enough to have sex with her, or because a baby that found itself in her womb would have strangled itself with the umbilical cord.
This is why you can’t have chicks in charge.
As if Reno was a chick.
Third-stage feminist.
Why does that tead like a stage of cancer?
Back when SNL was funny.
https://youtu.be/PbepeU6tfAA?si=eBrSq-3xAHleQB18
You know who caused the show to take a hard progressive turn?
You guessed it, Frank Stallone.
How'd he do that?
It was a bit Norm Macdonald did when he did the Weekend Update on SNL:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ult5gXKLGgM&pp=ygUbWW91IGd1ZXNzIGl0IGZyYW5rIHN0YWxsb25l
SNL made fun of her appearance while also portraying her as an awkward crusading superhero
Janet Reno was a jack booted thug. Evil to the core and was guided neither by the letter or spirit of the law.
This guy gets it. I came to say pretty much the same thing.
Agreed. Hence, why she is one of the patron saints of State Worshippers everywhere.
But she meant well.
Did she have any mean tweets? Thought not.
"A new biography by Judith Hicks Stiehm ignores Janet Reno's many failures as attorney general."
Sorta like Biden; did she have any successes? Outside of 'taking responsibility' and avoiding any costs.
"But that Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun sprays 800 rounds a minute, and the agent didn't even have both hands on the weapon."
Tell me you don't know anything about guns without saying you don't know anything about guns.
Next you'll be calling it a tank.
Oh, and Reno is wrong - the finger is on the trigger and the gun is pointed at the father.
I saw that photo when it was first shown in a newspaper with the caption "the gun is not aimed at Elian". It was clearly aimed at the man holding Elian. The press was just as dishonest then, as it is now. That squad of thugs should have been sent to Cuba, not the young boy who, for Castro, was a political stunt to portray Cuba as a place where families are sacred.
"Sacred families"? Who knew that Castro was a champion of white privilege.
I'd like to see an MP5 with an 800-round magazine.
If it doesn't have belt feed it's not a real gun.
Does that count for bores larger than 2 inches?
The article didn't say it had an 800 round magazine. It has a cycle rate of around 800 rounds per minute (it'll empty a 30 round magazine in less than 3 seconds).
"When asked why she approved the use of 54-ton combat vehicles to assail the Davidians, "
They used combat engineering vehicles. Not combat vehicles.
Different things.
Oh, well, that makes murdering the children OK.
If that’s your takeaway from what I wrote . . .
My "takeaway" is that it's irrelevant what kind of vehicles they were.
Uhm, 12B, combat engineers are considered a combat arms MOS (unlike the other 12 series MOS) ergo, their vehicles are combat vehicles, as they are designed for combat operations. The lack of guns doesn't preclude them from being combat vehicles, as their primary mission is breaching enemy fortifications, e.g. an offensive combat operation.
Or as like any 12B will tell you, a 12 B is just an 11B with explosives.
The combat engineering vehicles were used to punch through walls and pump large quantities of tear gas into the building. The tear gas used for this is rated only for outdoors use, since it can easily reach suffocating concentrations in an enclosed space, but they were using it indoors, and pumping it from tanks rather than using the limited quantity that fits in tear gas shells.
It's also flammable. When it reached the lanterns or candles the Branch Davidians were using for light (which the FBI knew), it burst into flame and set fire to the entire building - unless it had already been ignited by the other munitions the FBI was firing at the building.
Finally, the children were in an underground bunker. I don't know if the FBI planners knew this, but it was easy to guess that a paranoid cult would have built a bunker, and that they would send their children to this, their safest place, when the final battle seemed near. Tear gas is heavier than air, so it probably reached a lethal concentration in the bunker, then it burned and partly incinerated the bodies.
It wasn't a bunker, it was a tornado shelter. They were in Waco. Just like the building wasn't a compound, it was a plywood and drywall house.
They use terms like bunker and compound to make you think that attacking it like a military target is legit when the truth is that it was a big house full of people with a tornado shelter.
Lying fucks manipulating language to justify their murderous ways.
I remember in that Era the running joke was anyone who didn't like government lived in a compound. The media called everything owned by right of center people a compound. We were shocked that they didn't call the armored bulldozer some pissed off guy used to go on a rampage wasn't called a mobile compound.
Imagine Reno during COVID.
The unvaccinated would have been rounded up and burned alive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12817047/Donald-Trump-BIG-government-conservative-Republicans-fear-GOP-favorite-pledged-probe-MSNBC-launch-free-national-university-build-freedom-cities-flying-cars.html
Donald Trump will be BIG government conservative, Republicans fear: GOP favorite has pledged to probe MSNBC, launch a free national university and build 'freedom cities' with flying cars
Stupid Reason. True libertarians support Trump, despise liberty, and love big government.
Poor sarc.
It will be okay. Don't worry. They are funding the neocon candidate, so youre in a good position.
By your rules if you support a candidate then you support everything they do, which means you want big government and despise liberty. Own it.
Considering your stances on trade and immigration, you've already owned up to hating liberty. I would think Trump saying he's going to go after news outlets you don't like would make you weak in the knees. We all know you can't wait for Trump to start imprisoning reporters who say unflattering things about the man.
LIke they do in Europe? The Europe you think we should be more like?
There is a lot of stupid in your post. Which do you want me to address.
"Stupid Reason. True libertarians support Trump, despise liberty, and love big government."
Does this shitty troll mean you're back on the bottle? Because I've been holding back and giving you a chance.
I was wondering why you'd been civil lately. I figured someone had changed your medication.
Yup, back on the bottle.
I suspect this is why he is so angry towards me the last few days as I was certain he wouldn’t be on the wagon but a few weeks.
Breaking addictions requires work and behavioral changes. Neither if which is in his tool kit.
If Trump is gonna be big government, then why are you afraid of him? He's going to do exactly the sort of things you want done.
Reason: Best thing about Trump? Freedom cities with electric flying cars, mandated, but cheaply available because they're built in Sudan.
Janet Reno was one of many progressive authoritarians in the Clinton admin that helped drive me away from the donkey party, and I ain’t going back.
“I ain’t going back voluntarily.”
Fixed that for you. They’ll make sure you’re back one way or another, either after sending you to reeducation camp, or when your corpse is mailing in multiple ballots.
Same here. I, to my everlasting shame, actually voted for Clinton in '92. By the time his reign of terror was over I was done with the Democrats. Not that the Republicans that followed were any better. But since then I've been content voting for Libertarians. Until 2020.
Waco and Ruby Ridge earlier (as I grew up only a couple hours from Bonners Ferry, ID and could see the difference between how the local media and the national news covered the story) was when I really started questioning our government and especially our federal police agencies. I was in High School when both occurred.
"They're abusing kids in there? I won't stand for that! Burn the whole building to the ground!"
"But what about the kids?"
"Fuck'em!"
Are you saying Janet Reno is Buttplug?
Weirdest part was, apparently, Koresh jogged daily on the same route.
None of it was remotely needed.
And the county sheriff (which was never consulted before the operation) stated, he often came into town, unarmed, and could have been peacefully arrested at any time.
Bbbut that wouldn't have given "Blood 'n' Guts" Reno a chance to show she could be a Big Tough Guy even though she technically has female parts.
If she'd been running things in 2014 during the Cliven Bundy standoff she'd have blown up half of Nevada.
Reno wasn't in charge when the affair started. Bill Clinton was still searching for a prominent female Democrat lawyer who didn't illegally hire an illegal alien as a nanny, and hadn't gone as far down the list as Reno when the ATF decided that instead of knocking on the door with a warrant in the daytime, they'd sneak around at night and shoot the dogs. The Branch Davidians reacted just like normal Texans would to dog-shooting prowlers - although it seems clear that they did know these were federal agents.
So Reno hadn't even settled into her office when she was confronted with dead federal agents as well as dead Branch Davidians, and a tightly knit religious sect under siege. A better person might have pulled the fed cops back while investigating how they'd got into that situation. As far as I can tell, the ATF lied on the warrant application, claiming the strongly anti-drug Branch Davidians were drug dealers so they could amass more paramilitary force; the planners should have been charged with a felony for that lie, and with felony murder for the federal agents that died as a result. It would have the Branch Davidians more inclined to talk.
Instead, she doubled down on failure, allowing the FBI to aggressively work on further alienating the Branch Davidians, and then plan an attack that - unless you assume total incompetence - seems to have been intended to keep the Branch Davidians pinned inside while they set the building on fire.
But better people are never appointed AG. As far as I can tell, sociopathy has been a job requirement at least since Nixon's AG Mitchell.
The whole thing was a setup by the Feds. They framed him on a phony gun charge and they could have picked him up at any time. He wasn't hiding out. Instead they sent in a small army. The first thing they did was shoot all of the dogs that were inside the fence. That was the gunfire that the Davidians were reacting to.
Yes, all of this. It was a pathetic show of force warning anyone else not to fuck with the Almighty Government.
And nothing else happened, showing that their tactics at intimidating American's were ultimately successful.
It showed that if you claim you are burning the house down because they are involved in the drug trade the right will sit down and do nothing in response.
Too true. The BATF had gotten a black eye over Ruby Ridge and there were rumblings the agency was going to be disbanded by Congress. They needed to demonstrate they were necessary and launched "Operation Showtime" (yes, that's what the Waco operation was called!) as a result.
They showed Congress how indispensible they are. They wrote the book on mass murder, cover ups, false imprisonment, etc.
Ignoring her neck-deep ties to the insane "child molestation" scandals in the 1980's?
That was even worse than Elian.
Loathsome woman who never even feigned regret.
When was the last time any statist regressive ever shown regret?
Only when they regret they didn't fascist harder.
They can't. Look at the regimes that impress "child soldiers". They ensure they participate in the most heinous things imaginable so there are no clean hands and they can't be denounced by their comrades. Clinton protected Reno after Waco so she couldn't defy his wishes because he had the goods on her...
The last 5 paragraphs of this story went over that.
By far her worst act. After this came out, most of the convictions were thrown out.
“A new biography by Judith Hicks Stiehm ignores Janet Reno’s many failures as attorney general.”
Failures huh? I would have said "crimes".
They're crimes if the peasants do them. If the overlords do it and get caught, they're failures...
Reno presided over the gas and burn mass murder of the Branch Davidians. She gets accolades, keeps her job, and gets to oppress the population for nearly a decade.
Timothy McVeigh blows up a building and kills 167 people in response to Janet Reno's actions. He is rightly vilified and executed for it.
Whatever happened to murder is murder, no matter who is committing it?
Thank you Mr. Bovard. You've always been a voice for small government, Liberty and Truth to Power.
Janet Reno should have died in a federal prison.
Her penis would have made her popular there.
Janet Reno identified as a woman. That mean she is beyond criticism and can do no wrong. It is known.
But clearly she was no trained biologist, so how could she claim that?
With regards to Elian, what did Janet Reno do that the Trumpist border restrictionists don't routinely advocate for?
Elian didn’t have the correct papers to be here. Therefore he was an illegal immigrant INVADER. Right?
His legal status here was, at best, murky. But since when has the border restrictionist crowd been overly concerned with matters of due process when it comes to undocumented migrants? Look at how much they cheered for Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, even though it flouted international treaties. Look at how often they assume that migrants who come here claiming asylum have invalid claims because they crossed a “safe third country”, even though that determination is up to courts to make, not them and not border agents. FFS some of you want the military to gun down unarmed migrants at the border, treating them as if they were no different than enemy invading solders. Corpses don’t have due process.
Janet Reno was an authoritarian monster who should have kept far away from the levers of power. And the Trumpist border restrictionist crowd with their insane demands to deport 10 million illegals – each one as potentially wrenching as Elian’s case – and build and man a 3,000-mile wall and shoot unarmed women and children at the border, want to emulate that monstrosity by several orders of magnitude.
So fuck Janet Reno, and fuck the authoritarian monsters on the right who want to copy her methods and who only criticize her now because she had a (D) after her name.
Look at how much they cheered for Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, even though it flouted international treaties.
Individualists for global governance!
Look at how often they assume that migrants who come here claiming asylum have invalid claims because they crossed a “safe third country”, even though that determination is up to courts to make, not them and not border agents.
Maps exist. Finding out where people come from is very easy.
Individualists for global governance!
How about, libertarians in favor of a government keeping the promises that it makes when it signs a treaty?
Maps exist. Finding out where people come from is very easy.
It's the safe part in "safe third country" that is in dispute.
How about, libertarians in favor of a government keeping the promises that it makes when it signs a treaty?
Continuity of policy is incompatible with free and fair elections. By definition.
It’s the safe part in “safe third country” that is in dispute.
Mexico is a massive country.
Continuity of policy is incompatible with free and fair elections. By definition.
Empirically false. Continuity of policy is incompatible with direct democracy, but we don't have that and for good reason.
My guy, you started this thread complaining about the freely and fairly elected Trump upending policy.
It’s the safe part in “safe third country” that is in dispute.
The question isn't whether it is "safe" as in "safe from crime" or "safe from starvation". The only thing that matters for refugee status is whether refugees are "safe from political persecution" in Mexico, and they clearly are.
The only thing that matters for refugee status is whether refugees are “safe from political persecution” in Mexico, and they clearly are.
That's not the legal standard. That is just a standard that you made up to justify the result that you want, which is to keep them out.
There is an entire legal doctrine associated with the "safe third country" rule. You can begin your education by reading this:
https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55e22
A few points to mention:
1. The asylum applicant has the right to challenge a decision to deny asylum based on the 'safe third country' rule. That's the due process part. The part that you and your team seem eager to deny to these migrants requesting asylum.
2. Whether or not a country is a 'safe third country' is established by legislation. There is currently no 'safe third country' agreement between the US and Mexico. So if Biden (or any president) were to simply declare that the migrants should be denied asylum because Mexico is a "safe third country", that president would be exceeding his authority to do so. And you wouldn't want that, would you? Would you?
Yes, that is the legal standard according to your own document (p.10):
life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion
Note that “safe from crime” and “safe from starvation” are not on that list.
How about, libertarians in favor of a government keeping the promises that it makes when it signs a treaty?
Treaties can be unilaterally abrogated. If the treaty does not specify penalties, or there is no authority to enforce such penalties, such an abrogation has no consequences. This is really no different from any other contract.
The only reason little people like you can’t get out of most of the contracts you sign, Chemjeff, is because the only contracts you get are ones that are both binding and enforceable. That’s a reflection of you low socioeconomic status, not of how contracts or treaties work.
Treaties can indeed be unilaterally abrogated. But then they need to be abrogated, rather than have the government just kind of pointedly ignore them.
Much like with laws, which need to be repealed, rather than just ignored vaguely.
There is a formal process for the US to withdraw from the 1951 refugee convention and 1967 protocols. The government hasn't done so.
Are you advocating that the government should ignore treaties that it doesn't like?
There is a formal process for the US to withdraw from the 1951 refugee convention and 1967 protocols. The government hasn’t done so.
It doesn’t have to since the people entering the US illegally are clearly not refugees according to those protocols. The US has no obligations to these people under the protocols.
Neither the 1951 nor the 1967 protocols were ever ratified as treaties by the US Congress. This means that even if the US wanted to violate those protocols, it could do so without even violating any treaty since no such treaty was ever ratified by the US.
What the US did instead is to pass legislation in 1980 that codified refugee status into US immigration law. Like the protocols, US law grants refugee status only on account of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. If you don’t fall into one of those categories, you cannot legally be a refugee in the US. There is no wiggle room for the executive branch.
Furthermore, if you are not admissible into the US under other immigration categories, you are not admissible as a refugee; this includes people who have lied to immigration authorities, deliberately falsified/destroyed identity documents, cannot be identified, have committed crimes, are sick, etc. That excludes pretty much all “asylum seekers” who pass illegally across the southern border even if they could claim membership in one of the groups admissible as refugees.
Basically, Biden is in gross violation of US immigration and refugee law.
Are you advocating that the government should ignore treaties that it doesn’t like?
There are two separate issues: international relations and legality within the US.
For international relations, it is polite to notify partners of the withdrawal from treaties or international agreements, that’s all.
Legally, within the US, if it is an actual treaty (i.e., ratified by Congress), then the executive branch can’t just ignore it. If it is merely an international agreement made by the executive branch but was never ratified, the executive branch can usually just drop it.
But, again, the conventions on refugees aren’t treaties and they don’t say what you think they say, so these issues are moot. Legally, the president is bound by the 1980 US law on refugees, and it is clear that Biden is illegally exceeding his authority and granting refugee status in violation of US law.
INK ON A PAGE!!!
Contracts are enforceable by courts, which can call on all the powers of law enforcement to enforce their decisions. There is no authority above the nations that make a treaty with the capacity of enforcing a decision.
Fuck off you marxist cunt. The same can be said for all the other countries they passed through that were not expressly dangerous in the way they were fleeing. But you're all for economic adventurism and extracting from US taxpayers to pay off the world.
Safe isn't in dispute in relative terms and most certainly not the US if we listen to leftists hyperventilating about the US committing genocide and hunting minorities.
Deciding who can or can't enter a country is part of what defines a nation as sovereign. Prior to 1914 there were little or no restrictions on who could come to the United States. Around the start of WWI restrictions started being imposed because there were a lot of bad things coming out of Europe (communism, anarchism, etc.) and the US didn't want to import Europe's problems. Policy changed and potential immigrants had to show they weren't criminals, hsd skills preventing them from becoming a public charge, and provided a net benefit to the nation. This all changed in 1965 when the welfare state expanded and immigration laws were changed. Taxpayers have every right to complain about the current state of affairs. They're footing the bill and everyone's standard of living is being reduced.
Elian was peacefully trespassing and not wearing a mask. Reno (D), the attorney general for Clinton (D), was well within her authority to go in with the Democratic Party administration’s task force and extract him with the extreme tactics that were used.
Some people can't bring themselves to question a Democrat until, what, 30 years after the fact?
And even then, at least one of the two people you mention are dead so...a bit late for questions there.
Don't worry, I'm sure a few claims of 'Clinton might as well have been a Republican!' can fix that.
After all, Trump himself is a 90's Democrat that ran as a Republican. All that really says is that Democrats are way further to the left than they have been in living memory.
Elian didn’t have the correct papers to be here. Therefore he was an illegal immigrant INVADER. Right?
False. Cuba is a totalitarian communist regime, comparable to North Korea. Therefore, we give people from Cuba refugee status. Furthermore, the US shares a (maritime) border with Cuba and is within 90 miles, therefore, Elian did not pass through any safe third country to get here. Elian was therefore a legitimate refugee from Cuba.
And the Trumpist border restrictionist crowd with their insane demands to deport 10 million illegals – each one as potentially wrenching as Elian’s case
Those 10 million illegals are not refugees from totalitarian communist regimes, and they passed through multiple safe third countries before coming to the US illegally. Therefore, they are not legitimate refugees. However "wrenching" their deportation may be, they only have themselves to blame for it.
Let's get down to brass tacks. Biden tipped his hand last year when he specifically told Cubans not to take to the sea to come to the US. They will be returned. However, illegals who come via Mexico are released into the interior of the country, are eligible for welfare, etc. Could it be Biden doesn't want Cubans because the are anti-communist and tend to become Republicans? Could it be he wants to import future Democrats by plying them with the welfare state and creating permanent majority of dependent statists?
Elian didn’t have the correct papers to be here. Therefore he was an illegal immigrant INVADER. Right?
He was taken in by right wing republican cubans who support Ron DeSantis (who's literally worse than Trump). That's a military-style deportation that even 90s center left Democrats can get behind.
The kid was escaping a communist dictatorship and under policies left over from when Democrats were anti communist instead of pro communist he had a special immigration status. The people at our southern border with Mexico don't have the same special status thus their entry is under different rules.
Want to make them have a special status? Get a majority of the house and senate to pass a law granting them special status and then they won't be illegals anymore.
Good luck on that.
"Such pandering will be the death of civil liberties."
Sorry, but no ... media pandering to political darlings will not be the death of civil liberties. What will be the death of what's left of civil liberties will be that increasing numbers of American citizens will stop INSISTING on keeping their civil liberties. There is only ONE way, ultimately, for citizens to insist. If Americans fail to insist, power-loving politicians will eventually claim the last of our rights. They have essentially unlimited time, determination and resources to wear us down. They have been doing it so gradually that there have been very few times when there has been any push-back at all. But I suspect that they are very close to crossing the line that will finally trigger the tipping point.
Well, burning down a church and killing the adherents for exercising their Constitutional rights probably qualifies as the death of civil liberties all by itself.
But the media told us that they were molesting children and making those children manufacture the illegal drug that had the right scared shitless in that Era. So the right bent over and stopped complaining. Because, drugs.
I'll take "Things that should go without saying" for 200, Alex.
It would take a truly special career to be a worse AG than Ramsey Clark but this despicable pig did it with flying colors. I hope she is roasting for eternity.
In April 24, 2000,
On, not in. I hope the donations allow for Reason to hire an editor this year.
Janet Reno's mishandling of the "Yahweh ben Yahweh" cult in Miami allowed that group to get away with repeated murders. That might have been part of her animus against the Davidians. Of course, the "Yahweh ben Yahweh" cult was black (like the "Black Muslims," but pseudo-Jewish instead of pseudo-Islamic) and was seen as a calming influence in the ghetto.
We had this firsthand long ago
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/cultural-revolutions/on-janet-reno/
" will above all be remembered for her role in the horrific US federal assault against the Branch Davidian religious cult in April 1993, at a cost of more than 80 lives, including those of 21 children."