Oklahoman
Published in Washington, D.C.

09/01/1999

WHAT NOW, MS. RENO?
By Editorial

FOR years the federal government denied responsibility for starting the horrific fire that ended the 1993 standoff with Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas. Specifically, officials denied incendiary tear gas devices were shot into the Davidians' camp.

Last week Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an internal investigation after FBI officials admitted pyrotechnic tear gas grenades were used against the Davidians. Reno's concern is justified, but amid indications of lying and a possible government cover-up, an internal probe has little chance of achieving credibility.

The rapidly spreading fire consumed the Davidians' camp. Cult leader David Koresh and 86 followers, 24 of them children, perished. The FBI says it used pyrotechnics hours before the fire started but maintains the devices didn't cause the conflagration.

Tuesday, the Dallas Morning News reported that a federal prosecutor in Waco sent a letter to Reno alerting her that elements in her department may have withheld evidence about the use of pyrotechnics -- a key issue in a pending wrongful death suit filed by surviving Branch Davidians and families of the victims.

Evidence is a five-year-old memo detailing after-action interviews with members of the FBI's hostage rescue team. The document bore handwritten notes in the margin suggesting the memo be kept from anyone outside the Justice Department's legal staff.

"The credibility of the federal agents was extremely important to the government's case in many issues, not just this," Tim Evans, a lawyer for one of the surviving Branch Davidians, told the Morning News. "Their lies have infected this case like maggots. Yet incredibly they still want us to pick out the maggots and swallow the rest of their story. I think America is about to choke."

Indeed, the government's hands are not clean in this case, and Reno should have realized that her department shouldn't be investigating its own conduct. © Oklahoman, Inc.

By Lawrence Criner
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Monday, September 20, 1999

Former Senator John Danforth (R-Mo.) has been appointed fireman to put out the flames that continue to burn over the
Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas.

That may be hard to do.

What if the official record was cooked to obscure the truth of what happened at Waco? What if agents were explicitly told
not to generate the standard reports required by law so that a paper trail of their actions wouldn't come back and later bite
them?

Documents show this happened, which explains why new evidence continues to surface that suggests there's a lot more to the
Waco-story than originally believed.

As Danforth begins his inquiry, he might want to look at the public record, specifically Tim Evans' testimony on July 21, 1995
before the joint House Subcommittees on Crime and National Security that conducted the last hearings on Waco. Evans'
statement goes into those ''dark questions'' at the heart of Danforth's investigation.

Evans is a Texas defense attorney who cleared British citizen, Norman Allison, of false charges that he conspired to murder
federal agents in Waco on the morning of the botched raid.

At the Waco hearings Evans furnished sensitive government memoranda that showed prosecutors had instructed federal
investigators not to generate any unfavorable material about ''what went wrong'' that might make them the subject in an
inquest.

Contrary to basic law enforcement procedure, not one of the ATF agents at Waco made a written report of his observations
or conduct during the February 28, 1993 raid, according to Evans.

Robert M. McNamara at ATF headquarters suggests why in an interoffice memorandum dated April 14, 1993. He writes,
''DOJ does not want Treasury to conduct any interviews or have discussions with any of the participants, who may be
potential witnesses; the prosecutors do not want us to generate additional Jencks, Brady or Gigolo material or oral statements
which could be used for impeachment.'' In other words, prosecutors don't want a damaging record of the agents' activities at
Waco that they'd have to give to defense attorneys.

A memo from Ron Noble, then Assistant Secretary for Enforcement at the Department of Treasury, dated April 9, 1993 also
indicates pressure on Treasury from the Department of Justice. He writes, ''Web Hubbell, Associate Attorney General
(Designate), is so concerned about the potential impact of our review...that he plan[s] to raise it directly with the
President...[I]f we don't throw some `bone' to the Justice Department...this may exacerbate Hubbell's concerns.''

Just what the White House's role was in Waco has never been clearly determined. One thing is certain, Clinton confidant
Vince Foster died thinking he was responsible for what happened, his wife reported.

Another memorandum from Sarah Elizabeth Jones also at the Department of Treasury refers to the decision not to make
routine reports about the initial raid. It states, ''ATF initiates a shooting review. David Troy and Bill Wood interview [agents]
Rodriguez and Mastin (3/1), Chojnacki (3/3), Cavanaugh (3/3), Sarabyn (3/2). Troy tells Review they immediately
determined that these stories did not add up. [Italics added](Note- Johnston at this point advised Hartnett to stop the ATF
shooting review because ATF was creating Brady material.)''

What federal officials are talking about is sanitizing the record so we'll only learn their version of Waco.

These memoranda not only raise serious questions of legality but they may explain why vital exculpatory material now
surfacing was hidden even from Congress.

At the time Evans revealed these disturbing documents, Department of Justice aides were in the congressional hearing room
passing out a curious press release from Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Jo Ann Harris who described
these deceptive practices as merely "Prosecution 101.'' Little wonder the whole story about Waco is still unknown.

It is inconceivable Janet Reno didn't know about all this -- if she didn't, who's in charge? Either way, she should resign to let
somebody else restore trustworthiness to her office.

No doubt more is to come out as the surviving Davidians have their day in court.

There was a plethora of ATF cameras on the morning of the raid. Many agents carried personal cameras; three agents in the
helicopters had video cameras. However, very little film has been produced of the raid or the ensuing standoff although many
investigators have requested it. When Evans asked for the tapes and photos, he was told there were none, and the only
explanation given was that the cameras must have malfunctioned. Then there's other missing evidence, too, such as the
compound's big metal front door that could prove if the ATF shot first. Somehow the other metal doors survived the fire, but
not this one.

Evans presented Congress with a ''list of half-truths, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods'' perpetrated by the ATF and
FBI ''throughout'' the debacle at Waco. What Evans uncovered in preparing for Allison's trial was a scheme to obstruct
justice by those sworn to protect us and uphold the law.

Unfortunately, his remarks at the time went largely unnoticed by the press who were quick to see other sides of the story and
by our elected representatives who were more interested in scoring political points than in finding out what really happened at
Waco.

Evans says the actions of law-enforcement before, during and after the tragedy at Waco cannot be assumed to be an isolated
aberration. Democracies must be ever mindful of government's never-ending grab for more unchecked power, fewer
restrictions, and broader statutes. Too often these result in ''law'' being handed out at the end of a nightstick or through the
barrel of a gun. Who protects us from police vigilantism?

In the end, the lesson of Waco is an old one: We must protect the rights of those at the fringe to make sure our rights are safe, too. Lawrence Criner (larryc@worldandimag.com) is a senior editor at the World & I magazine, a monthly publication of the Washington Times Corp.

Spinning the Holocaust - The Media In Denial Over Waco

By EDWARD ZEHR
Source: Washington Weekly
Published: Monday, September 20, 1999

Following a brief flurry of recrimination against officials of the federal government who lied to Congress and the public for
six years about the fact that pyrotechnic rounds had been used during the final assault upon the Branch Davidian compound
near Waco, the mainstream press have now fallen back to the position of spinning the story in such a way as to minimize its
impact.

Anyone who does not accept the new standard, revised version of the official "explanation" with an alacrity deemed
sufficient by the high priests of PC is pilloried as a "conspiracy theorist" who will never be convinced by ANYTHING the
government could say, no matter how airtight the logic or heartfelt the sincerity. In short, we fooled you once and now it is
your patriotic duty to hold yourself in readiness to be fooled yet again -- that's little enough to ask, is it not? After all, the
credibility of the government is at stake. (Not to mention the credulity of the public).

In addition to the obligatory epithets given in the glossary of the PC playbook -- conspiracy theorists, right wing-nuts, militia
members, hate groups, and full-mooners (a favorite of Fat-Jack Germond) -- the impression is pounded into the skulls of
the public that the little white lie of the FBI whereby it concealed from the public the fact that its agents fired pyrotechnic
tear gas grenades at the Davidians' tinder dry structure is the only point at issue in the current flap. In fact, it is invariably
and relentlessly emphasized that only two pyrotechnic grenades were fired, at a "concrete bunker," that they bounced off
harmlessly, and that this happened hours before the fire broke out in the compound. Never mind all the other evidence that
pyrotechnic devices were used on the main structure of the compound, that Delta Force personnel were there not merely as
observers and that they, in fact, fired at the Davidians. It just isn't nice to talk about these things. To do so is to risk being
characterized as one of the above.

How did Joseph Campbell describe the new, mass-man? "...the non-individual doll of living flesh, moved not from within
but by remote control and signal from without, like one of Pavlov's dogs." Pavlov, of course, was the commie behaviorist
who noted that properly conditioned dogs would salivate when the dinner gong was rung regardless of whether the food
was forthcoming. This was of some use to Comrade Stalin. BONG! Move over, Rover -- it's time for din-din.

Most, but not all, of the mainstream press are spinning the story to government specs. The newspapers in the state of Texas
mostly take a more realistic view of the matter. The local folk are not so easily fooled -- they already know a lot more of
the details than the average spectator. For example, the Houston Chronicle ran a story on September 7 in which it listed
some of the major disclosures of the preceding ten days. In addition to withholding information about the use of pyrotechnic
devices from Congress and the public, the FBI "lied in sworn statements when they said they had no infrared video of the
first four hours of the assault -- videos that possibly would show the use of pyrotechnics."

When civil rights attorney David Hardy filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit, FBI officials told the court that "they had no
recording of the radio traffic during the entire six-hour assault," wherein it would appear that they perjured themselves. This
was necessary in order to maintain the coverup since the Hostage Rescue Team had a voice recording that revealed FBI
agents violating Attorney General Janet Reno's putative order not to use pyrotechnic rounds against the Davidians. The FBI
had kept the tape squirreled away at the HRT headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, for the past six years.

Even more potentially damaging were allegations regarding the part played in the final assault on the Davidian compound by
the Army's elite Delta Force. The official version is that they were there only to observe, but Gene Cullen, a former CIA
special agent told the Dallas Morning News that Delta Force personnel had informed him that Delta commandos had
participated in combat operations during the assault. Cullen is said to have made even more explicit statements in
McNulty's new film. And now it appears that Cullen's allegation may be corroborated by another witness. Additional
revelations continued to pile up last week which, if verified, could blow the coverup right out of the water.

Cracking the Coverup

From 1996, when Hardy first filed his FOIA suit, federal officials played a game of bureaucratic keep-away, first telling him
that the Texas Rangers had the information he sought, then telling the Rangers not to give him access to it. The part the feds
didn't tell Hardy is that the Rangers did not control the information -- they did. So Hardy filed a state open records request
with the Rangers and was told that although the evidence was in their possession they had no authority to release it without
Justice Department approval.

Hardy explained that, "The circle was closed. The Justice Department controlled it but didn't have it. The Rangers had it but
didn't control it. They could bat you back and forth forever."

Which is exactly what they did during 1997 and 1998, bouncing Hardy around from "the U.S. attorney's office, the
Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the ATF," and then back to the Rangers again. Meanwhile Mike McNulty,
who was gathering information for his second film on the subject, Waco: A New Revelation, experienced the same folderol
from the feds. In frustration he turned to assistant U.S. attorney Bill Johnston in Waco, who had once been considered part
of the coverup. A defense attorney for one of the Davidians tried (and acquitted) for murdering a federal agent during the
initial assault on the compound obtained a BATF memo that alleged Johnston had ordered the investigation halted so as not
to uncover evidence that might be used by the Davidians lawyers in their defense.

Late in 1998 Johnston is said to have "had a change of heart." He agreed to give McNulty "limited access" to the Texas
Rangers evidence room in Austin and even went there in the company of the film maker on one of his four visits. The
Houston Chronicle noted that while Johnston would not give them an interview, one of the prosecutor's colleagues told
them that, although he had initially considered McNulty to be "some weirdo, conspiracy nut" Johnston "thought there was
no reason not to let him look at the material," the source said. "Back then (last November), there was no controversy."

McNulty was not allowed to copy anything, but he saw things in the evidence room that led him to contact Hardy, whose
work he had become familiar with. "He faxed me a list of evidence and asked if I would file an FOI request for them,"
Hardy told the Chronicle. Hardy filed another FOIA request and was given more of the runaround he had encountered
earlier. This time everybody denied having control of the evidence. Hardy then decided to play off the Rangers against the
feds writing them a letter in which he said, "I may be stating the obvious, but it appears the federal agencies may be setting
you up. DPS takes the flak for withholding the records -- they benefit -- but the moment the withholding is challenged, they
disavow any responsibility and pin the blame on you. In fact, the Marshal's answer hints that they don't have the foggiest
idea what you are talking about."

Hardy then enlisted the help of former Texas state senator Jerry Patterson who also became convinced that the Rangers
were being set up by the feds. He gave a heads-up to Gov. Bush's chief of staff who referred him to Jim Francis, the
chairman of the Department of Public Safety. It was Francis who ordered the Rangers to review the evidence in their
custody and then asked federal judge Walter Smith to seize all of the evidence relating to the Davidian case. Smith issued a
court order requiring federal agents to hand over all such evidence to the court.

Notice that, once more, the mainstream news media played absolutely no role whatever in cracking this government
coverup. As with Ruby Ridge, the Vince Foster case, TWA800, the Oklahoma City bombing, the botched investigation of
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's, death, the Kosovo "war" and Clinton administration scandals too numerous to
mention, the mainstream press have been content to play a completely passive role, rewriting government propaganda
handouts and avoiding questions that might embarrass the administration. The last laugh was had by Mr. Hardy. "It does
seem strange that a couple of unknown characters could finally get this out in the open," said he. Doesn't it, though. And
stranger yet is the fact that the combined forces of the great American mainstream press, with the enormous resources at
their disposal, have yet to crack a single government coverup under this administration. The most they ever seem to do is to
insult with puerile epithets those who have the temerity to do the job which they refuse to do.

Dick J. Reavis, the author of a book titled "The Ashes of Waco," calls the story "a major failure of the press in our
country." Dan Gifford, writing in the September 13 Washington Times mentions that it was McNulty's first film, "Waco: The
Rules of Engagement," that called attention to irregularities in the government's cover story -- the mainstream press, which
should have told the story six years ago, did not do its job.

And after all this time they're still not doing it, in fact many in the mainstream press seem to be doing their utmost to prevent
the story being told and to obscure the significance of revelations that have surfaced as the result of hard work done by
others outside the mainstream media.

But it was the left wing online publication Counterpunch, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, that made
some of the most stinging criticisms of the mainstream news-weasels' pathetic performance. Characterizing coverage of the
Waco story as "one of the great failures of American journalism," the Counterpunch article calls it "one of the most
sickening, one of the most predictable and one of the most revealing."

Even now, with the coverup disintegrating in front of them, the mainstream newsies continue in their chosen role of Waco
holocaust deniers. "Do they make confession that they bought a cover-up and tried to sell it to the American people, the
vast majority of whom steadfastly continued to believe that the government was lying and that an infamy had been
perpetrated?" asks Counterpunch. The article cites Ted Koppel's September 1 broadcast in which he commented upon the
seizure by federal marshals of the tapes in which FBI agents discuss the use of pyrotechnic grenades on the morning of the
final assault. Koppel is quoted:

"... the credibility of the FBI, which probably did tell the truth about most of what happened, that credibility is
badly damaged, while the credibility of conspiracy theorists, who tend to be wrong about most of what
they've spun together about Waco, their credibility is newly enhanced. It is on these two fronts that the
greatest damage has been done."

A new wave of revelations has already rendered Koppel's sage observations "inoperative." But never mind the official lies,
the charred remains, the damage done to the justice system; Koppel can only weep copious buckets of politically correct
tears over the fact that the "conspiracy theorists" are one-up on the "good-guy" government goons who perpetrated all that
carnage. Koppel gives high marks to the FBI for "probably" telling the truth about "most of what happened." Such
impossibly high standards: Do you solemnly swear that you will probably tell the truth, most of the truth, and no lies except
little white ones? "Conspiracy theorists" on the other hand are contemptuously dismissed with the observation that they
"tend to be wrong" about "most" of what they say regarding Waco. Tend to be? If Koppel knows them to be wrong about
something why doesn't he say so and tell us what it is instead of wallowing in weasel-words?

Counterpunch commented with brutal accuracy: "In this disgusting paragraph Koppel defines his career role as flack for
state power. For him the issue is not that an agency of government planned mass murder, just as the so-called conspiracy
nuts first surmised, then proved. For him the issue is the credibility of the state. For the liberal elite -- in whose ranks most
so-called conservatives can be numbered -- this is always the issue."

Not that Koppel is in any way unique in his reaction. The article goes on to quote CBS News Correspondent John
Blackstone: "'This is just fodder for the conspiracy theorists,' says psychologist Margaret Singer. She says this is just what
the militia movement needs to say we told you so....Many are certain to see this as government out of control."

Government out of control? Just because they tortured two dozen children and countless innocent adults with noxious gas
for six hours and then burned them alive? Do you want to see the country overrun with religious "cultists" and right wing
gun-nuts? Somebody has to thin them out. It's a dirty job, but your government was prepared to do it -- and will do it again
if necessary. The Waco ghetto is no more. This is the final solution.

Apart from all that, the government is quite benign -- really. The people we need to look out for -- besides "conspiracy
theorists" [BONG!] -- are those insidious types who fill the ranks of the "militia movement." [BONG!] You know -- the
militia movement? Those convenient scapegoats in tiger-stripe cameys who show up in the nick of time every few years --
whenever the government starts getting a really bad name? So Margaret Singer is a psychologist, eh? It figures. By the way,
did you notice that her message was almost exactly the same as Koppel's? That's just a "coincidence" of course.

But if you want to know how really dangerous the "anti-government movement" [BONG!], including "the militia" and "hate
groups" [BONG! BONG!] can be, CBS had Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center on hand to fill us in. "At
one time conspiracy theorists may have been viewed as eccentrics far out on the fringe," said Potok, "but then Timothy
McVeigh drove a truck full of explosives to Oklahoma City and we all discovered just how dangerous it can be when
people stop trusting the government."

I am not making this up -- he really did say that. So ya'd better eat yer veggies and trust the government, or the boogie man
will getcha' fer sure. Unfortunately, Mr. Potok did not shed any further light upon who provided the truck full of explosives
that Timothy McVeigh drove to Oklahoma City. I have yet to talk to a single explosives expert who believes that McVeigh
and Nichols were capable of building the bomb as the government supposedly "proved" during their trials. Which leaves
open the question of who actually built it and why the government is protecting them.

The Government's Case Crumbles

The seriousness of the allegations against the federal government is made clear by an item that appeared in the September
12 Fort Worth Star-Telegram. It tells of a sworn affidavit given to attorneys for the plaintiffs' in a civil lawsuit brought by
survivors of some of the dead Branch Davidians that is scheduled to begin on the 18th of next month. The affidavit was
given by Steven Barry, a retired Special Forces sergeant whose duties had included training Delta Force personnel.
According to one of Barry's friends in Delta Force, "the unit set up a tactical operations center during the siege that was
staffed by 10 to 20 soldiers." This directly contradicts the official government version of the story, according to which there
were only three Delta Force personnel present at Waco and they were there only as "observers."

More ominously, Barry told of another friend in Delta Force who had revealed to him that "the unit's 'B' Squadron had
been ordered to 'take down' Branch Davidians. Barry said he understood from his experience in the Special Forces that
'take down' meant to kill people identified as terrorists," according to the Fort Worth newspaper.

That cuts pretty close to the bone. It lends weight to allegations such as the one quoted above "that an agency of
government planned mass murder." Furthermore, it corroborates statements made by the former CIA operative Gene
Cullen. On the face of it, this would seem to be a gross violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -- unless the president signed
a waiver. Of course, nobody in the Washington press corps has asked Clinton whether he signed such a waiver -- don't
hold your breath. It is also possible that state laws were violated in Texas and Alabama by the use of National Guard assets
in the attack on the Branch Davidians.

James Francis, the commissioner of the Texas DPS, says that "law enforcement officials and civilians have provided first-
and second-hand reports on Delta Force activities," according to the Star-Telegram article, and they confirm that the
number of Delta Force personnel present at Waco was "as many as 10." Francis told the newspaper, "It is fuzzy as to what
their role was."

Attorney Mike Caddell, who is representing the Davidians in their wrongful death lawsuit, said, "We've been told that there
were 10 military personnel, but they won't tell us who they were."

Army Col. Bill Darley, speaking for the Defense Department, continued to insist, "We had a presence there for support
only. All other allegations appear to us to be unfounded and without basis in fact."

Mike Ward and Laylan Copelin, writing in the September 13 Austin American-Statesman, report that Texas Rangers found
"spent military explosive shells" in the burned-out wreckage of the Davidian compound. A 40 mm shell found there was
described as "capable of starting a fire." This is but one of the items included in 12 tons of evidence from the Davidian
siege, that was made public just over a week ago. Other items of evidence include "military", i.e. pyrotechnic" tear gas
rounds used in the final assault on the compound, as well as "sound-and-flash shells" (flash-bangs) used in hostage situations
to create a diversion. Also found was a Whitestar parachute flare, considered capable of starting a fire. The 40 mm shell
was identified in the Texas Rangers' report on the evidence as a military M651 round. The report notes that, "The projectile
burns at 500 to 700 degrees Fahrenheit and is capable of igniting flammable items."

Among the most chilling evidence were "rifle shells commonly used by sniper teams" which were discovered close to a
couple of houses "just outside the compound" that were occupied by FBI agents. The agents have persisted in saying that
"they fired no shots into the compound in the final days of the siege." Their current spin is that the shells may have been left
by BATF snipers after the initial assault on the compound. A ballistics test should suffice to determine who fired the rounds.
According to the online publication NewsMax, "one Texas law enforcement official" claims that ballistics tests have been
done but the results have been withheld from investigators. David Pareya, a McClennan County official told the Waco
Tribune-Herald regarding non-disclosure of the ballistic evidence, "The thing that always stayed in my mind was if (FBI
officials) were afraid some ordinance or ballistics could be matched up with their weaponry."

Texas Ranger Sgt. George L. Turner who found a spent 40 mm military cartridge in the wreckage of the compound said
that as he was about to testify at the trial of surviving Davidians he was told by FBI Agent Rick Crum that the FBI had fired
the round "in an attempt to knock a door down." This directly contradicts even the revised version of the official
"explanation," implicitly believed by all but a handful of us pitiably benighted "conspiracy theorists."

David Hardy, the civil rights attorney who has researched the Waco holocaust with McNulty told reporters a week ago
that the new evidence "seems to back up what (McNulty) has been talking about for years. Projectiles were used that were
capable of causing a fire," he said. "The Rangers may have turned up a smoking gun."

Although the Ranger report expressed skepticism as to whether a flash-bang would be likely to start a fire, Hardy
disagrees. "They explode and create this large of a flash of blinding light, but they won't start a fire?" he asked. "I sure
wouldn't want to try it in my house."

McNulty points out the possibility that not all of the spent pyrotechnic rounds were discovered. The flames melted some of
the casings into "puddles" of aluminum found in the burned-out wreckage of the compound.

In McNulty's original film, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," Edward Allard, a former Army expert on Forward-Looking
Infrared, or FLIR, commented on intermittent white flashes visible on an infrared tape. The tape was taken from a
surveillance aircraft employed at Mt. Carmel on 19 April 1993. Allard said that the flashes were made by machine guns
fired "at a door of a concrete storage room where women and children hid during the final raid on April 19, 1993,"
according to an April 22, 1997, report by the Associated Press.

The FBI has denied shooting at the Davidians, suggesting that the flashes of light were produced by sunlight reflected off
debris such as broken glass. The AP report noted that autopsies performed on the dead Davidians determined that 19 of
them had sustained gunshot wounds. The FBI "explained" that the Davidians had either committed suicide or shot each
other.

Unfortunately, the autopsies did not determine whether the victims had been shot at close range, or whether the shots had
come from outside the building. It seems that wasn't an issue at the time. In fact, Dr. Nizam Peerwani, who performed the
autopsies, said that the government had not asked him "to determine the manner of the deaths -- homicide, suicide or
accidental." (Silly me, I had thought all along that's what autopsies are for). The FBI's "explanation" was simply accepted at
face value. Later, when attorneys representing the Davidians attempted to examine the bodies, they were unable to do so.
See, somebody "forgot" to plug in the cooler at the morgue, causing many of the bodies to "liquefy." (Yuck!)

We mustn't be too quick to draw adverse conclusions from that, of course. These little "mistakes" happen all the time (in
federal cases involving the Clinton administration anyway). Remember those X-rays of Vince Foster's head that didn't get
taken because the machine "broke down"? (Only there wasn't any record of maintenance being done on the X-ray machine
in the relevant time frame).

And then there was that curious round hole in the top of Ron Brown's head -- about the size of a .40 caliber bullet -- that
didn't get investigated. The Air Force doctors who called attention to it were certainly "handled" with extraordinary
efficiency, though. They won't be telling any more tales out of school any time soon -- their careers have been put into cold
storage. You can be certain that nobody will make the mistake of unplugging that freezer.

And what about the front door of the main Davidian building? If, as the BATF maintain, the Davidians shot at them first,
through the door, that should be corroborated by an examination of the evidence. Only guess what? Right you are -- got it
in one. All together now, let's hear it: THEY LOST IT! How any law enforcement agency -- even one as spectacularly
incompetent as the BATF -- could lose a piece of evidence the size of a front door to a large building (part of which was
made of steel) will have to remain one of life's enduring mysteries.

As Kirk Lyons, an attorney representing three of the Davidians survivors, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the
elimination of the bodies "just destroys any chance for anybody to come back and challenge what the government said
happened." Gosh, I guess we'll just have to trust our government then, won't we? Because, as Dr. Peerwani told CNN last
week, "his office was not asked by the government to determine whether any of the Davidians were killed by federal
agents."

"I don't think that was an issue at the time," the doctor said.

What makes people so suspicious? The experience of the family of Jimmy Riddle, one of the Davidians killed in the final
assault, is suggestive. Riddle's body was not destroyed as his relatives had kept it in a private mortuary in Fort Worth. But
when Dr. Ronald Graser, the private pathologist they had hired to get a second opinion as to the cause of death, examined
the body he found that parts of it had disappeared, according to the Star-Telegram. And what parts would those be? Well,
Riddle had been shot in the head. And by merest coincidence "part of the skull was missing, including the section where the
bullet entered and exited," said the Star- Telegram, citing court documents.

Among those who have become increasingly suspicious of late is none other than Dr. Peerwani, who told the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution last week that he would like to re-evaluate the case. He has an interest in doing so because Dr.
Peerwani is the Tarrant County Medical Examiner. If criminal activity is suspected in the deaths of the victims whose bodies
he examined, this is bound to reflect on the doctor's work, regardless of what the federal authorities "asked him to do."

The doctor told the Atlanta newspaper "that recent developments have caused him to doubt his original autopsies' goals
and conclusions," according to Matt Drudge. "There is a feeling that one should go back and re-evaluate ... The focus at the
time was not whether the FBI was doing the shooting," said Dr. Peerwani.

Among the issues he would like to re-evaluate is the question of whether the bullets passed through an "intermediary target,
like a wall or door, before striking the people," he said. "We have sufficient photographs and other materials for us to
review these issues. I have not started this, but I would certainly do so if asked by the proper authorities."

The doctor would also like to review a video tape made by his office and given to the (Obstruction of) Justice Department.
This tape is said to indicate the location in which each of the Davidians died inside the compound. Only there is a slight
problem: "We were told that they had misplaced the tape," said Dr. Peerwani. That's hardly surprising -- we all know how
absent-minded the folks at the JD can be. Why they even lost page 49 of that report they had prepared for Congress. You
know, the one page on which the use of pyrotechnic rounds against the Davidians was mentioned.

One of the things that may have piqued Dr. Peerwani's renewed interest in the case is the fact that witnesses are expected
to testify in the forthcoming Davidian lawsuit that shots were fired at the Davidian compound during the final assault. The
Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported on September 13 that "FBI agent Charles Riley said in June 1993 that he heard shots
fired from a sniper post occupied by agent Lon Horiuchi." This information was obtained from court documents filed in
connection with the wrongful death suit. Texas DPS Commissioner James Francis has been quoted as saying that he has
information indicating "gunfire took place there by government police officers." Since Horiuchi is named along with the
government in the Davidians wrongful death suit, it is reasonable to assume that evidence will be presented in an attempt to
establish that the FBI sniper fired at the compound. On Monday of last week the FBI belatedly acknowledged that
Horiuchi took part in the final assault on the compound. Combined with the witness who is expected to testify that Delta
Force was involved in "combat operations" against the Davidians with orders to "take them down," this could be
devastating.

Investor's Business Daily commented last Wednesday, "By now it's clear someone was shooting at the Davidians. The
FBI's own videotape shows gunfire from an unidentified source hitting the rear of the camp." Nor is this idle speculation.

Dr. Allard, who made a cameo appearance in McNulty's first film. will be a featured expert witness at the trial of the
Davidian lawsuit. He is expected to testify that at least 60 shots were fired at the Davidians during the final assault on April
19, 1993. Allard bases his conclusion on a recent analysis he did of the FLIR tape provided him by Mike McNulty.

Allard, who worked for 10 years as an analyst in the Army's Night Vision Laboratory, said that, "Any layman can look at
what I looked at and say it's gunshots, assuming he knows something about gunshots."

According to Allard, the FLIR tape shows gunfire aimed at the Davidians on at least three occasions that day, once after
the compound had caught fire. He explained that, "What the FLIR shows is that while a fire is engulfing the kitchen area,
gun positions on the outside are pouring automatic gunfire in there. I stopped counting at 45 shots. You don't see 45 shots.
You see a flash here, a flash there. But if you break the film down, you can actually count the number of rounds."

Allard maintains that the gunfire was directed at the Davidians from positions roughly 30 yards from the kitchen area of the
compound, trapping them in the burning structure.

Mike Caddell, an attorney representing some of the plaintiffs said of the FLIR tape, "I think it's the most dramatic evidence
that there was gunfire from government positions. At the end of the day, I think that's what this case is going to be about. I
don't know this many years after the fact if we can prove who started the fire."

Allard measured the duration of the flashes visible on the tape to be 1/20 of a second, which he says corresponds to
automatic gunfire. "No technical person I know of that's looked at the tapes said it's anything but gunfire," he added.

However, a firm hired by the Washington Post to evaluate the FLIR tape at the time McNulty's film was released thought
that the flashes of light might be sunlight reflected from debris on the ground. This possibility was addressed recently in an
extensive technical report written by T. M. Cox, who describes himself as "a recently retired mathematician/imagery analyst
with 33 years experience in the technical intelligence field."

Mr. Cox finished his career as a lab manager and went on to form his own company. His resume is quite impressive, as is
his report which exhaustively examines every conceivable explanation for the flashes on the FLIR tape and concludes:

"There are only two explanations for the flash signatures observed in Mt. Carmel infrared imagery. This
document shows that the FBI's explanation is not possible; it fails in every particular examined. Sun reflections
from broken glass or bits of blowing debris did not cause the recorded flash signatures."

"This report concludes that gunfire generated almost all the flash signatures observed on the FBI's videotape.
Federal law enforcement personnel fired into the Mt. Carmel complex before and during the fire that
consumed the facility. There is no other explanation that conforms to the facts."

At midweek the Associated Press reported that "Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder recused U.S. Attorney James W.
Blagg in San Antonio and assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston in Waco from any further dealings in criminal or civil
proceedings related to the siege." NewsMax asked whether the Justice Department has sacked the one federal prosecutor
"interested in getting to the bottom of this sorry episode just as the truth was about to emerge?" Clearly they have. With
regard to the forthcoming civil proceeding they would seem to have had little choice -- Johnston is likely to be called as a
witness by the plaintiffs, a clear indication that the government's case is a complete shambles. But what's this about "criminal
proceedings"? The AP report slipped that one past its readers without further elaboration.

The Psy-Warriors

What kind of a "free press" has evolved in this country that they would undertake to aid and abet a government coverup of
what is looking increasingly like a premeditated massacre of more than 80 men, women and children? If they will condone
such an atrocity as that, is there anything they wouldn't condone, provided it were consistent with their political philosophy?
Compared to the Waco massacre and coverup the well-known Dreyfus affair of the last century was little more than a
schoolboy prank. A genuinely free press would be up in arms over such an outrage, but instead our mainstream press seem
to have closed ranks for a ritual licking of the government jackboot. Except for the detailed reports that have appeared
locally in the Texas press, the story has been handled sotto-voce in a manner designed to confuse rather than inform. Even
worse is the spin put on it by the TV talking air-heads. Ted Koppel's craven apologia for this government atrocity was
wickedly parodied by Counterpunch:

"Wounded Knee: the bitter legacy": Koppel explains that "in many ways the saddest consequence of this
infamous massacre of American Indians was that it served to buttress the position of extremist native
Americans who have long argued that the white man was intent on exterminating Indians altogether."

Koppel had relatives who died in the Nazi holocaust. Is this the way he honors their memory -- by becoming a Waco
holocaust denier?

Carol Moore, in her book "The Davidian Massacre," describes how the FBI used its daily press briefings to insinuate in the
minds of the public an image of David Koresh as "an unpredictable psychopath." (The old "burn witch, burn" psychology so
popular at Salem during the 17th-century is still alive and well -- it works a treat against Serbs-in-need-of-bombing,
innocent people maliciously accused of child abuse, or anyone else requiring demonization for the convenience of
government and press, and the greater glory of Political Correctness). However, a secondary purpose was also served,
according to Brad Bailey and Bob Darden, the authors of "Mad Man in Waco," that of "inflaming the already beleaguered
cult leader."

The press, according to Moore, did little to get at the real story, but merely repeated government propaganda. Researcher
Dick Reavis, who took the trouble to compare the full text of the negotiations between the feds and Davidians with the
transcripts of the FBI news conferences, alleges "that FBI spokesperson Bob Ricks constantly lied to the press about what
was happening in negotiations," in Moore's words. In an apparent effort to keep the press away from the Davidian's
property they said that it was booby-trapped, although reporters who investigated the claim found no evidence of this. The
FBI also alleged that the Davidians were using illegal drugs, although no evidence of this has never been presented. In an
apparent effort to pander to the PC crowd, the FBI portrayed the Davidians as "white" although Moore points out that "half
were of African, Asian or Hispanic descent." Most ludicrously, the federal agents described the Davidian compound as a
bunkered "fortress", when in fact it was a rickety, jerry-built fire-trap. When the Davidians held their children up to the
windows to get a look at the tanks, the feds said that they were using them as human shields.

Dick DeGuerin, during a panel discussion sponsored by the Freedom of Information Foundation, excoriated the press for
"pack journalism" and accused them of "regurgitating BATF and FBI propaganda," according to Moore. Instead of
investigating the story on their own, DeGuerin charged, they waited for the Treasury and Justice Department reports,
thereby assuring that the government's version of the story would be the one with which the public is most familiar.
Furthermore, Moore observed, "Few members of the press examined their own prejudices against deeply committed
religious groups."

Some of the news reports were outright lies. KWTX-TV's John McLemore admitted at the Davidian trial that he had
falsified his news reports, saying that he had heard automatic gunfire from the Davidian compound and that he had heard
BATF agents announce that they were serving a search warrant.

DeGuerin accused the press of practicing self censorship, as when they failed to report that Koresh had invited the BATF
to inspect the Davidian's gun collection prior to the raid. They also failed to report that the BATF had taken Koresh's gun
dealer and business partner Henry McMahon into "protective custody" after the raid and forbidden him to talk to the press,
or even to the FBI. Although an interview with McMahon was sent to TV stations throughout the country by its producers
in Pensacola, his allegations were ignored.

When the Justice Department released its final report, denounced by the New York Times and the Washington Times as a
"whitewash", the Washington Post prattled with mock judiciousness, "It is difficult to cast blame after reviewing the
evidence. . . An earnest effort was being made to talk the group's members out of the buildings... The finding of mass
suicide and/or murder is a reasonable one."

I leave it to the reader to surmise the extent to which the Post actually reviewed the evidence. One thing is clear enough
from all this, the mainstream press, in their preferred role as Pavlovian bell-ringers, are waging psychological warfare
against the American people on behalf of the government. Consequently, there is no longer any check on government
malfeasance.

The forthcoming "investigation" of Waco by Clinton's old golf buddy, former Sen. Danforth, an obvious Ken Starr clone,
promises to be yet another blatant coverup. Danforth, who provides the window dressing and becomes the designated
punching bag, appoints U.S. Attorney Edward Dowd, a liberal Democrat and Clinton employee, to be his chief investigator
and deputy. While Danforth, who has no experience as a prosecutor, twists slowly in the wind, Dowd and his minions will
doubtless hasten to perform the cosmetic adjustments required to make this atrocity acceptable once more to the public.
Meanwhile, congressional inquiries will be preempted or pushed into the background. Danforth has already asked that
depositions in the Davidian lawsuit be delayed while his "investigators" interrogate the witnesses. Of course the lawsuit is the
only thing that has exposed the extent of the government's treachery thus far. It's only natural that it should be sidetracked
while another coverup takes precedence. How did Brecht put it? "Happy ending, nice and tidy, drop the shadow out of
sight."

Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org

09/01/99

By Lee Hancock / The Dallas Morning News

WACO - U.S. Justice Department lawyers on Tuesday challenged a
federal judge's authority to take control of evidence in the Branch Davidian
case, setting up a high-stakes legal showdown.

An Aug. 9 order in which U.S. District Judge Walter Smith demanded
custody of all documents and other evidence is without any legal basis
under federal or civil court rules, Justice Department lawyers argued in a
19-page motion. The judge's move "threatens a wholesale intrusion" into
the executive branch and an "unwarranted and substantial burden" on the
entire federal government.

"It should be plain . . . that separation of powers prevents a federal court
from acting as an independent investigator," the motion said.

The argument is the latest development in an escalating skirmish over who
will control and investigate the vast array of evidence, documents,
photographs and other materials tied to the Branch Davidian standoff.

The government's filing came one day after a Waco federal prosecutor
warned Attorney General Janet Reno in a letter that lawyers within her
department had long withheld evidence that the FBI fired pyrotechnic tear
gas within hours before the compound burned. For years, government
officials had insisted otherwise.

On Tuesday, the federal prosecutor, Bill Johnston, told The Dallas
Morning News that he felt compelled to go public with his warning after
being given a 5-year-old document that discusses the use of "military gas"
by the FBI on April 19, 1993.

He said he was concerned because the document, a three-page set of
notes detailing an interview with members of the FBI's hostage rescue
team, included handwritten notations suggesting that it be kept from anyone
outside the department's legal staff. He said both the language in those
nondisclosure notations and typewritten identification lines on the top of
each page indicated that they were sent from the department's civil torts
section, which is defending a massive wrongful-death lawsuit arising from
the standoff.

Lawyers for the Branch Davidians have alleged that the government's
negligence and deliberate actions caused the 1993 tragedy. For several
years, their pleadings have charged that unidentified projectiles and shell
casings found in the compound rubble include pyrotechnic tear gas
grenades and incendiary devices.

Branch Davidian leader David Koresh and more than 80 followers died in
an April 19 fire that erupted six hours after FBI agents began a tear-gas
assault to try to force an end to a 51-day standoff.

Federal officials had long denied federal agents used anything capable of
sparking a fire on that day. But they conceded last week that at least two
pyrotechnic tear gas rounds were fired after a former FBI official told The
Newsthat their use in Waco was "common knowledge" among members of
the bureau's hostage rescue team.

Mr. Johnston, 40, said he decided to speak publicly after learning that
federal officials in Washington were discussing the 1993 document with
reporters. He noted that he had been expressly ordered not to divulge the
document's contents to anyone.

'Military gas rounds'

Mr. Johnston said the document suggested that he was present for the
1993 interview in which agents described using "military gas rounds," but
he recalled nothing about the interview or the issue.

He said civil justice department lawyers involved in the wrongful death
lawsuit became furious with him after learning he was present when a
filmmaker was allowed to view Branch Davidian evidence at the Texas
Department of Public Safety.

Mr. Johnston is also assisting an investigation by the Texas Rangers to
identify evidence questioned by the filmmaker, Michael McNulty, including
a shell casing recently identified as part of a M651 pyrotechnic grenade
fired by the FBI.

Mr. Johnston said he believed the document was unearthed and
disseminated by the civil lawyers last week after Ms. Reno was forced to
admit that pyrotechnic tear gas was used at Waco. That admission came
one day after reports that Texas Rangers were sharing their investigation
results with congressional investigators.

"It may have been meant as a shot across the bow, some attempt to warn
me to stop stirring this up," Mr. Johnston said.

The Rangers were asked to investigate the criminal violations arising from
the standoff and were then asked to keep key evidence from the case after
eight Branch Davidians were convicted on charges ranging from
manslaughter to weapons violations.

The Texas Department of Public Safety filed a motion in July asking Judge
Smith to take custody of that evidence. DPS officials said that they wanted
the evidence taken off their hands, in part, because they felt that the Justice
Department was using them to avoid having to allow public access under
federal public records laws.

In response, the judge issued his sweeping Aug. 9 order calling on every
agency of the federal government to turn over anything even remotely tied
to the Waco incident to his district clerk's office.

Questioning order

In Tuesday's motion, Justice Department lawyers argued the order is
invalid, in part, because it was issued in the criminal case arising from the
Branch Davidian siege - a case which they contend is no longer pending in
Judge Smith's court.

Much of the evidence covered by the order is exempt from disclosure to
plaintiffs in the pending lawsuit because it is the work product of the
department's attorneys, the motion argued. Producing it would cripple the
government's efforts to prepare for the civil trial, now scheduled to begin in
mid-October, and producing other information could even stall the
independent and congressional inquiries recently launched over the use of
pyrotechnic tear gas, the motion argued.

The motion asked the judge to narrow his order to encompass only the
evidence being held by DPS.

On Tuesday, DPS Commission Chairman James B. Francis Jr. said he
was disappointed that in the Justice Department's action.

"From what I can understand of the Justice's Department's motion today,
they're still attempting to prevent the evidence from being judicially
reviewed," Mr. Francis said. "And I think that is most unfortunate."

Justice Department officials declined to comment on the motion or Mr.
Johnston's letter to Ms. Reno.

But Mr. Johnston's supervisor, U.S. Attorney Bill Blagg of San Antonio,
said he was surprised that the Waco prosecutor had chosen to send such a
complaint and make it public.

Mr. Blagg said the indication in the document that Mr. Johnston was
present when an agent discussed using "military rounds" was "a very
serious matter" because federal criminal rules require prosecutors to give
defense attorneys any evidence that might help a defendant before trial.

"I cannot think of a worse thing to be accused of as a U.S. attorney than
knowing of favorable evidence and failing to disclose it, and I can't think of
a worse thing than the attorney general not knowing for six years what
really happened," he said.

Learning the truth

Mr. Johnston said Tuesday that he is prepared to do whatever possible to
help the Justice Department, the Congress and the public learn the entire
truth of what happened.

"If there is an issue regarding whether I should've understood the
significance of the term 'military gas,' then it is a fair question," he said.
"Whatever the truth is, I am not afraid of that."

Also Tuesday, an FBI spokesman said that Director Louis Freeh would
not object to the appointment of an outside investigator to study the
bureau's role in the Branch Davidian siege.

FBI spokesman Tron Brekke said Mr. Freeh and the bureau believed the
FBI could conduct its own investigation. But he added that the director
was concerned about perceptions that the bureau cannot police itself.

The FBI is interested in repairing the damage to its reputation, Mr. Brekke
said. "If that can be done by an outside investigation, then so be it," he
said.

Mr. Brekke said the director has not recommended to Ms. Reno how an
outside panel should be formed or who might serve on it.

Meanwhile, a growing number of congressional leaders voiced support for
an investigation independent of both the Justice Department and Congress.
The House Government Reform committee has already issued subpoenas
seeking information from Mr. Johnston and the Texas Rangers, and its
chairman, Dan Burton, R-Ind., has vowed to begin hearings in September.

But a spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde,
R-Ill., said Mr. Hyde is considering creating a special commission to
review the FBI's admission that pyrotechnic devices were fired.

"The truth may be better served by a body that is removed somewhat from
the political swamps," said Sam Stratman, a spokesman for Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Burton said his committee will move ahead with its inquiry and is
planning within the next few days to issue new subpoenas.

He voiced concern that officials within the Justice Department may now be
targeting Mr. Johnston because of his efforts to help the Texas Rangers
and bring out the truth about the government's use of pyrotechnic tear gas
at Waco.

"I think he should be commended," Mr. Burton said. "Because he has
given us information . . . they're going to try to make him a scapegoat."
Staff writer Catalina Camia in Washington contributed to this report.

DANFORTH Indicates NO INVESTIGATION of
Original BATF Waco Raid

Source: News Conference
Published: Sept. 9, 1999 Author: CNN Transcripts

JOHN DANFORTH, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR: .........I, when I was first approached by the attorney general,
made it clear that it is very important for this investigation to have definition, to have some mission statement of what it is and
what it isn't. And the attorney general's order spells out what it is. And I want to just summarize it for you so that there is a
total understanding of this.

Basically, when you boil down the half-dozen points that are in the order, they amount to two big questions that
have to be resolved.

The first question is, was there a cover-up?

And the second question is, did federal officials kill people? That's the question of the cause of the fire, whether
there was shooting, and so forth.

And those are the two big questions. And those are the questions that we will be examining in this investigation.

In other words, what we're going to be looking at is whether there were bad acts, not whether there was bad judgment. I
want that understood.

Our country can survive bad judgment. I take it that every day for the history of America there's been bad judgment, but the
thing that really undermines the integrity of government is whether there were bad acts, whether was a cover-up and whether
there was government -- and whether the government killed people.

So what we are not going to be looking is whether it was advisable in the first place for ATF to be concerned
about the Branch Davidians, whether it was a good idea or not to stage the raid in February of 1993 or in April of
1993 for that matter or the psychological efforts that took place in between.

Those, I don't minimize the importance of those questions at all, but I don't think that those should be the
questions for a special counsel. I think that they are questions that Congress can address, that the media can address or
the American people can address or the political process can address. But they are really not subject of this -- of this
investigation.

.........snip.........

QUESTION: Do you feel like you can satisfy all the conspiracy theorists who are out there? Whatever you do will be
attacked by some sector?

DANFORTH: I have never been in a pursuit where you can satisfy 100 percent of the people, but I would hope people
would know that I am trying and that our group is going to try to do a careful job and that we go into this with no
preconceived ideas and that we will call them as we see them. And that's what I'm going to do.

QUESTION: Also, some people say that the Davidians did commit suicide, but they did so because of the
government tactics. Given that criticism, can you look at -- can you fulfill your mission without looking at the
entire episode?

DANFORTH: I think that it is important, and the reason for having this defined mission, is to keep parameters
on what we're doing. And I think that what you've asked is really an important question and it's important to
understand it.

I take it that if, for example, ATF had never thought about the Branch Davidians, there wouldn't have been this
loss of life. So in a way, you could say that any decision that was made, you know, was a decision that led up to
what eventually happened.

But I am not going to get into that. I'm not going to get into judgment calls, even if those judgments led to the
eventual result, because I think that bad judgments -- and I'm not saying they were bad judgments, I'm not presupposing
that at all, I have no opinion of it -- but whether they were good judgments or bad judgments is a different question than the
dark question.

And I think my job is to answer the dark question or the dark questions: Was there a cover up? That's a dark question. Did
the government kill people? That's -- how did the fire start? And was there shooting?

I mean those are questions that have been raised. Those are -- those are questions that go to the basic integrity of
government, not judgment calls. And I do want to make it clear in the next few days, while I can still speak about this, what
that distinction is.

I don't think that you get a special counsel with subpoena powers to deal with the judgment calls. I just don't think so. I
think we try to deal with factual questions, and did the government -- really, ultimately, did the government kill
people and did the government cover things up, not, you know, what was the chain of events going back to, you
know, some earlier time that led eventually to a set of circumstances that led to this.

QUESTION: Senator, will you be in judgment for federal law enforcement officers (inaudible) on, like, just hypothetically, to
open fire on people that were opening fire on them? I mean, you said you were going to look into whether they were --
whether there was shooting.

DANFORTH: That's right.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE).

DANFORTH: Sorry?

QUESTION: Isn't shooting a judgment call...

DANFORTH: You know, in my own mind there is a -- there really is a clear distinction between what is set out in
this order and getting into -- for example, it is said -- and, you know, really all I know is what I read in the paper -- but it
is said that, say, loudspeakers were used, and so on and so forth. That to me is maybe an interesting question, but I don't
think that's my question. I think my question is whether there was shooting, whether there was, you know, how the fire was
started and whether there was cover-up.

QUESTION: Senator, you talked about -- before, grand jury secrecy, whether this gets to a grand jury eventually or not,
how do you think that you can avoid the leaks and the political shenanigans in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, for
example?

DANFORTH: Well, I don't want to say anything about that, about the Lewinsky investigation.

I can just say that my hope is -- you know, I mean, I'm going to pick who works on this and I'm going to pick people in
whom I have confidence -- but my hope is that once the investigation begins, we're not going to have running commentary
on the investigation.

QUESTION: Senator, what would constitute cover-up in your mind? Does it just apply to covering up shootings or whether
we killed people or who started the fire? Or does cover-up apply to instances in which federal officials testified under oath
inaccurately, and you know, would that be...?

DANFORTH: I think cover-up entails false statements or withholding information or doctoring information that is presented
to people who have the authority to know. That would include, you know, Congress. It would include information presented
to anybody at the Justice Department. It would -- any information that was provided. The people have a right to
know.............

Military forces' role in Waco challenged
By Jennifer Autrey
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The images of Bradley fighting vehicles punching holes in the wooden compound of the Branch Davidian sect and of helicopters hovering overhead as the structure burned have become etched in America's collective psyche.

The extent and legality of the military involvement in the 51- day siege at the Mount Carmel compound near Waco six years ago is expected to be a focus of upcoming investigations into the fiery end of the siege on April 19, 1993. The bodies of sect leader David Koresh and about 80 of his followers were recovered in the fire's remains. Among questions surrounding the operation is how military personnel, equipment and munitions were used and whether the government had a role in setting the blaze that consumed the compound. At the heart of the questions about military involvement is the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the armed forces from participating in civilian law enforcement operations.

Some issues expected to be examined are:

* The involvement of the Delta Force, an elite, top-secret Army unit established to combat terrorism. Some former government officials say the Delta Force had a greater role in the operation than the FBI acknowledges and, as a result, violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

In a sworn affidavit, a former sergeant first class in Army Special Forces said a noncommissioned officer told him that the Delta Force's "B" Squadron had been ordered to "take down" the Branch Davidians at Mount Carmel.

* Whether federal officials used a 1990 change in the Posse Comitatus Act -- allowing the use of the military in anti-drug operations -- to assist the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI in the Waco siege and assault.

When the ATF asked the military for help in staging its initial raid of the compound on Feb. 28, 1993, military officers said the ATF would have to reimburse the Army for any assistance because there was "no known drug nexus," according to Lt. Col. Lon Walker, an Army liaison to the ATF.

Less than a month later, the ATF added "drug activity" to the matters it was investigating in regard to the Branch Davidians, a move that a congressional report called "deliberately misleading."

* Possible violations of Texas and Alabama state laws prohibiting the use of National Guard personnel and equipment against the Branch Davidians.

Texas law prohibits the use of the Texas National Guard in civilian law enforcement unless there is a clear drug connection. Alabama law says its National Guard force has no authority outside state boundaries.

National Guard personnel and equipment from both states were used at Mount Carmel. A congressional report has determined that those actions were taken without proper authority.

Delta Force

Recent revelations indicate that the Delta Force had a greater presence and a more active role in the final assault on the Branch Davidians than FBI officials have acknowledged. According to at least one account, the Delta Force was there not to advise, but to kill.

Steven Barry, a retired Special Forces sergeant who sometimes trained members of the Delta Force, gave a sworn affidavit to plaintiffs' attorneys in a civil suit brought by families of dead Branch Davidians. The case is scheduled to go to trial in Waco on Oct. 18.

In the affidavit, Barry quoted a friend in the Delta Force as saying the unit set up a tactical operations center during the siege that was staffed by 10 to 20 soldiers.

Barry said another friend in the Delta Force told him that the unit's "B" Squadron had been ordered to "take down" Branch Davidians. Barry said he understood from his experience in the Special Forces that "take down" meant to kill people identified as terrorists.

Barry isn't alone in these allegations.

Former CIA officer Gene Cullen has said in several recent interviews that he learned through casual conversations with Delta Force members that 10 of the unit's commandos were present during the April 19, 1993, assault and may have participated.

Similarly, James B. Francis, commissioner of the Texas Department of Public Safety, said "it is clear" that members of the Delta Force were on the scene. Initial reports indicated that three members were present, but Francis said he is now being told that as many as 10 were there.

"There is some evidence that might indicate that they were more than observers," Francis said. "It is fuzzy as to what their role was."

Francis said law enforcement officials and civilians have provided first- and second-hand reports on Delta Force activities. He declined to elaborate further.

Evidence gathered after the Mount Carmel fire was in the hands of Texas law enforcement officials until U.S. District Judge Walter Smith Jr. ordered all evidence surrendered to the federal clerk in Waco.

Government attorneys have indicated in some court documents that as many as 10 "classified" military personnel were present, said Houston attorney Mike Caddell, who filed the wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of about 100 people, mostly relatives of dead Branch Davidians.

"We've been told that there were 10 military personnel, but they won't tell us who they were," he said.

Caddell said government attorneys were asked to answer questions in connection with the lawsuit. One of the questions asked for a list of all military personnel who were at Mount Carmel.

Government officials listed Army medical personnel, the Texas National Guard and 10 others whose identity they said is classified information, Caddell said.

Army Col. Bill Darley, a Defense Department spokesman, said the Pentagon has stated that it had only three Special Operations personnel at Mount Carmel and he has seen nothing to refute that statement. Two soldiers were present during most of the siege to maintain high-tech equipment, he said. Another was there when the compound burned, but only as an observer, he said.

"We had a presence there for support only," Darley said. "All other allegations appear to us to be unfounded and without basis in fact."

That distinction is crucial, according to federal law.

If what Barry and Cullen say is true, military personnel may have violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids use of military personnel in civilian law enforcement except in special cases approved by Congress.

The prohibition applies only to direct participation by soldiers in an arrest, search or seizure. Soldiers may train civilian law enforcement agents or provide military vehicles and munitions.

A congressional report determined that all members of the military were present only as observers and that no violation of the act had occurred. The report, "Investigation into the Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians," was issued in August 1996 by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee after their 1995 hearings.

Darley said Pentagon policy prevented him from discussing further any of its "special missions units" such as Delta Force.

Drug ruse?

Some evidence suggests that the ATF created a ruse about the possibility of illegal drug manufacturing at Mount Carmel to obtain free military assistance for its Feb. 28, 1993, raid, which left four ATF agents dead and more than 20 wounded.

As early as November 1992, ATF agents were discussing the need for military support with Walker, the agency's Defense Department liaison, according to Treasury Department documents. The ATF is part of the Treasury Department.

But there was a problem.

In a meeting with the ATF on Dec. 4, 1992, Walker informed the agency that it would have to pay the military for the use of its equipment because the military could waive the charges only in anti-drug operations.

At the meeting, Walker jotted a handwritten note that said: "There was no known drug nexus," according to the Treasury Department documents.

The bill would have been considerable. The military assistance at Waco cost about $1 million, according to a General Accounting Office report released Aug. 26. About 90 percent of the cost was incurred by the Texas National Guard and U.S. Army, the report said.

That military personnel can play a greater role assisting civilian law enforcement in drug investigations is a significant exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, passed as part of the 1990 Department of Defense Authorization Act to help fight illegal drug importation.

Before the end of December 1992, the ATF was investigating "suspicion of drug activity" at the Branch Davidian compound, according to the Treasury Department report.

That addition to the points of investigation apparently was based on a Dec. 16, 1992, facsimile from Marc Breault in Australia, who suggested that a methamphetamine lab had once been seen on Branch Davidian premises. Congressional investigators later determined that Breault was a former Branch Davidian who had left the sect on bad terms.

Former Branch Davidians said Koresh had discovered the lab when he arrived at Mount Carmel and had telephoned the McLennan County Sheriff's Department to report it and to ask that deputies confiscate it, but no one ever came, the congressional report said. The building Breault said the lab was in burned down three years before the ATF raid, the report also said.

David Kopel, a former Colorado assistant attorney general and now a researcher for the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank in Colorado, said he was not surprised by the ATF's decision to add "drug activity" component to the investigation.

"All the military wants is the word `drugs,"' Kopel said. "Nobody cares if it's true."

However, the initial application for a warrant to search the compound included nothing about suspected drug violations. After agents failed to serve the warrant on Feb. 28, 1993, the day of the aborted first assault, they applied for another warrant and expanded its scope. That warrant also made no mention of drugs.

The congressional report states that the Feb. 28 raid should have been conducted differently if there was a real concern about the prospect of a clandestine methamphetamine lab on the premises. Because such labs usually contain explosive and toxic chemicals, standard procedure calls for the arrest of lab operators away from their laboratories. Koresh was regularly seen in Waco and could easily have been apprehended, officials have said.

"All those justifying stories have kind of gone up in smoke: drug use, machine guns, child abuse," said Daniel Polsby, a professor at George Mason University's law school who specializes in constitutional law.

The congressional committees eventually determined that the "ATF misled the Defense Department as to the existence of a drug nexus in order to obtain non-reimbursable support."

Darley, the Pentagon spokesman, said he wouldn't comment on any conclusions reached by Congress. But he said the Pentagon concurs with an Aug. 26 General Accounting Office report, which determined that the approval of military counterdrug support was reasonable and authorized.

National Guard involvement

The use of Texas and Alabama National Guard units at Mount Carmel may have violated laws in both states and perhaps the U.S. Constitution.

Convincing state officials that drugs were involved in the Branch Davidian investigation was crucial to involvement of the Texas National Guard.

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit use of state National Guard personnel for local law enforcement, but Texas law does. State law allows the use of its National Guard helicopters for law enforcement only if there is a evidence of drug violations.

On Dec. 11, 1992, ATF Special Agent Jose Viegra met with representatives of Gov. Ann Richards' office to discuss the role of the military in any potential ATF action against the Branch Davidians, Treasury Department documents show.

Viegra was told he could not make use of Operation Alliance, which serves as a clearinghouse for several agencies involved in drug investigations along the Southwest border, unless there was a drug component.

Three days later, according to a Treasury Department memorandum, Operation Alliance officials received a facsimile from the ATF requesting assistance from the Texas Counterdrug Program, which included the National Guard.

Lt. Col. William Pettit, Texas National Guard coordinator of the Texas Counterdrug Task Force, signed off on the request. The ATF fax made no reference to suspected drug violations in the compound, casting Pettit's approval in doubt, according to the congressional report.

After the Feb. 28 raid, ATF Deputy Director Daniel Hartnett wrote Gov. Richards a letter on March 27, 1993, denying allegations that Mount Carmel did not have the necessary drug activity to justify the Texas National Guard's involvement.

"Please let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth," Hartnett wrote.

Hartnett wrote that 11 sect members "have some prior drug involvement, some with arrests for possession and trafficking." However, when ATF agents were interviewed by Treasury Department officials in a post-siege review, they said that only one Branch Davidian had a drug conviction, the congressional report said.

The use of the Texas National Guard isn't the only questionable Guard involvement.

The ATF also used the Alabama National Guard for aerial photography on Jan. 14, 1993. That task was authorized by a "memorandum of agreement" between the adjutants general of the Texas National Guard and the Alabama National Guard.

According to Texas law, the National Guard from another state cannot be used without approval of the Texas governor. Alabama state law says that its National Guard has no authority to conduct operations outside the state.

National Guard personnel said in a post-raid Guard investigation that Gov. Richards did not approve the use of the Alabama National Guard. Military documents released to Congress during its 1995 hearings indicated that Richards was unaware of the extent of the Texas National Guard's involvement until after the Feb. 28 raid, the congressional report said. Neither Richards nor members of her staff at the time could not be reached to comment last week.

Use of the Alabama National Guard may also have violated the U.S. Constitution, the congressional report said, although that issue was outside the scope of the congressional investigation.

The Constitution specifically prohibits states from entering into treaties without congressional consent. The National Guard Bureau takes the position that use of the National Guard for law enforcement purposes across state lines is therefore strictly prohibited.

"Thus, it appears that the Alabama National Guard entered and conducted military operations in Texas without the proper authority to do so," the congressional report said.

Staff writer Gabrielle Crist contributed to this report.

Jennifer Autrey, (817) 548-5476
Send comments to jautrey@star-telegram.com

Tomorrow: Despite government denials, one agent's statement says that the FBI fired shots on April 19, 1993, court records show.

Congress was given evidence four years ago that pyrotechnic tear gas canisters were used in the FBI raid on the Branch Davidian compound in 1993, Rep. Henry Waxman said yesterday.

New congressional investigations into the 1993 standoff near Waco have resulted from recent news reports that the FBI did not disclose the use of the military-style canisters until this year. But Waxman, a Democrat from California, said congressional investigators were told about the canisters during the 1995 round of investigations.

Waxman cited documents from the FBI and the Justice Department that repeatedly refer to military canisters without specifically mentioning the possibility that they can generate fire. No evidence has surfaced linking the tear gas to the fatal fire, which the government says was started by Davidian leader David Koresh and his followers.

"I guess, hypothetically, maybe the staffs read over these documents and didn't understand the terms. Maybe they didn't think much about it," Waxman said. "But the facts seem to be that the attorney general and her Department of Justice and the FBI sent the Congress, in 1995, documents that military tear gas was used."

Waxman is the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican who said yesterday that he is expanding his committee's new investigation of the standoff to look into whether FBI snipers fired into the compound on the final day of the standoff.

Burton announced the expansion of the investigation after the Texas Rangers disclosed that they had collected a dozen spent projectile casings from a house used by FBI snipers during the 1993 siege.

But the evidence was far from conclusive because the same house was also used by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms during their firefight with sect members on the first day of the standoff.

And the Rangers' report cites concerns raised not by the Rangers, but by Colorado film researcher Mike McNulty, who was allowed last year to review the evidence being held by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

"Mike McNulty has questioned .308 Winchester cases located at the undercover house, which may show that the FBI snipers fired rounds on 04- 19-93," the report states.

FBI officials have repeatedly said their agents did not fire during the 51-day confrontation, which ended when a devastating fire roared through the compound. Koresh and about 80 of his followers died in the fire.

Burton said the evidence gathered by the Texas Rangers "raises new concerns that require further investigation by Congress."

Other critics of the Justice Department said Waxman's findings concerning the pyrotechnic tear gas canisters do not exonerate Attorney General Janet Reno or her subordinates because federal agents never highlighted the information.

"In 1995, three days before the hearings, they dumped over 100,000 pages worth of documents on the committee staff," Burton's spokesman Mark Corallo said. "I think it was up to them to point it out to us."

Corallo also noted that Reno has said that she was unaware of the combustible canisters. Responding to news reports late last month, Reno expressed outrage that she did not know about their use at the Davidians' Mount Carmel compound outside Waco. She said yesterday that she had no immediate reaction to Waxman's disclosures.

The report from the Texas Rangers opens a new line of inquiry by raising the possibility that FBI snipers shot at the Branch Davidians. The Texas law enforcement agency released its report on the Internet late Sunday after delivering copies of the document to Burton's committee and independent investigator John Danforth.

The Rangers said in their report that they reviewed selected items from the 24,000 pounds of evidence after questions were raised about the use of the pyrotechnic canisters.

Most of the 11-page report contains highly technical information that breaks down the type of casings found, the manufacturers that produce the ammunition, and quotations from manuals explaining the chemical breakdown of various tear gas canisters found at the scene.

Included in the 24,000 pounds of evidence was a spent casing from a 40 mm cartridge believed to have been used to knock down a door so gas could be dispensed, the report says.

And as was expected, the report confirms that the FBI used the pyrotechnic tear gas canisters, which burn at 500 to 700 degrees Fahrenheit and can ignite flammable material.

The report repeatedly cites concerns raised by McNulty, a longtime critic of the government's handling of the siege.

"Mike McNulty has advised me that other evidence held by the DPS is crucial to proving some of his suspicions that the FBI and ATF have not been truthful in their account of the Branch Davidian investigation," Ranger Sgt. Joey D. Gordon wrote.

For example, McNulty asserts that a blue knit cap worn by a Davidian who was killed during the ATF raid might provide evidence that the man was shot at close range, which contradicts reports by ATF agents who say he was shot from a distance.

The report also includes a June 1999 interoffice memo from Ranger Sgt. George L. Turner, who says he recovered a "thumper round" from the scene, which was later identified as the 40 mm cartridge believed to have been used to knock down the door.

Turner's memo says the FBI fired the thumper round, which is highly explosive.

Turner notified Rangers and FBI officials of his findings but did not pursue the matter further.

"I never came forward with the information that would seem to indicate that an explosive projectile was fired on April 19, 1993," Turner wrote in the memo. "But I was never asked the question. If I had been, I would have naturally responded with the truth."

Turner said Ranger officials who testified in the 1995 Senate subcommittee hearings were reminded of the "possibility of an explosive round having been fired."

Danforth, appointed last week by Reno to investigate the FBI's actions in the last day of the siege, declined to comment on the Rangers' findings.

In a related matter, Justice Department attorneys asked yesterday for a two-week extension in turning over information about expert witnesses scheduled to testify at a lawsuit brought by Davidians, The Associated Press reported.

Mike Caddell, lead attorney for the Davidians, told the AP that though he does not object to the extension, it's another reason to delay the trial, which is set for Oct. 18.

U.S. District Judge Walter Smith Jr. has not ruled on the motion.

WACO: The Cult of War

Source: Boston Globe
Published: 14 September 1999 Author: James Carroll

Former Senator John Danforth, defining the purpose of his Waco investigation, distinguishes between bad
judgments and bad actions. Only the latter, he says, are his concern. Danforth's wish to limit the scope of an
investigation is welcome, but the distinction seems all too facile. When bad judgment infects a government as
powerful as ours, bad actions can be inevitable. Waco is one example, and the disaster unfolding in East Timor is
another. A similar failure of judgment in action underlies them both.

The government's mistake at Waco transcends, but is related to, the issues of whether ''military style'' flammable
tear-gas canisters were fired at the Branch Davidian compound and whether that fact was covered up by the FBI.
The profound act of bad judgment that led to those alleged bad actions was the prior decision to militarize
government curtailment of the Koresh commune in the first place. Once a siege was set with the massing of
fatigue-clad agents, on-scene advisers from an elite military commando unit, buzzing helicopters, armed vehicles,
and a tank, what should have been a civilian law enforcement operation morphed into an instance of martial law.

The initial purpose behind this show of ''overwhelming force,'' to use the phrase made famous by Colin Powell,
may have been to intimidate David Koresh, but it was the mind-set of the federal agents that seems to have been
most powerfully influenced by the staging of the siege. They stopped thinking like civilian law officers, whose
purpose is to maintain order with a minimal use of force, and began thinking like soldiers who, once in combat, do
whatever it takes to win.

Once the martial drumbeat began, negotiators' efforts at persuasion had to seem untrustworthy to the besieged
and all too soft to the besiegers. Soldiers know, perhaps better than police, that the law of critical mass applies to
the mustering of arms: Once an overwhelming force is fully deployed, it carries its own momentum to be used,
whether wisely or not. By the time Janet Reno was presented with the decision of whether to attack the
Davidians, the pressures to do so were probably irresistible. As Colin Powell would be the first to say, don't set a
siege unless you want a battle.

A democratic society necessarily distinguishes between police and military functions precisely because in
conditions of war, regard for civil liberties is an inevitable first casualty. Another is the principle of accountability to
those outside the body of war makers. The Waco case, with the FBI behaving like an army at war both during the
siege and in subsequent investigations, seems to have involved both abuses.

When law enforcement becomes defined as war, as in the war on drugs; when police departments assemble
arsenals appropriate to heavy combat; when traditional blue uniforms are commonly traded in for fatigues and
jack-boots; when cops become commandos, an ultimate and prior bad judgment can lead increasingly to the bad
action of government violence. The militarization of law enforcement, from federal to local levels, has infected this
country like a virus. Waco is not the disease but a symptom.

Even more disastrous has been the militarization of American foreign policy, and the most egregious example of
this has long been Indonesia. During the Cold War, US policy makers turned a blind eye to the diabolical
character of the Suharto regime and instead armed it to the teeth for strategic but also economic reasons. For
more than a generation, the American arms industry made a fortune off Suharto. When his army seized East Timor
in 1975, launching a war in which a third of its population died, we ignored it for the sake of our larger purposes -
stopping Communism and fueling the arms race. But by the time we stopped Communism, the momentum of
militarization continued, both in Jakarta, where, though Suharto fell, the army did not, and in Washington, where
the Pentagon continued to favor the warlords.

''Pentagon reluctant to isolate Indonesia'' read a Globe headline a few days ago. Even this week, Defense
Department officials opposed the military aid cutoff ordered by President Clinton, a belated but proper effort to
influence events in East Timor. Now the ''bad actions'' of Indonesia's criminal military are on display for all to see,
but they flow from a prior act of American bad judgment, the creation and on-going support of an Indonesian
military whose overwhelming force has been directed only at domestic opposition or the illegally occupied East
Timorese. The monster at large in East Timor this week was born in the United States.

America must wake up to what it has become. We replaced our Cold War mortal enemy with ourselves. We are
enthralled with the ethos of weaponry at every level in our culture. We define power through gunsights - children
do it on city streets, but so do the occupants of paneled rooms in Washington. There is no moral difference
between profiteers who trade in cheap handguns and those who sell high-tech gunships in the developing world. In
Waco the American cult of war collided with a cult of false religion, and innocents died.

In East Timor, the cult of war reveals itself at its most extreme, and innocents die, in part and again, because of us.
At home and across the world, history cries out to the United States of America to change.

Expert: Film shows numerous shots fired at Davidians

By MARK ENGLAND Tribune-Herald staff writer

Plaintiffs in the Branch Davidian lawsuit against the government filed a
document Monday in Waco's federal court stating they have an expert who will
testify his analysis of a FLIR tape shows at least 60 shots were fired at the
Davidians on the day their residence burned down.

Edward Allard was listed among the plaintiffs' expert witnesses for the lawsuit,
set for trial on Oct. 18.

Allard — who made similar claims in the 1997 film Waco: Rules of Engagemen t
— said he recently analyzed another FLIR tape brought to him by Mike
McNulty, who is producing his second film on Waco.

FLIR stands for forward-looking infrared film, which, basically, picks up the heat
signatures of objects.

"Any layman can look at what I looked at and say it's gunshots, assuming he
knows something about gunshots," said Allard, who worked 10 years in the
Army's Night Vision Laboratory and is a physicist at a private company in
Virginia.

On at least three occasions, the FLIR film he analyzed showed automatic
weapons fire directed at the Davidians on April 19, 1993, once while their
residence was in flames, Allard said.

A government plane shot the FLIR images while circling Mount Carmel at 9,000
feet.

"What the FLIR shows is that while a fire is engulfing the kitchen area, gun
positions on the outside are pouring automatic gunfire in there," Allard said. "I
stopped counting at 45 shots. You don't see 45 shots. You see a flash here, a
flash there. But if you break the film down, you can actually count the number of
rounds."

The gun positions were about 30 yards away from the kitchen area, according to
Allard, who believes the Davidians were essentially trapped in the fire.

Justice Department and FBI officials declined to comment on Allard's allegations.

"That's all part of the Danforth investigation," an FBI spokesman said. "We
wouldn't want to comment."

Attorney Mike Caddell, who represents some of the plaintiffs in the Davidian
lawsuit, said he saw the FLIR tape that Allard analyzed. Caddell plans to present
it during the upcoming trial, he said.

"I think it's the most dramatic evidence that there was gunfire from government
positions," Caddell said. "At the end of the day, I think that's what this case is
going to be about. I don't know this many years after the fact if we can prove
who started the fire."

Allard said the FLIR tape also shows two instances where men fired at least 15
shots at the Davidians while using a tank as cover.

He believes most people will conclude the "flashes" seen in the FLIR tape are
gunshots. Caddell agreed.

"I know of nothing in nature that will create that kind of rapid heat generation,"
Caddell said. "I can't imagine what else it could be. Light would not heat up
something so quickly and then cool off so rapidly that it would disappear."

A firm hired by the Washington Post to examine the FLIR images seen in Waco:
Rules of Engagement argued that the flashes could be reflections of sunlight.
Allard dismissed that premise, arguing that the company making the claim
handles government contracts. He also claimed its methodology for studying the
FLIR tape was flawed.

Allard said you can measure the flashes shown on the FLIR tape in 60ths of a
second. Some of the flashes last 3/60ths of a second, which he said corresponds
to automatic weapons fire.

"No technical person I know of that's looked at the tapes said it's anything but
gunfire," Allard said.

The FLIR tape also picked up an image of Davidians on rooftops shooting at
targets away from their residence, according to Allard, who said the gunfire took
place before the fire.

"All we saw were two gun positions on the roof," Allard said. "We couldn't see
the men at all. They had warmed up. They were the same temperature as the roof.
The FLIR, which sees changes in temperature, couldn't see them. We saw
flashes, three of them. They appeared to be firing into the field around them."

Also Monday, the government filed a motion asking for two more weeks to
produce its list of expert witnesses.

According to the motion, the Department of Justice can't meet this week's
deadline to produce the list because its attorneys must review all records in their
possession pursuant to a subpoena from the Government Reform Committee of
the House of Representatives, which is reinvestigating what happened at Mount
Carmel.
Mark England can be reached at mengland@wacotrib.com or 757-5744.

The wacko version of Waco catches on

Source: National Post (Canada)
Published: 9/13/99 Author: Mark Steyn

I owe my New Hampshire neighbour Tom an apology. Tom has wild, flowing white hair and an extensive range of
T-shirts, all of them about the right to bear arms: He is, in other words, a fully paid-up right-wing crazy. A few weeks
back, at a rally for Dan Quayle, I asked Tom what he thought was the most important issue in the 2000 presidential
election. "No doubt about it," he said. "Waco."

My natural inclination was to hoot with derision. But I was sensitive enough to appreciate why, six years on, the
bloody end to the Waco stand-off might still resonate with Tom: Driving past his house, I'm always pleasantly
surprised to find it's not yet under siege by federal agents, who like nothing better than spending millions of taxpayer
dollars staking out guys who earn $12,000 a year. I use the prosaic designation of "house," though doubtless, by the
time the feds show up to take him out, Tom's place will have been upgraded to the more glamorous "compound."
The precise point at which a "house" or "farm" or "ranch" becomes a "compound" is not clear -- the Branch
Davidians religious cult had a "compound" at Waco, white supremacist Randy Weaver had a "compound" at the Ruby
Ridge shoot-out -- but it doesn't seem to have caught on with the realtors ("Beautifully remodelled executive
compound with drop-dead views!") as much as it has with the feds and their pliant media chums.

Still, as Attorney-General Janet Reno told the FBI publicity guy after the siege's incendiary finale, "No one cares
about Waco." And, on that blistering July day at the Quayle rally, I tended to trust Janet's political instincts over
Tom's. But I was irritated by Quayle for showing up an hour late, so I told Tom he definitely ought to take it up with
the candidate. As I left, Tom had the former vice-president wedged into a corner, methodically going through the
new evidence as Quayle looked frantically around for an escape route.

But here we are five weeks later and Waco's all over the front pages. A very literal smoking gun has turned up: After
six years of denying that they fired flammable materials at the Branch Davidians, the FBI has conceded that, in fact,
they did. They're not in as deep water as former Clinton cabinet member Henry Cisneros, who last week pleaded
guilty to one felony count of lying to the FBI. But then, fortunately for the feds, although it's a felony for a citizen to
lie to the FBI, it's not a felony for the FBI to lie to the citizens. Nonetheless, Janet Reno has professed herself
shocked, shocked to discover this sort of thing going on under her nose and promised to tackle it with the same
rigour she's applied to, er, Clinton-Gore fundraising illegalities, Chinese nuclear espionage, you name it.

What happened at Waco was the federal government got a yen to shut down a fruitcake cult. Its leader, David
Koresh, liked to go down to town fairly regularly and could easily have been picked up for questioning down at the
convenience store. But the watchword at federal law enforcement is: If you've got it, flaunt it, baby! So instead they
decided to send in 700 armed men with machine guns and tanks. Instead of pepper spray, they poured in CS gas,
which the U.S. government is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Treaty from using against foreign countries but
reserves the right to deploy against its own citizens. In case that wasn't enough, they also called in backup from the
top secret military Delta Force.

Unfortunately, the hotshots in the combat gear bungled the element of surprise and began firing wildly, killing
several Davidians. Finding themselves under attack, the cult loonies fired back. At the end of the day, four agents
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were dead, and 10 Davidians, including Koresh's two-year-old
daughter. So the feds cut off the compound's water and electricity and bombarded them with deafeningly loud tapes of
animal screams. For 51 days. Then they lobbed their flammable gas.

Eighty-six people died that day, including 24 children. The official explanation was that the children were being
abused, so (if I follow correctly) the government decided to end the abuse by going in and killing the kids. But those
who followed Janet Reno's career as a zealous Florida prosecutor of alleged paedophiles should have known what
was coming next: There proved to be no evidence of child abuse. Next, the government tried the line that the cult
had been selling illegal drugs and stockpiling arms. But over the years those explanations were also abandoned:
There was no evidence of drug dealing and the number of guns per capita was lower than the Texan average. So
we're left with nothing but the body count: The federal government plucked some cult out of the Yellow Pages, went
round, and killed 86 people. For no reason. What happened was as nuttily irrational and rather bloodier than the
Columbine High School massacre.

Whatever one feels about the feeble APEC enquiry, the fuss over the RCMP's use of pepper spray is in stark
contrast to American insouciance over its own national police forces' use of machine guns, tanks and chemical
weapons. There is at least a broad consensus in Canada that agents of the state do not have the right to kill their own
citizens with impunity. In America, the feds can and do. At Ruby Ridge in Idaho, they killed Randy Weaver's wife and
child, again for no reason: No one went to jail -- though eventually the FBI was happy to settle out of court with
Weaver for $3-million (US).

Yet, through it all, the U.S. media have been massively indifferent. It's hard to believe they'd have been so lethargic
if the government had murdered members of an eco-commune or a gay group. But one of the most striking features
of the American scene is the absence of principled left-wing indignation. During Bill Clinton's recent impeachment
difficulties, you couldn't help noticing that the only left-wing journalists in the U.S. with any appetite for attacking the
president were a couple of English public schoolboys -- Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Hitchens. During the
impeachment trial, David Frum and I shared a latte with a liberal columnist and asked him where the left-wing
opposition to Clinton was. He shrugged and said, "In the end, he's our guy." Apparently, this dispensation also
extends to killing gun kooks and religious nuts: They're not our kind of people, so who cares? The commentator
Carl Rowan summed up the establishment view when he said he now supports an inquiry because too many good
people in the government are being hurt by these allegations. So that's what's important, not that too many crummy
people -- social misfits, creeps, losers, nobodies -- have been hurt, fatally, by the government.

It's a very strange world when it takes The New York Times six years to catch up with my friend Tom. The
right-wing wacko version of Waco has at least been consistent, while the FBI's and Janet Reno's have shifted from
month to month. But Tom's wrong in one respect. There was no government "conspiracy" to kill the Branch
Davidians. They didn't need one; they were just indulging in their usual extravagant, wasteful, pointless,
money-no-object, accountability-not-a-problem, women-and-children-our-speciality style of federal law enforcement.
The really crazy guys are the ones outside the compound.

By Paul Strand
September 14, 1999

-- The Branch Davidian fire: New revelations about
a possible cover up seem to be pouring out almost daily. The
Texas Rangers now report they recovered dozens of spent
rifle casings from an FBI sniper outpost at the Waco site.
And it turns out the same sniper who killed Randy Weaver's
wife at Ruby Ridge was one of the agents manning that
outpost. Pyrotechnic devices that could have started a fire
were used at Waco, though the FBI denied that for six
years.

Now there's nothing here at Carmel site but wreck, ruin and
concrete foundations, but six years ago this was the site of
one of the bloodiest assaults -- possibly the bloodiest assault ever by American law
enforcement. More than 80 Branch Davidians -- men, women, 24 children -- died as
shots rang out and fire consumed the structures which stood here.

A soon-to-be-released documentary "Waco: A New Revelation" from MGA Films
accuses the feds of firing flammable pyrotechnic rounds at the Davidians, something the
FBI denied until the last couple of weeks. The film even accuses agents of shooting at
the Davidians.

Clive Doyle, among the few survivors that violent day, still lives on the Mount Carmel
site. "As the tank moves forward," Doyle describes the tank, "two men have dropped
out of the escape hatch. They roll over, and as they roll over they open up with
automatic gunfire."

Doyle is probably alive today because he just happened to be next to a hole punched
into a wall by an armored vehicle as fire ate up the building around him. "I just jumped
up and dived in the general direction of where I thought the hole was," Doyle says. "I
look over my shoulder and the hole's just a mass of flame, and I thought no one's
coming out of there."

Though Clive escaped, his 18-year-old daughter Sheri didn't. As it is for each of the
victims, there's a tree growing for her at Mount Carmel now. "She's out of the
suffering," Doyle says. "The suffering ended for her on day 51."

Doyle definitely blames the government for the disaster, but Clint Van Zandt, the FBI's
negotiating coordinator at Waco, is certain the Davidians did themselves in. "I believe in
my heart of hearts that they chose to set that building on fire," Van Zandt says. "And I
think that the individuals who were shot were shot either by their own hand or by the
hand of an associate inside."

A Christian, Van Zandt believes the Davidians were misguided cultists led by a
dangerously deluded David Koresh. He recalls a talk with Koresh. "He said, 'Brother
Clint, who do you think I am?' I said, 'David, who do you think you are?' And he said,
'I'm the Christ.'"

Van Zandt would eavesdrop on conversations inside the Davidians' complex through
listening devices planted all around it. Van Zandt recalls that on the last day he
overheard the Davidians talking amongst themselves: "'Did David say spread the fuel?
Should we spread the fuel? Shall we light the fire?'" he says. "That level of
conversation. Immediately thereafter the FBI plane flying overhead with an infrared
camera picks up three individual heat sources where I believe in my heart the Davidians
set the fire after discussing it amongst themselves."

Doyle insists he heard no such conversations, but he does say the Davidians had a large
number of kerosene cans collected in a central location to light their lamps. On April
19th, they were worried one of the tanks ramming the building might smash into these
cans. "We figured it would end up running over those and rupturing them," Doyle says,
"and somebody said, 'we better get the fuel,' 'get the cans of fuel' or whatever."

The question is this: Can we believe the government's assurances that it fired no
flammable canisters into the main structure where Sheri Doyle died? The FBI long
insisted it used no flammable pyrotechnics. Now it has had to admit it did. FBI agents
said they had no video or audio tapes concerning those pyrotechnics. Now that's been
disproved. The Justice Department says it knew nothing of these flammable canisters.
Now it turns out the FBI told the Justice Department about those pyrotechnics back in
1993. The FBI insists it never fired one bullet at the Davidians. Now the Texas Rangers
are revealing they have dozens of spent cartridges from a house FBI snipers used
during the siege.

The government has long denied the U.S. Military illegally took part in the final fight, but
a former CIA agent is telling congressional investigators that Delta Force troops
revealed to him that 10 of them attacked the Davidians that day. A military source says
he was told Delta Force was ordered to "take down" the Branch Davidians.

Confidence in the Justice Department is so shaken by all of these revelations that
senators from Republican Trent Lott to Democrat Robert Torricelli are calling for Janet
Reno to resign. Rep. Asa Hutchison is one of the congressmen likely to investigate the
possibility of a massive cover up. Hutchison says, "For six years, we've had the wrong
information coming out, information that should have been available; it was available
and was not disclosed."

A tree has been planted for each person that died here April 19th, 1993. Federal agents
have insisted ever since then that they're not to blame for any of those deaths. But with
long-hidden facts just coming out now, new doubts have been cast on just what the truth
is.

Back to main news page