Here are some headlines sampled from web news sites written about John
Danforth's 21Jul2000 report on Waco Texas:
- BBC: "Inquiry clears FBI of Waco blame"
- CNN: "Investigator absolves U.S. government in Waco siege"
- ABC News: "Investigator Clears U.S. Government in Waco Siege"
- MSNBC: "Waco counsel clears feds in siege" (Subtitle: "Danforth says agents, Reno
did nothing wrong in standoff")
- New York Times: "A Special Counsel Finds Government Faultless At Waco"
|
"After military legal advisors cautioned that such activity might violate Federal law, the ATF's
request was modified so that military personnel only provided training to the ATF agents and did
not participate in the raid. Because the ATF alleged that the Davidians were also involved in
illegal drug manufacturing, the assistance provided by these counter drug military forces was
provided to the ATF without reimbursement."
| |
-- Report 104-749, US House of Representatives, 02Aug1996
|
So, everything's cool, right? The US government, FBI and BATF are in
no way responsible for the death of 80-some innocent people and are
therefore returned to respectability. There was no cover-up. Everything
they told us was the solid truth, and we can trust them to always
look out for our best interests.
Right?
Well, that depends on whether you (1) take the word of the reporters
and editors who interpret the news for you or (2) read Danforth's 153-page report for yourself. If you read it,
what you'll find is crucially different from what has been reported
about it.
These news stories also exhibit either deliberate or negligent obliviousness to a
1996 investigation by the House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform report
which found government agents anything but faultless!
So, what's a 'Branch Davidian' anyway?
In order to give the events on the outskirts of Waco TX in 1993 some
context, you have to go back to 1831 and a Deist who became a Baptist
named William Miller. He studied Biblical prophecy and published a
book in 1836, Evidences from Scripture and History of the Second
Coming of Christ about the Year 1843, having determined that the
Christian Messiah would come to earth and the world (as we know it)
would end. He had many followers who called themselves 'Adventists'
(but were called 'Millerites'). When his prophecy didn't work out,
he refigured and came up with 1844. As far as I know, this didn't
occur either.
|
Then-ATF Director Stephen Higgins and Janet Reno
review BATF stormtroopers on their way to war.
|
The Millerite movement started to come apart, but a few continued.
They decided that 1844 marked the 'beginning of the end' times. In
1858, a new prophet named Ellen G. White published a book The Great
Controversy Between Christ and His Angels and Satan and His Angels.
In 1860, she began a new movement with some of Miller's Adventists,
forming the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Before she died in 1915,
it was determined by the Church that they shouldn't expect to see
any new prophets.
In 1929, an SDA member named Victor Houteff wrote a book and decided
he was a prophet, prompting the Church to kick him out, whereupon
he founded another church, the Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists. The
important belief of Houteff's Adventist Church was that God was going
to establish a literal kingdom in Israel, ruled by Jesus and his lieutenant,
called the ``Antitypical David".
In 1955, Houteff died and the staff was passed to his widow. However,
a member by the name of Ben Roden contested Widow Houteff's leadership,
saying he was a prophet. Around 1959 (according to the custom), Roden
founded his own church, the Branch Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists.
In 1962, Roden and his followers took over New Mount Carmel outside
Waco.
Parenthetically, if all this splitting off and forming new churches
seems strange to you, you don't know Protestant history. There are
a lot more versions of the Baptist Church or Church of Christ than
there are of Adventists.
Ben Roden eventually died and his widow became president. In 1981,
Vernon Howell (who would eventually change his name to David Koresh)
arrived at Mount Carmel as the handyman. In 1983, Howell got his divine
inspiration.
|
"In addition to the continual negotiations with the Davidians, FBI officials took other steps
to induce the Davidians to surrender. These tactics included tightening the perimeter around
the Davidian residence, cutting off electricity to the residence, and at one point, shining
bright lights at the residence and playing loud music and irritating sounds over loudspeakers."
| |
-- Report 104-749, US House of Representatives, 02Aug1996
|
As do many other Christians, the group believed in the imminent arrival
of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy of the Bible. They believed that
the Apocalypse as described in the Book of Revelation was at hand.
With the government and Press referring to the residents of Mount Carmel
as 'Branch Davidians' instead of using their full name or calling
them Seventh-Day Adventists, it probably didn't occur to a lot of
people that the victims were not some completely off-beat bunch of
wackos without a history. They were simply one of several factions
of the Seventh-Day Adventist movement, a well-established Protestant
denomination. Also, they didn't call their home a 'compound' any more
than you call your home or place of worship a compound, but 'compound'
sounds a lot better in the newspapers when government agents are shooting
at it.
| |
More than 20 children died at Waco.
|
The Branch Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists were alleged by various
members of government and the Press to be religious fanatics, polygamists,
child abusers, and gun nuts -- particularly after they died. It is
helpful to remember three things:
- Several investigations
of child abuse conducted by local Child Protective Services turned
up no evidence. None of the children who left the compound during
the siege exhibited any signs of abuse.
- Many religious practices
seem bizarre to outsiders, from the implied cannibalism in the Roman
Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation to the Pentecostal religious
ecstasy of glossolalia (i.e. speaking in tongues).
- Disinformation
always accompanies war. It helps citizens with a conscience to accept
atrocities.
In any case, the normal response to religious fanaticism does not include
paramilitary assault and siege.
The Danforth Report's Limits
...investigation would examine whether government agents
engaged in bad acts, not whether they exercised bad judgment. It is
an important distinction...While charges of deliberate governmental
misconduct justify a far-reaching investigation of this type, there
are good reasons why poor judgment -- conduct alleged to be careless
or imprudent -- does not. Established mechanisms, including civil
lawsuits, are available and sufficient to resolve such claims against
the government.
From its onset, this investigation was about whether or not government
agents killed those men, women and children deliberately, not whether
they did so accidentally. Is there a difference? Of course there is.
|
"The video tape reviewed, however, is not continuous from the point from which the helicopters
lifted off to the point at which they landed. The fact that videotape was taken at some points
in the raid and not at others has not been explained to the subcommittees."
| |
-- Report 104-749, US House of Representatives, 02Aug1996
|
[As our very first unquietmind editorial
argued, when stupidity and incompetence leads to death, it might be
considered a greater evil than are malicious actions.]
Even if Danforth's
report's conclusions are 100% correct, to say that agents didn't deliberately
kill people is altogether a different thing from Press claims that
they were cleared, absolved or faultless.
Danforth spends several paragraphs in his preface bemoaning the willingness
of citizens to believe the "dark theories about government actions
at Waco" and "longstanding public cynicism about government". He goes
on about the implications of mistrust in government:
This is a matter of grave concern. Our country was founded
on the belief that government derives its "just powers from the consent
of the governed." When 61 percent of the people believe that the government
not only fails to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
but also intentionally murders people by fire, the existence of public
consent, the very basis of government, is imperilled.
Motives for a Whitewash
The possibility that a guilty verdict would imperil the government
is one very good motive for finding the government innocent, in much
the same way that citizens' rights are often abused in the name of
"national security". So we have one motive. Are there others?
| |
Dealing with undesirables in Germany, early 1940s.
|
Danforth's
report was released July 21st. Until July 24th, when George W. Bush
announced that Dick Chaney was his running mate, John Danforth was
a top contender for the job. In spite of the fact that Waco happened
under the Democrat's watch, anything that adds to basic distrust of
Federal law enforcement agencies would likely be unpopular among leaders
of the political party that consistently runs on "law and order".
On 19Apr1995 -- the two-year anniversary of the Waco bloodbath -- a
man named Tim McVeigh blew up a Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
partly as revenge for Waco (and partly because he was a nutcase).
A verdict that treated the government as less than innocent wouldn't
justify McVeigh's actions in any real sense, but it might cast an
importantly different light on his given reasons.
Is Danforth's report a whitewash? In general and technically speaking (bearing
in mind what it conveniently fails to address, or addresses adequately),
I do not believe it is. (Don't take my word for it; read it for yourself.) There are at least three ways
to lie:
- tell an untruth;
- tell less than the
whole truth;
- tell the truth unconvincingly
So, let's procede
on the assumption that although #2 may apply, what Danforth's report does
cover is 100% gospel.
"2. ...While chief negotiator Byron Sage may have held out hope longer, FBI officials on the ground
had effectively ruled out a negotiated end long before April 19 and had closed minds when presented
with evidence of a possible negotiated end following completion of Koresh's work on interpreting
the Seven Seals of the Bible.
3. The FBI should have sought and accepted more expert advice on the Branch Davidians and their
religious views and been more open-minded to the advice of the FBI's own experts.
4. FBI tactical commander Jeffrey Jamar and senior FBI and Justice Department officials advising
the Attorney General knew or should have known that none of the reasons given to end negotiations
and go forward with the plan to end the stand-off on April 19 had merit. To urge these as an excuse
to act was wrong and highly irresponsible."
| |
-- Report 104-749, US House of Representatives, 02Aug1996
|
Issues and Conclusions
Danforth's report focused on five issues:
Senator Danforth and the Attorney General agreed that
the investigation should determine whether representatives of the
United States committed bad acts, not whether they exercised bad judgment.
Therefore, they drafted a very specific Order that identified five
principal issues:
- whether agents of the United States
started or contributed to the spread of the fire that killed members
of the Branch Davidian group on April 19, 1993;
- whether agents
of the United States directed gunfire at the Branch Davidian complex
on April 19, 1993;
- whether agents of the United States used any
incendiary or pyrotechnic device at the Branch Davidian complex on
April 19, 1993;
- whether there was any illegal use of the armed
forces of the United States in connection with the events leading
up to the deaths occurring at the Branch Davidian complex on April
19, 1993; and
- whether any government representative made or allowed
others to make false or misleading statements, withheld evidence or
information from any individual or entity entitled to receive it,
or destroyed, altered or suppressed evidence or information concerning
the events occurring at the Branch Davidian complex on April 19, 1993.
No need to keep you in suspense. The conclusions were:
The government of the United States and its agents are
not responsible for the April 19, 1993, tragedy at Waco. The government:
- did not cause the fire;
- did not direct gunfire
at the Branch Davidian complex
[in spite of conflicting interpretations
of the infrared video evidence]; and
did not improperly employ
the armed forces of the United States.
Responsibility for the tragedy of Waco rests with certain of the Branch
Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, who:
- shot
and killed four ATF agents on February 28, 1993, and wounded 20 others;
- refused to exit the complex peacefully during the 51-day standoff
that followed the ATF raid despite extensive efforts and concessions
by negotiators for the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");
- directed
gunfire at FBI agents who were inserting tear gas into the complex
on April 19, 1993;
- spread fuel throughout the main structure of
the complex and ignited it in at least three places causing the fire
which resulted in the deaths of those Branch Davidians not killed
by their own gunfire; and
- killed some of their own people by gunfire,
including at least five children.
While in the preface, Danforth's report states "We have not found evidence
of a massive government conspiracy", it later determines that...
The failure of certain government officials to acknowledge
the use of the pyrotechnic tear gas rounds until August of 1999 constitutes,
at best, negligence in the handling of evidence and information and,
at worst, a criminal effort to cover up the truth [for six years!].
As more fully described below, the Special Counsel has made substantial
progress in resolving the coverup issue, but the investigation is
not yet complete.
I guess there's a difference between a "massive government conspiracy"
and a normal government conspiracy.
Unanswered Questions
|
"The subcommittees believe that had the ATF and FBI been better informed about the religious
philosophy of the Davidians and the Davidians' likely response to the government's actions
against them, these agencies could have made better choices in planning to deal with the
Branch Davidians."
| |
-- Report 104-749, US House of Representatives, 02Aug1996
|
If I negligently set events into motion that killed 80 of my fellow
citizens, and proved to a judge that it was an accident, would
the New York Times throw up a headline declaring me "Faultless"? I
think not! Again assuming that the Danforth report is accurate, it inadequately
addresses (or fails to address) the most important questions:
- Why did BATF lie to the Texas National Guard in order to get military
support, claiming that the Davidian complex might be a "drug nexus"
and harbor a methamphetamine lab?
- Why did the FBI harass and antagonize the Branch Davidians during the
siege, thereby undermining all the negotiators attempts to find a
peaceful resolution?
- Why, early in the siege, did FBI agents request approval to shoot unarmed
Branch Davidians? Why did the FBI launch handheld grenades -- seven
times -- at exiting Davidians? More importantly, why was this information
not presented during Justice Department and congressional investigations
in 1993 and 1994? (Answer: "it wasn't specifically requested.")
- During the siege, David Koresh repeatedly stated that he could not
surrender until he received instructions from God. On April 14, God
gave him his expected revelation, to wit, Koresh was to write
a description of the Seven Seals (from the Book of Revelation) and
then surrender peacefully to the FBI with his followers. All of this
was communicated to the FBI. Why did they decide to attack five days
later, rather than allowing him a few more days to finish his project?
- Since the FBI had consulted a number of experts in the field of apocalyptic
religions, who warned that mass murder or suicide was likely if aggressive
action was taken, why did they do everything in their power to provoke
precisely that response?
- Once the fire broke out, why were the walls of Mount Carmel rammed,
directly killing some residents and closing off escape routes?
|
"ATF Special Agent Phillip Chojnacki, the overall commander of the raid, testified that Koresh
could not be arrested outside the residence...
Yet the testimony before the subcommittees revealed that Koresh left the Davidian residence at
least once a week during January and February. David Thibodeau...
testified that Koresh was a regular jogger. It was also revealed during the trial
that Koresh had left the residence on January 29, 1993, to conduct business at a machine shop.
Finally, the manager at the Chelsea Bar and Grill in Waco stated that they served Koresh about
once a week through February."
|
|
-- Report 104-749, US House of Representatives, 02Aug1996
|
One last question
Bearing in mind that the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists had
a long history of coexisting peacefully with their Waco neighbors
and cooperating with the police (since 1962!) why -- when the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms suspected that one person out of
the 127 residents might have illegal weapons -- didn't they simply
serve their fucking search warrant by knocking on the door? If they
had done so, a bloodbath of people (including over 20 children) --
most of whom were completely innocent of any crime -- would have been
avoided.
|
Current FBI Director Freeh has instituted reforms.
Now they're interested in reading your email.
|
In 1982 -- eleven years before Waco -- a Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution found that
BATF agents regularly:
- trampled upon the Second
Amendment by chilling the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms
by law-abiding citizens;
- offended the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably
searching and seizing private property; and
- ignored the Fifth
Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and
by entrapping honest citizens without regard for the right to due
process of law.
The Subcommittee report also found that 75%
of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had "neither
criminal intent nor knowledge."
In 1983, Rep. John Dingell called the BATF "a jack-booted group of
fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as
I could pick today."
I guess I've got the answer to my last question.
|
