WACO the rules of engagement

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was always a bit iffy on the FLIR stuff. Never was clearly gunshots or obviously not to me. I always wondered about not being able to see shooters. But I'm no expert (and even experts go both ways on it).

There was a lot of good information in Waco:RoE, but I think there were aspects that the producers got hung up on which were not based on the best evidence. I really enjoyed seeing congressional testimony.

<Chuckie>"Flashbangers are just happy-puppy-kitten-rainbow-love-muffins of happiness. They wouldn't hurt a fly."</Chuckie>

As I've said before, I think this situation was what happens when two heavily armed groups of crazies look for a fight and find one. I do note that if the Davidians really wanted the attackers dead on the day of the initial raid, they would have slaughtered them after the ATF goons ran out of ammo instead of allowing them to leave unmolested.
 
Gordon:

That's where you get into "buying the federal propaganda" versus "wearing a tinfoil hat."
  • The Feds say they were serving a lawful warrant, but under investigation it turns out the walkthroughs didn't involve presenting one, no-one was carrying one, and no-one tried to produce it.
  • The ATF guy who shot first said he did in response to seeing "wood chips" come flying out of the front door, so he returned fire. The davidians denied that, the door was metal, and it later disappeared from the evidence locker. Oops
We can get into more details/paranoia, but an individual's response is going to depend on how he views these tidbits, and ultimately, how much he trusts the government.
 
I have seen the movie, and read a lot about the case. My mind as a "juror" on this is still open, I haven't made a conclusion of it.

Suffice it to say that the Davidians brought a lot of problems to themselves. However wasn't the original BATF warrant (No FBI was involved early) just on a NFA weapon issue? Couldn't had they gotten these people's attention without a huge busload of people and not have invited the press to watch?

Anyway - while I go through this, one thing is always on my mind - to which I hear often too from others. The Feds knew many innocent children were in that compound. For God's sake - they were shooting into a building they knew had many innocent small children in it! What they did in the end with the CS gas and tanks with all the guns around basically was contrary to any consideration of the protection and safety of those children. It was seriously FUBAR, and they protected themselves from punishment of the obvious screwup it was.
 
This video does not present the evidence of the bunker being blown to heck by an explosive device. I saw that on another WACO video, but I don't know which one. They also "lost" the bunker evidence so it was not tested for explosives, but the bodies were not simply burned they were grossly mutilated.

Also, this video presents the 911 tape recordings, so you can judge for yourself what is going on. The 911 operator becomes disturbed by the experience.

I looked for "lessons" in the tape and found little to go on. You can't trust the negotiators because they said all sorts of things, if you let them retreat they come back with tanks (reno called them "rent-a-cars"), they won't let you retreat, no matter what evidence exists the government will get away with your murder, you WILL loose the immediate public opinion battle, etc..

God help you if the .gov decides to take you out because you are going to die and the people will be glad to see you go.
 
Couldn't had they gotten these people's attention without a huge busload of people and not have invited the press to watch?
There is no reasonable dispute that F-Troop's original intent was a big show for the press. They simply forgot that they were violating the rights of armed citizens who were very intent in their position.

but an individual's response is going to depend on how he views these tidbits, and ultimately, how much he trusts the government.
As a child I trusted the .gov much more than I do as an adult.
 
Anyone interested in Waco and the Waco:TROE video should check out the WACO Holocaust Museum. They go through the evidence in much more detail. Be warned that there are some gory pictures of human remains. It is shown not for effect but rather to demonstrate the actual conditions vs. the governments sanitized version of events. The Museum is mirrored many places but I don't think it's been updated in several years. This appears to be the current version.

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/

There are some people who feel that the ROE video neglected or even covered up some of the most damning evidence against the BATF. The Holocaust Museum people are among them. They feel it is a hoax to stifle protest in the guise of protest. You can read their criticism of Waco TROE here

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wtroe.html
 
Something to add

In college one of my professors told this story. He said he was friends or aquainted with an individual who had communication with Koresh during much of the standoff, via radio if I recall. The individual was also in the Religion field. The bulk of their discussion had to do with Koresh's belief that he HAD to die. The siege was intertwined fully with his quasi-biblical apocalyptic vision. Unfortunately while this person was trying to talk Koresh into an alternate quasi biblical interpretation that did not involve his death or the death of his cult, the forces outside were busy making things come true.

According to what my prof claims he was told, the place really was set up to burn down. Koresh fully expected all of them to die as part of God's plan.

Sadly, Koresh appears to have been convinced that there was an alternative ending just as his hand was forced. :banghead:

While I agree that the Gov't screwed up royally, I hate to see people describe Koresh and his followers in any terms associated with normalcy.

BTW, NO ONE HERE should EVER assume this is a NEW set of behaviors for the government, or for our society. I don't know of any period of US history that doesn't have stories of egregious violation of people's rights by "legitmate authorities". Don't romanticize a past that never was.
 
I hate to see people describe Koresh and his followers in any terms associated with normalcy.
Perhaps they weren't "normal" as some might describe them.

However, they weren't bothering anyone, they weren't causing or engaging in violence or any other civil disobediance. It was the government who went in guns-ablazing, over what was, in reality, a $200 tax dispute. They could have sent a couple guys to knock on their door, and solved the entire issue in a peaceful, lawful way. Instead they chose to storm the place by force of arms, then slaughtered the people to cover up their culpability.
 
I read DMF''s links. They reminded me very much of several situations I've run into in my career as an environmental engineer. On more than one occasion, I've been asked to provide independent analysis of data from areas of contamination, including one Superfund site, that are suspected of having caused adverse enviromental impacts to surrounding communities. My analyses are based on accepted scientific methodologies and my experience as a professional engineer and geologist. At the end of my analysis, I provide a summary of findings, oftentimes in both a technical format and a "plain English" discussion.

Like the FLIR consultants, I am sometimes asked to look at "obvious" signs of contamination that supposedly "prove" the guilt of the responsible party. Sometimes the claims are valid; however, usually they are not. Sad to say, what I have found is that no amount of scientific data, or detailed explanations, or expert testimony provided in a calm, reasoned, and logical manner will prevail against preconceived notions that fit into the neat little mold of people with an agenda (usually lawyers/activists), or a grudge (usually folks seeking easy money).

Cases like Waco demand a detached and objective viewpoint. You must believe that both sides are equally capable of wrongdoing in the extreme. Otherwise, your predilection will be to vilify one party and exonerate the other, no matter what the evidence indicates.

However, if you hate the govt, and don't understand why the govt as an institution is a necessary evil that we must contend with in order to maintain a civilized society, then you will never meet this criteria and will always be prejudiced in every situation.

The part that really rankles me, though, are folks who know that they are not qualified to offer an opinion, but do so anyway. Typically, these folks have limited or no experience or experience in a tangentially related field, or a lack of proper educational credentials to make them truly experts. But, they know enough of the lingo to make them appear knowledgable to the uninitiated. Their tactics are similar - "look at the pictures", instead of "look at the data" and their presentations are leading - "obviously, this means that..." instead of "the information indicates...." They know these tactics work well on the uneducated and ignorant. IMO, they are as guilty of deception as any politician has ever been because the repercussions of their actions have serious impacts on society. But, unlike corrupt politicians who are sometimes made to pay (not often enough), these charlatans are never held accountable. When painted into a corner, they can simply smile and say "hey, its just my opinion and I can't be prosecuted for free speech." Well, I guess that's true. Character has never been a legal requirement for citizenship, but maybe it should be.
 
However, if you hate the govt, and don't understand why the govt as an institution is a necessary evil that we must contend with in order to maintain a civilized society, then you will never meet this criteria and will always be prejudiced in every situation.

I don't think you'll find anyone here or on any gun board who is an outright anarchist.

I think that most people here and everywhere else in America want only one thing: For the government to adhere strictly to the Constitution, no more, no less.

I also think that pretty much everyone here and in America will agree with and acknowledge the FACT that each and every state, federal and local government has long ago grossly overstepped its Constitutional bounds.
 
I don't think you'll find anyone here or on any gun board who is an outright anarchist.
Wanna bet? You haven't been here very long, have you?
I also think that pretty much everyone here and in America will agree with and acknowledge the FACT that each and every state, federal and local government has long ago grossly overstepped its Constitutional bounds.
First, that simply isn't true. Logistically, it can't be, especially at the local level, but even so at the state. Second, even if true in the majority of cases, that doesn't excuse a prejudicial attitude. One must maintain objectivity when judging an accused party, whether that party is member of the govt or a racial group. Stated another way, unless all US govt authority is illegimate, then each case must be judged on its own merits.
 
I don't think you'll find anyone here or on any gun board who is an outright anarchist.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Man, you newbies can be SO funny sometimes. Yes, there ARE outright Anarchists on this forum. I'm one of them, of this variety.
I also think that pretty much everyone here and in America will agree with and acknowledge the FACT that each and every state, federal and local government has long ago grossly overstepped its Constitutional bounds.
I'll agree that the federal .gov has done such. My state .gov for the most part keeps within its limits, my towns even more so, and the closest ".gov" to me, my HOA, is remarkably small and weak.
 
First, that simply isn't true. Logistically, it can't be, especially at the local level, but even so at the state. Second, even if true in the majority of cases, that doesn't excuse a prejudicial attitude. One must maintain objectivity when judging an accused party, whether that party is member of the govt or a racial group. Stated another way, unless all US govt authority is illegimate, then each case must be judged on its own merits


Frankly, I don't even see where a local government derives its legitimacy from.

Our Constitution says nothing about "local" governments, only state and federal.

Therefore, I would argue that local governments are by their very existence, illegitimate and unconstitutional.

If I am wrong, please correct me.
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Man, you newbies can be SO funny sometimes. Yes, there ARE outright Anarchists on this forum. I'm one of them, of this variety.

Uh, sorry that I don't know each member of this forum personally? :rolleyes:
 
"The part that really rankles me, though, are folks who know that they are not qualified to offer an opinion, but do so anyway."

Truer words have never been spoken
 
So, are some of you saying that the Dividians were not a cult, and were not a bunch of "kooks" as someone put it?

So what if they were? Tell me, just who gets to decide who is a "kook" and what is a "cult" in this country? I'm sure there are quite a few around who think the simple fact of owning a firearm makes you a "kook." BTW, did anyone notice at the time the lenths that were gone too, in order to demonize Koresh to just about every segment of society? The bottom line is that these people were hurting nobody, and were attacked by government goons. The fact that they just did not roll over and show their bellies like good little sheeple are supposed to, does not make them evil in my eyes.
 
Cult or not, it doesn't make any difference. It still is in no way, shape or form justification for mudering those people.
 
Weren’t the FBI and BATF serving lawful search warrants? Wasn’t the Davidians’ response to fight?
Yes, they were serving TWO warrants based on PC established before a US Magistrate Judge. One was for the arrest of Vernon W. Howell, aka David Koresh, the other was to search the compound for illegal weapons.

Were mistakes made? Sure, but hindsight is 20/20. However, the claims that ATF had no reason to be investigating Howell, or serving those warrants is ludicrous.

How ATF got involved, and why they served those warrants, from former Director Higgins: http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco5.html
I am not so naïve to think that people will blindly accept my accounting of the events surrounding Waco, only hopeful that reasonable people will realize there are at least two sides to every story. Here's mine. . .

. . . it is a matter of public record that the ATF did not go looking for the Davidians. In the first place. A local deputy sheriff received a report from a United Parcel Services driver who said that a package had broken apart on delivery, revealing inert grenade casings inside. The driver also reported earlier suspicious deliveries of firearms parts, casings and black powder.

In May 1992, the deputy asked the ATF for assistance, thus triggering the extensive investigation that led the issuance of search and arrest warrants by a federal magistrate-judge in February 1993. So conspiracy theorists had best include the local sheriff's office and UPS as part of the collusion.
Leave aside for the moment whether ATF commanders did in fact determine the morning of the raid that Koresh had been tipped off they were coming and tragically led the agents into an ambush, as the Treasury report concluded. Assume for the sake of argument that the raid commanders should have reached that conclusion and canceled the raid. The fact is, the raid wasn't canceled. By what perverted sense of logic or legality does it somehow follow, as some have argued, that because the ATF made a mistake in not aborting the raid, the Davidians were therefore entitled to offer armed resistance and kill the agents as they arrived to serve legal, court-ordered warrants?
 
Frankly, I don't even see where a local government derives its legitimacy from.
From the essential need for government, as I alluded earlier. Govts were not invented by the Constitution, they are simply recognized by them.
 
However, they weren't bothering anyone, they weren't causing or engaging in violence or any other civil disobediance.
Ask the girls who were raped by Howell, some who hadn't even reached their teens yet, if they thought there was no violence, or if they were "bothered" by Howell's actions.

Before anyone says the ATF has no business being involved in a child molestation case, the feds became interested in Howell for the alleged weapons violations, and the state was interested in Howell for allegations that he was molesting young girls. Don't expect the feds to ignore the fact that Howell may have been engaged in state crimes when conducting their investigation. Don't expect the state to ignore Howell may have been involved fed crimes when doing their investigation. As Director Higgins pointed out the feds got involved at the request of the locals.

The following are excerpts from materials compiled by the FBI during the standoff providing examples of Koresh's historical (i.e., pre-February 28, 1993) sexual practices with young girls.

a) From ATF Affidavit in Support of Arrest of Koresh

From ATF Special Agent Aguilera's interview of former compound resident Jeannine Bunds, included in Agent Aguilera's affidavit in support of the Koresh arrest warrant, February 25, 1993:

"Ms. Bunds also told me that Howell had fathered at least fifteen (15) children with various women and young girls at the compound. Some of the girls who had babies fathered by Howell were as young as 12 years old. She had personally delivered seven (7) of these children.

According to Ms. Bunds, Howell annuls all marriages of couples who join his cult. He then has exclusive sexual access to the women. He also, according to Ms. Bunds, has regular sexual relations with young girls there. The girls' ages are from eleven (11) years old to adulthood."

b) From Interview by Texas Social Worker

Joyce Sparks, Children's Protective Services Investigations supervisor, Waco, interviewed a young girl, a former compound resident, on February 22, 1993:

"[She] entered the cult when she was about three or four years old. . . .

We asked her if she could think of any reason that any of the children at the compound would not be safe and as we got into this discussion, she brought up the topic of sexual abuse. She described herself as special and treated differently than other children. She talked about spending time alone with David and although this was 'scary' she felt 'privileged.'

She explained to us that on one occasion, when she was ten years old, her mother left her in a motel room with David Koresh. He was in bed and he told [her] to come over to him. She got into the bed. David had no pants on. He took off her panties and touched her and then got on top of her. . . .

We talked about how she was feeling when this happened and she responded . . . 'scared.' When asked what else she felt, she responded . . . 'privileged.' When asked what David would do if he knew she was telling us about this, [she] rolled her eyes and said . . . 'I wouldn't even want to think about it.'

We asked if she knew about any other girls who had experienced this and she said yes. She reported that she knew about Michelle Jones. When asked how she knew this, she explained that David had talked about having sex with Michelle when she was fourteen. He told in a Bible study once what it was like when he had sex with Michelle."

Michelle Jones died inside the compound on April 19, 1993.

c) From 1990 Affidavit of Former Davidian Ian Manning

"I was told that Vernon was sleeping with Michelle Jones, now currently fifteen years of age. . . .

I have seen Aisha Gyarfas come out of various rooms with Vernon where he slept that night. Vernon brags about having slept with her. She is now only fourteen years of age."

Aisha Gyarfas died inside the compound on April 19, 1993.

d) From 1990 Affidavit of Former Davidian Alison Manning

"Vernon claims to have permission from God to have more than one wife and although he is legally married to one woman (Rachel Olivia Jones) he has sexual relations . . . with other women -two of which were minors at the time of his first encounters with Vernon has also discussed his relations with Aisha Gyarfas (an Australian girl of fourteen years of age), stating that on their first sexual encounter her heart was beating so fast and hard he could hear it. Once taken as his new 'wife' these girls were involved in continuing relations with Vernon, intermittently being taken into his bedroom to spend the evening with him."

http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacoseven.html
A FOURTEEN-YEAR OLD girl has helped to demolish the myth that the dead Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh was a martyr destroyed by a ruthless FBI operation at Waco, Texas, in April 1995.

In evidence to Congress, which is investigating the episode, Kiri Jewel described how the self-proclaimed messiah used the sect as a cover for rape. . .

. . . Kiri said that she slept with Koresh and her mother in one bed. She recalled a childhood friend who, at the age of 14, "has a baby for David".

There was an uneasy silence in the congressional chamber as Kiri began to talk of her first sexual encounter with the cult leader at a motel in Waco when she was 10. . .

. . . Recounting more of her sexual initiation, she said that he used Biblical quotations to explain himself. He told her that, "King David from the Bible would sleep with young virgins to keep him warm."

She said: "I had known this would happen sometime, so I just laid there and stared at the ceiling. I was 10 when this happened."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco4.html
 
Ask the girls who were raped by Howell, some who hadn't even reached their teens yet, if they thought there was no violence, or if they were "bothered" by Howell's actions.
Funny, how folks are accused of all sorts of bad things, right after they're burned alive, and are considered guilty of same, even without trial, or even arrest.

Funny how the feds protected those children from this supposed molestation by burning them alive, coincidently keeping them from testifing to the truth of the matter either way.

Funny how the fact that this was, at it's core, a $200 tax dispute, yet no one defending the feds ever actually address that, nor exactly why they mounted a full scale no knock assault on a church with no history of violence, over a minor tax dispute.
 
Dmf...

Ask the girls who were raped by Howell, some who hadn't even reached their teens yet, if they thought there was no violence, or if they were "bothered" by Howell's actions

You see that's what is weird to me.

1) If that was the case (I am not doubting the allegation) - why didn't they just seize him at the many places he frequented (coffee shop, music store), instead of this attempt in a place he was fortified in? Why all the ATF agents?
2) If we are concerned about child-welfare, what happened was absolutely what not to do, and I have read experts testify to this.

It's like a big mystery to me on that point...
 
Well they wanted to arrest Howell AND search the compound. Remember they had to serve both warrants. Also, when serving arrest warrants in public places there is always the concern that innocent bystanders may get hurt if the suspect resists. While that does not mean arrests won't be done in public, there are many problems when attempting an arrest in a public place.

In addition the original plan was to go at a time when the majority of the Branch Davidians would be outside working, and away from the weapons. They were hoping that by surprising the people at Ranch Apocalypse, with an overwhelming force of agents, while they were separated from the guns, that violence would be avoided.

In the end we know that the people at Ranch Apocalypse were tipped off, and decided to attack the agents. Again, hindsight is 20/20. Whether or not it was an error to continue with the service of the warrants can be debated ad infinitum, but just because the ATF made a tactical error, did NOT justify a hostile response from Howell and his followers.

There is fairly decent synopsis of the events leading up to the Waco raid in the book, "Very Special Agents," by Jim Moore, a retired ATF agent. Obviously Moore has a bias in this, but it should be noted he is very critical of many of the decisions made during the Vernon Howell investigation.

In the end it was a tragedy all the way around, for all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top