WACO: KEY ISSUE AND MISSING EVIDENCE
by Michael Levine I find it almost tragi-comic that mainstream media talking heads and Congress continue to miss--either intentionally or by ignorance of their subject matter--what are the real legal and historical issues involved in the massacre of 80 American citizens at the hands of government agents at Waco, which are: Did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (BATF) act in violation of the US Constitution, Federal and State law in the first place in taking any potentially deadly action against David Koresh and his followers? Were what is commonly referred to as "The Rules of Engagement" violated? And, has evidence of their violating the Rules of Engagement been illegally destroyed or hidden?
If the Rules of Engagement were not violated, since there is no such crime as "overkill"--the use of pyrotechnics and military--the current media focus and furor, at worst, will only be perceived as a series of regrettable "errors in judgment" for which some low level people may or may not be held accountable.
Before going further, it is important that the American public, particularly journalists now covering this issue, understand that, according to the Rules of Engagement, before a US law enforcement officer is permitted to resort to the use of deadly force, the following conditions must exist:
1. The officer must be in fear for his/her own life, or the life of others.
2. The Use of Deadly Force must be the last and only recourse.
Just the fact that Congressman Charles Schumer (now Senator) is being left out of the debate should tell anyone who understands the Rules of Engagement that the current media coverage is missing the point and to a great extent continuing to obfuscate the real issue.
During Congressman Schup;mer's hearings into the events at Waco--the Clinton administration's alleged search for Truth-the first question that should have been answered is: When the BATF first used deadly force, did they truly believe their lives were in danger, and was it their last and only recourse? Top- level BATF brass testified before Congressman Schumer that the Davidians "ambushed" the raiding agents by firing at them first through two steel doors and that the agents returned fire to defend themselves, thus placing their actions clearly within the parameters of the Rules of Engagement. They said that the opening barrage fired by the Davidians was so forceful that the doors actually "bowed outward." Now, if this powerful testimony, rubber-stamped and trumpeted all across mainstream media, were true, all use of deadly force that followed was, albeit arguably, justified, whether or not they "mistakenly" set the place on fire. On the other hand, if this assertion were false, every potentially deadly act the agents took was clearly both a Federal and Texas State felony. Either way, since there is no such crime as "overkill," the question of who used what pyrotechnic devices and/or whether or not the military was used, after the initial use of deadly force--the current focus of all mainstream media reportage--is at best a moot question or a smokescreen.
Now here's where Congressman Schumer comes in. According to testimony before his committee, there were two pieces of evidence that should have proved that the government agents acted, as they claimed, within the Rules of Engagement in resorting to deadly force. The BATF officers claimed that they had actually videotaped the Davidians firing first through the double, steel, entrance doors. They called it an "ambush." Since the doors themselves were not destroyed by the fire and in fact had been glimpsed being moved by a bulldozer on television news footage, they along with the BATF videotapes would have put most of the fears now expressed about Federal law enforcement and the present administration's actions to rest. But this did not happen.
BATF Testimony before Congressman Schumer indicated that the videotapes were "missing" and that only one of the two steel doors was recovered. Frighteningly, for those who already feared an out-of-control Federal law enforcement bureaucracy, the recovered door showed evidence of only the inward path of BATF bullets. There was no evidence that the Davidians, at that point, had even returned fire. The other door, the alleged part that is "bowed outward" from the force of the Davidians' "ambush" bullets was and still is "missing."
If you watched the Waco hearings on C-SPAN, you saw Congressman Schumer scornfully declare that the missing front door was "irrelevant." The missing video was barely addressed, and the question of whether or not 80 Americans had been massacred illegally by their own government was dismissed out of hand. Congressman Schumer even referred to "Flash-bang" grenades-now believed to have been the direct cause of the fire-as "blow-backs," the equivalent of a homicide detective picking up a gun and calling it a "Squeegee." The worst fears of those whom many reporters-demonstrating their own ignorance of US Conspiracy laws-refer to as "conspiracy theorists," were confirmed. The fallout from this massacre of 80 Americans, including 27 children, I fear, may have just begun. I have spent 35 years in Federal and State courts testifying as an expert witness in many matters relating to Law Enforcement, including The Rules of Engagement, and will offer my testimony here: the questions of the missing door and videotape, the identification of individuals responsible for their disappearance, and Congressman Schumer's logic and motivation in calling this key evidence "irrelevant" must be answered fully for there ever to be a true healing of the festering wound on America's soul called Waco.
--Michael Levine is author of New York Times best-seller Deep Cover, The Big White Lie and Triangle of Death, and hosts "The Expert Witness" radio show, WBAI, 99.5 FM and KPFK 90.7 FM. <www.radio4all.org/expert> <www.shineon.org/levine/index.html>