The Fire Last Time

Waco: The Rules of Engagement, directed by William Gazecki, Fifth Estate Productions, 136 minutes, $25.00

No More Wacos: What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It, by David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 524 pages, $26.95

During the 1995 congressional hearings on Waco, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) was mystified that "the lunatic fringe still clings to the notion that there was a gigantic government conspiracy that brought about this nightmare." He said "it is difficult to see how any rational human being subscribes to such a notion." But as you examine the details of what happened at Waco and what government officials said about it, the tendency to see a conspiracy is not so hard to understand.

The bald-faced lies highlighted in Waco: The Rules of Engagement, William Gazecki's critically acclaimed documentary, leave you shaking your head. The catalog of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, recklessness, dishonesty, and moral obtuseness in No More Wacos, David B. Kopel and Paul Blackman's comprehensive account of the disaster, is overwhelming. In many ways, it is easier to believe that the whole thing was planned by a few evil men at the top than to think that it unfolded haphazardly, without rhyme or reason.

But the most troubling thing about Waco, the deadliest law enforcement operation in U.S. history, is the absence of a grand conspiracy. As Kopel and Blackman show, the investigation of the Branch Davidians by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the BATF's February 1993 raid on Mount Carmel, the 51-day FBI siege, the April 19 assault that led to the final fire, the trial of the survivors, and the subsequent explanations can all be understood in terms of prevalent prejudices and familiar failings. Hostility toward private gun ownership and unconventional religions played an important role in the government's actions against the Davidians and in the public's indifference to their fate. Another conspicuous factor was the tendency for overconfident people to screw up, dodge responsibility afterward, and rationalize their behavior as justified by some greater good. As scary as it is to contemplate, it's doubtful that anyone involved in this shameful episode felt in his heart that he was doing wrong.

At the same time, to blame the deaths of 86 men, women, and children (including four BATF agents) on a series of errors does not do justice to the government's conduct at Waco, which rose at least to the level of negligent homicide, or to the cowardly cover-up that followed. And to blame the dead themselves is audacious, since all would be alive today but for the government's gratuitous use of force. Yet Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who makes an appearance toward the end of Waco: The Rules of Engagement, managed to do both. "The record of the Waco incident documents mistakes," he said. "The record from Waco does not evidence, however, improper motive or intent on the part of law enforcement. David Koresh and the Davidians set fire to themselves and committed suicide. The government did not do that."

Five years after Mount Carmel went up in flames, the view that the Branch Davidians did it to themselves--which is also the position taken by President Clinton and At-torney General Janet Reno--remains quite popular. But as Rep. Lantos might say, it is difficult to see how any rational human being subscribes to such a notion. If you know an otherwise decent and reasonable person who still believes the Davidians basically had it coming, show him Waco: The Rules of Engagement, which had a limited theater run and is now available from Amazon.com and Laissez Faire Books.

The documentary, which was nominated for an Academy Award, is powerful enough to appall people who have followed the story closely. Judging from the positive reviews in publications not known for their pro-gun or pro-religious sympathies (The New Republic, The New York Times, the Boston Globe), it has an even stronger impact on people who have not given Waco much thought. Director William Gazecki and his co-writers, Michael McNulty and Dan Gifford, skillfully weave together excerpts from the congressional hearings, press conferences, and negotiation tapes; interviews with witnesses, experts, and local officials; and images of Mount Carmel before, during, and after the siege. Their approach is calm and matter-of-fact, but their juxtaposition of official statements with reality is devastating.

Once you get your friend's attention with the movie, give him No More Wacos, which meticulously documents and analyzes what went wrong and suggests specific reforms to rein in federal law enforcement. The book, which won last year's Szasz Award from the Center for Independent Thought, relies exclusively on material already in the public record. But Kopel, research director at the Colorado-based Independence Institute, and Blackman, research coordinator for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, put it all together in one coherent narrative, with appendices detailing the legal changes they recommend, laying out the chronology, identifying the important figures, and summarizing the negotiation tapes. Their thoroughness makes the book a very useful reference.

The most startling revelation in Waco: The Rules of Engagement is that government personnel apparently fired automatic weapons into Mount Carmel during the FBI's assault, deterring the Davidians from escaping the deathtrap their home had become. Two professional analyses of infrared footage shot by a government plane during the assault identified several instances of machine-gun fire coming from the outside. As the movie reminds us, the FBI repeatedly bragged that it did not fire a single round at Waco--an assertion that was not challenged during the congressional hearings.

Kopel and Blackman complain, with justification, that the hearings degenerated into a partisan battle, with Republicans trying to pin the blame on Clinton appointees, even though the BATF investigation began under the Bush administration and "almost everything that went wrong at Waco...was the result of acts by career federal employees." But Gazecki's film shows that the Republicans were not the only ones who were willing to obscure the truth for the sake of political advantage. Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), for example, clearly saw his job as denying that the government bore any responsibility for what happened to the Davidians.

In one illustrative exchange, Schumer asked Dick DeGuerin, one of Koresh's lawyers, if it was true that the Davidians were stockpiling grenades. DeGuerin said the only grenades he had seen at Mount Carmel were the ones BATF agents tossed in during their raid. A startled Schumer insisted that the "flashbang" grenades used by the BATF--which create a bright flash and a loud noise to distract and disorient the enemy--are not really grenades. Later he contemptuously dismissed DeGuerin's testimony: "Mr. DeGuerin said flashbangers can kill, injure, maim. Anyone who knows anything about these things knows they can't." But it was Schumer who didn't know what he was talking about: As Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) noted, flashbangs are classified as "destructive devices" under federal law, and in response to Barr's questioning a BATF agent conceded that they can kill at close range.

Schumer's underlying message--that the BATF had acted with restraint during the raid--is equally absurd. As Waco: The Rules of Engagement shows, the agents fired wildly into the thin-walled building, heedless of the women, children, and unarmed men within. Wayne Martin, one of the Davidians, made a panicked 911 call during the attack, trying to find someone who could stop the shooting. If anyone held back during the raid, it was the Davidians, who knew the BATF was coming and easily could have killed almost all of the 76 agents as they arrived at Mount Carmel in cattle trailers.

"Is there any way that somebody could believe that justifiable homicide could be used as a defense here?" Schumer incredulously asked during the hearings. Well, yes. Under common law, you are entitled to resist excessive force by government agents, even when they have a valid search warrant (and as Kopel and Blackman detail, the warrant in this case, which alleged that Koresh and a few other residents had illegally produced machine guns and hand grenades, was marred by errors, false statements, stale information, unreliable sources, and inflammatory charges of child abuse that had nothing to do with the search). A jury rejected murder charges against 11 surviving Davidians, apparently concluding that they had acted in self-defense. The forewoman summed up the jury's view this way: "The federal government was absolutely out of control there. We spoke in the jury room about the fact that the wrong people were on trial, that it should have been the ones that planned the raid and orchestrated it and insisted on carrying out this plan."

Neither the book nor the movie answers the important question of who fired first. That issue may never be resolved satisfactorily, given the amount of evidence that has been destroyed or suppressed. The missing evidence suggests some rather ham-handed efforts to hide the truth, so obviously fishy that they actually count against the idea of a sophisticated conspiracy. Waco: The Rules of Engagement includes congressional testimony by a combat expert who said the BATF's failure to anticipate that the raid might not go off as expected amounted to an "`Oh, shit' contingency plan." Much the same could be said of the cover-up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement