Waco: The Rules of Engagement

PRESS

| Home | Premiere | Showings | FAQ | Gallery | Order | Email |

Cups Magazine
September 1997

Killing the Weird
Documentary Re-Examines the Waco Burning

By Fred Zwick

Re-opening a case the American public though was largely closed, Waco: The Rules of Engagement marshals a damning indictment of the FBI and ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). The documentary film features aerial footage which shows federal authorities firing bullets into the compound the day it caught on fire. This raises the question of how responsible the feds are for the fire that killed 76 men, women and children. The official story, of course, is that the Branch Davidians were an apocalyptic sect who set themselves on fire.

The Waco fire was a culmination of a 50-day standoff triggered by an ATF raid on the compound in February, 1993. Led by the charismatic David Koresh, the Davidians had been stockpiling illegal weapons. Six ATF agents were killed in the raid.

Cups interviewed Dan Gifford and Amy Sommer Gifford, producers of Waco, when they brought the film to New York to open the Human Rights Film Festival. The film has played sporadically across the country since opening at this year's Sundance Film Festival. Strangely enough, this
topical film has received virtually all its coverage from the arts and entertainment sections. It has been largely ignored by mainstream journalists and politicians.

CUPS: Why do you think the ATF raided the Branch Davidians?

DG: The ATF was an agency that was in danger of being disbanded. It had a history of massive civil rights abuses and they were seeking publicity. This was testified in Congress. There is a high element of enforcing the morals of society, the psyche of right thinking.

CUPS: Was David Koresh cooperative with the ATF in the past?

DG: Going back, when the ATF was first investigating Koresh, they spoke with the local gun dealer from whom the Davidians had bought some things. The gun dealer testified in Congress that he picked up the phone, called Koresh and said, "These guys have questions about what
you're doing. I can't answer them." At that time, Koresh invited the agents out to the complex, and they said "No." If there was an issue about arresting him, he was out and about all over town. They could have arrested him at any time. They didn't want to. Clearly they wanted to do
a raid, with a lot of publicity. If it had gone the way they wanted it to go, this would have been a massive publicity hit for them. It would have lasted for two months.

CUPS: Why did they desperately need this publicity?

DG: Their funding appropriations hearing was coming up in a week and they were doing what virtually every other agency does--manufacturing a public relations stunt, going before Congress and saying, "Hey, give us more money, more power, and we'll do even more wonderful things."

CUPS: Why was the ATF hostile towards Koresh? Was he just a convenient target because they worried about future funding?

DG: On the one hand, there was a legitimate question about whether he had illegal weapons. He converted firearms to full automatics, and was making explosive devices. But the affidavit for the warrant contains a great deal, much of it addressing very inflammatory child abuse charges and subversive literature, which have nothing to do with anything the agency had in its purview to look into. Beyond that, the FBI said there were all these automatic weapons found after the place burnt down. Do we know they were there on the 28th, or the day when the raid went on? If they were, why would anyone in his right mind, like Koresh, invite federal officials up to look around? If you thought somebody was doing something in a large college dorm, and it was no more than five people out of 130 or 150, why would you raid the entire dorm to get those five
people who were smoking pot or worshipping the devil or whatever they were doing and put everybody's life in danger?

CUPS: What has happened in the aftermath? What's the current status of the ATF, four years later?

DG: Four years later, they've gotten more people. There was another gun law passed. They got what they wanted: more money and more power. The FBI did the same thing and got more money and more hostage recuse teams.

CUPS: These agencies haven't been damaged at all by what happened at Waco?

DG: Maybe public relations-wise in certain segments of the population. But it's been strengthened in other populations. People look on what happened there as a very positive thing.

CUPS: What happened was so outrageous, you wonder how it got swept under the rug.

ASG: I don't think relatives of the Branch Davidians find it so outrageous. I'm sure there are plenty of Virginia coal miners who wouldn't find it outrageous. There are always a lot of abuses of power. We live in a great country. This is just one heck of a black mark.

DG: People think this is great because they think, "my government defended me. These are bad people, these are strange people, these are dangerous people."

ASG: I don't think that attitude is as pervasive. I think it doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum one is on. The First Amendment guarantees the right to be a weirdo. These people have very different religious beliefs that Dan and I have. But the First Amendment gives them the right to be weird.

CUPS: Has anyone from the ATF or the FBI seen the documentary?

DG: Louis French (FBI Director) has commented on it. He said it's dangerous and irresponsible. Neither of us wants to believe that the FBI would do the things that we see on that videotape. Our image of the FBI is Zimbalist in the series on television and Jimmy Stewart in the motion pictures.

ASG: When you go to bed at night, you think, "If something bad happened, I'll call 911 and everything will be okay." The Branch Davidians called 911, we have that tape on the film, and everything was far from okay.

DG: We hear the FBI was mooning the Davidians, flipping the finger and lying before Congress. That turns the world upside down.

CUPS: Do you think part of the FBI hostility during that scene had to do with the fact that other feds were killed by the Waco people?

DG: What happens when a police officer is killed in New York City? Everybody drops whatever they're doing and they go turn the town overm looking for whoever did it.

CUPS: At the trial, were the escapees found guilty or not guilty, for the deaths of the ATF agents?

DG: There were eleven who survived the fire. The government attempted to charge everybody who came out with murder. In many cases this was really ridiculous. For instance there was a woman who was blind in one eye. An ATF agent testified that she aimed a rifle at him. So some of
these things didn't hold up under scrutiny. But there were only three that were acquitted of all charges. They were all acquitted of murder, attempted murder, first-degree murder, etc. What they convicted them on was a highly-technical bit about possession of a weapon at a federal crime scene. Then the judge got involved in the jury sentencing and that's how they got such long sentences. The jury has said that if they'd known what they found out afterwards, they wouldn't have convicted them of anything.

CUPS: What did the survivors say about the fire?

DG: They said there was no plan to set it, any more than there was a plan to commit mass suicide. They didn't believe in suicide. There was nothing like that. But once you establish them as suicidal, it fits so well into something like Jonestown or Heaven's Gate.

CUPS: One of the survivors said the FBI was actually firing into the compound after the fire had started and he was firing at the people trying to escape. That's probably the most inflammatory charge from the film. What kind of response have you gotten from that?

DG: Well, not that specifically, but generically, the only thing we've heard from some is that it's irresponsible; there was obscuring sunlight reflection.

ASG: That part of the film is one of the most controversial because it does show machine gun fire working in tandem with the tank. We have experts, on and off the record, who say it's gunfire. The government maintains it is sunlight reflection.

CUPS: How did the fire start? The generally accepted story is that Koresh set the building on fire, but the survivors say they don't know how it started.

DG: About a minute or two after it started, the Justice Department was putting out a press release saying that the FBI had actually seen Davidians starting the fire. But it just doesn't hold up. And that's what you see in the surveillance tape, that federal agents started it. It was very easy to ignite, like an explosion in a grain elevator. The FBI repeatedly said they used nothing that would start a fire. But then what were two incendiary projectiles like the ones we saw on the video doing there?

CUPS: You've had a few screenings and had people come out of it very
angry at the government. What do you expect to come from this?

DG: No one's contacted us. I've seen no interest in revisiting the issue. Two years ago, the Panama Deception was the Academy Award winner and I was there when the director received it. She was booed by the audience because the premise of the film was that the government lied to us. I don't believe this is going to change anybody's attitudes.

CUPS: How much do you think the Oklahoma City tragedy could be blamed on Waco? Do you think we might be seeing more of this kind of behavior by releasing this film?

DG: The point is to provide the facts clearly and accurately so the public can have background information and make decisions. What the public chooses to do with that information is beyond our control.

CUPS: Some of the more interesting footage of the film is the home video shot in the compound. Why do you think the FBI gave them a video camera?

DG: There were several reasons. One was that they wanted to see what the people looked like--that's part of establishing rapport. And the negotiators sent in videotapes of themselves. They also wanted to have their psychopathologists look at the tapes to see what kind of mental state these people were in, and to see if the children were well fed. The third reason was certainly public relations. The FBI intentionally did not release that tape because it would build sympathy for the Davidians. These are not the crazies they said they were. I had always thought these were a bunch of white snake-handling rednecks. Almost half of them were black. Virtually everything we thought was true about Waco turned out not to be.

CUPS: Another thing I noticed in the film is that the child molestation charges are kind of bushed over.

DG: The local sheriff in the film says that they worked on this for two years and took child service people over there and found nothing. That doesn't mean it wasn't happening. It just means there's no case to be made. You always have to ask yourself, where are these charges coming
from? They were coming from a fellow who was in a fight with Koresh over who was going to lead the Davidian sect in Australia. And that's when he started talking to the media about child molestation. The other person you might remember is Jerry Jewels, the girl who testified in Congress. The father of Jerry Jewels was using this to push a show biz career. He wanted to get on the Oprah show and Donahue, which he did.

CUPS: In the film, it's strange that the Left are defending the ATF and the Right are against it. The Left has the conservative agenda.

DG: That's one of the weird things. The San Francisco Chronicle said that the film messes with your whole mind because the Republicans are honest and the Democrats are pigs.

ASG: It is a bizarre role reversal. The Republicans are questioning the authority of badges and the Democrats are defending them.

CUPS: Are there any conservative politicians who will be championing this film or reopening the hearings?

DG: A lot of the roles people were playing were in their politics. One of the maddening things on so many issues is that the facts are readily determined, as opposed to the politics. The ability to inflame the public is an entirely different matter. Perception becomes reality. In the hearings you had two sides playing a role.

CUPS: So the postscript is that the ATF and the FBI are healthier than ever. No repercussions, no one punished.

DG: There were two agents, commanders of ATF, who were supposedly fired. They went to the Labor Relations Board and claimed it was a political cover-up, etc. Long story short, they got reinstated. The official ATF story is they are on desk jobs, no badge, no gun. I am told by numerous people in the agency that that is a lie. Bottom line, no one has been held accountable for anything either at the ATF or the FBI.

CUPS: And their budgets have been raised.

DG: And their authority has been increased. New legislation has been passed. You've seen stories about how police agencies pump up crime statistics to scare the public in order to get what they want. A lot of this was to scare the public about groups like this, about domestic terrorism.

© 1997 Cups Magazine