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

Metrobeat April 1998 Waco Revisited UNC-Charlotte's Dr. James Tabor Part of New Film on Koresh & Co. By Will Moredock Like the fiery fall of the space shuttle Challenger, like the grainy footage of JFK's motorcade winding through the streets of Dallas, the image of the Branch Davidian conflagration in Waco, Texas, will likely haunt us for generations. In a nation obsessed with violence and religion, the saga of the shootout between federal agents and the strange followers of David Koresh and their subsequent death by fire, offered everything; and the nation's news media gave it breathless, wild-eyed coverage. Now, five years after the deaths of Koresh and 78 of his followers, troubling questions are finally being asked -- questions about how federal authorities handled the standoff at the Mt. Carmel compound outside Waco, questions about what the government told us during the 51-day siege and afterward, questions about how the media reported the tragedy. In a new documentary film, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, William Gazecki and Dan Gifford give us perhaps the best record to date of what actually happened in those early weeks of 1993 and the story is a terrifying one. While it is true that David Koresh was hoarding firearms and having sexual relations with underage women, the film strongly suggests that the federal officials lied to the public about their behavior throughout the engagement; that they demonized Koresh as a maniacal, sex-crazed, gun-toting thug; that they sought to control the subsequent investigation (in fact, videotape and other evidence has been "lost"). Among the revelations in the film: Federal agents' claim that "In the 51 days the FBI was involved, they did not fire a single shot," is refuted by infrared film of the final April 19 attack, showing automatic weapons fire coming from both the invading tanks and infantry; federal agents besieging the compound mooned and shot birds at the Branch Davidians inside the compound and talked openly about killing them; the FBI played recordings of Nancy Sinatra and of rabbits being slaughtered in an effort to disrupt the sleep of this group of people they considered to be unstable, then accused them of acting irrationally. In 1995, Congress held hearings into the manner in which the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms handled the Waco incident. When all the talking was over, the agencies got a bi-partisan seal of approval. It was all tidied up and put on the shelf of history, out of sight and out of mind. Waco: The Rules of Engagement will probably not cause the federal government to reopen its investigation into its own behavior, but it will likely deepen the cynicism many Americans feel toward their government and add fuel to the fire of rightwing, anti-government brigades. One of the consultants featured in the film is Dr. James Tabor, an associate professor of religion at UNC-Charlotte. Tabor and others were involved in negotiations with the Branch Davidians and describes for the filmmakers the theological origins and the world view of the group. Tabor later testified in the congressional hearings into the standoff and co-authored the book Why Waco? Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement will be shown at UNCC's Fretwell Building, Room 100, on Sunday and Monday, March 22 and 23. The Sunday showing will be at 7pm; the Monday showing at 3:15pm. Both showings are free and open to the public. We interviewed Dr. Tabor by telephone from his home last week. Creative Loafing:   Dr. Tabor, do you think David Koresh and his followers could have been talked out of their compound at Waco? Dr. James Tabor: I think all the evidence points to the likelihood that they were coming out, particularly if you look at the last four days of what went on. I was involved in that last week and David (Koresh) had responded positively to the overtures that we had made to him and we felt reasonably persuaded that he would come out after their Feast of Passover, which was the week before the fire. (Attorney General) Janet Reno, up to three days before the fire, kept asking the FBI, "Give me some reasons for waiting," and she reversed herself, I think, three times that week. She would approve the idea of going in with the tear gas and then she would back off and then re-approve it. The fire was on a Monday. Finally, I think, on Saturday morning she gave her final approval. But even on Friday night, she was asking them, "Is there any argument for waiting?" And we were able to document at the congressional hearings that they did not tell her about the letter that David had sent out on Wednesday of that week, giving the terms of his exit. That's really the first formal proposal that he had made in writing. So I think it's very tragic that it wasn't followed up. We know the Branch Davidians were not being held against their will, because nearly a third of them came out of the compound over the course of the 51-day siege. Why did the others stay? I think the ones who stayed did so by choice, but they were operating within the belief system of the religious group. And I think they didn't want to abandon David and they all had faith that whatever happened would work out and be God's will. I think they wanted to be a part of that, rather than abandon it, to see what would turn out. On the other hand, I think the pressure and the treatment that they had received, in terms of all kinds of psychological tactics and the noise that had been piped in there and tanks running over things, also tended to make them group together and think, "Well, we don't know what's going to happen if we leave, so let's just stay here. This is our home. We're with the people that we know the best. We're with David Koresh. We'll just see what happens." So I think there was a psychology working there that would tend to make them want to stay in. How much effort did the federal agents make to understand the beliefs of the Branch Davidians? I would say they were really split. I've listened to almost all of the negotiation tapes, the negotiators talking with David and a few of his main assistants. I would say that many of them were very good and they built a very close and sympathetic relationship with David and others. But the tactical people, who were also a part of the hostage rescue team, were really of a different mind. They're a more action-oriented group and from a start had been pressuring and arguing with the top people to let them go in and do something forceful, which they eventually did. So all through the 51 days, there was this play-off between the negotiators, who always want to be successful at what they do, and the tactical people, who would go more for a military kind of solution. You listen to the last tapes that we have, the night before the fire. They're kind of amazing, because there's a very warm and even positive attitude about the whole situation. David has promised to come out. . .and the negotiators, they're either real good actors or they don't know what's going to happen the next morning. My guess is that they didn't know, because it would be a fear that they some how would tip off the Davidians. So, the group was divided like this, all the way through, from my understanding of it. How did the press handle the story, both in explaining the theology of David Koresh and covering the siege and its aftermath? I would say the press does what the press often does and that is to go for the sensationalism and this was quite a sensational story. I don't know if we can fully blame them for that, though, because they were fed only a single sensational line by morning briefings from the federal agents. That is, there was no alternative means of reporting. Nobody could talk to Koresh, certainly. Nobody could talk to anyone in there (the compound). All communication was cut off. So they really just had the official briefings to go on. And those briefings gave a single view, which most of the press took up; and that was that this is a crazy, dangerous cult, possibly suicidal. There wasn't really any attempt to sympathetically understand this as a religious group of intelligent, human, convicted people with their own personal ideas about the Bible. . .There was a lot of taunting, even. The FBI would say things: "Koresh is a cheap, two-bit gun-toting preacher," and that kind of rhetoric. That was what generally was being put out. This is a good time for you to review for us: Who were the Branch Davidians and what was their theology? The Branch Davidians did not start with David Koresh. It's a movement that began in the 1930s and that movement, in turn, is connected to the Seventh Day Adventist movement, a well known American religious group that started about 150 years ago. . .They are, and have always been, an apocalyptic group -- that is, they're a group that delves deeply into Bible prophecy and has been waiting for and expecting the coming of Christ and the End Time. One of the grave misunderstandings of their theology was that David Koresh claimed to be Christ. This is really incorrect. The FBI didn't help much with this, because it was one of the ways they had of making fun of the group as being a bunch of fools, really, to follow such an idea. The Davidians believe in Jesus, like any Christian group. They certainly think Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ. But what they also believe was that the prophecies of the Bible predicted, before the end of time, the coming of a second Christ. They say that "Christ has a Christ." Christ really means an appointed one or somebody that's sent by God. So you could almost call this person a prophet. They did believe that David Koresh was -- a better term, that would have less confusion -- was a "final messenger." And they had come to believe that David Koresh was this final prophet or messenger. And that's essentially what their beliefs revolved around: that they were the followers of the final prophet that God had sent to the world, to warn the world of the impending judgment to come. The rest of their views would be very much like the Seventh Day Adventists: they kept the Sabbath Day on Saturday, rather than Sunday, and they followed the various dietary laws, vegetarianism and so forth, of the Hebrew Bible. Did David Koresh represent a threat to his followers or to society? I think David's views on sexuality, particularly involving the younger women of the group, certainly could be seen as a threat and seems to be -- it's never been proven in court, but nobody's denying the fact -- seems that David did marry and co-habit with underage women, with their parents' permission, and yet still technically illegal in the state of Texas, certainly. I think the youngest woman he was with, with whom he had children, I think she was 12 years old. Her name was Michelle; she died in the fire. Certainly, by any of our standard laws, that would be considered a threat. The child abuse, I don't think, has really been established, in terms of beatings and things like that. There's a lot of rumors going around, but the followers of Koresh were subjected to standard investigations by the state and by the sheriff's office and nothing was ever really proven. So I think we just have to go with that. As far as their beliefs, I think what they believed should come under the umbrella we offer anyone in this country and that is religious freedom. You can think and believe anything you want, as long as you are not forcefully putting those views on another person. It's a mixed answer. Koresh, I think, certainly was a dominant personality and this was a high-demand religion. If you were going to be part of it, you definitely towed the line in terms of what you thought. Copyright ©1998 Creative Loafing Charlotte

LinkExchange Member



Copyright ©1996-98, Fifth Estate Productions. All Rights Reserved.