  PRESS | Home | Premiere | Showings | FAQ | Gallery | Order | Email | |
|
Revisiting Waco
The siege at Waco in 1993 is the sort of complicated mess that can end up on the doorstep of any White House. But the Clinton White House seems to operate under some unique genetic map, which instinctively triggers legal corner-cutting and then coverups. Waco is starting to sound, feel and smell familiar. We all recall how Charles La Bella, Justice's investigator of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign funding scandals, was isolated and ushered out of the department after he called for an independent counsel to take over his job. Precisely the same thing has happened to a Waco prosecutor. Bill Johnston, the assistant U.S. attorney in Texas, warned Attorney General Janet Reno that her own department might be involved in a coverup of the Waco disaster. Now we learn that the Justice Department then removed Mr. Johnston and his boss from the case on the pretext that there'd be an appearance of conflict of interest if they were called as witnesses. But it hasn't treated anyone else who is likely to become a witness this way. Obviously, the six-year delay in the release of key details of Justice's final assault on Waco is a matter of extreme sensitivity for Washington Democrats who must figure out every six weeks or so how to survive inside the Clinton orbit. While Ms. Reno made a grand show of sending U.S. marshals across the street to seize evidence from the FBI's building, it's now clear that Justice lawyers preparing its defense in a civil suit filed by the families of dead Branch Davidians had the crucial information all along. House Democrats meanwhile, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, claim that Republicans were informed back in 1995 of the pyrotechnic devices used at Waco, but in making that point they concede that Justice had the information too. Hill Democrats are clearly sensitive about any suggestion of their own complicity in a possible coverup. Who can forget Rep. (now Senator) Charles Schumer's highly successful attempts to sidetrack the House hearings on Waco with discussions of the National Rifle Association's contacts with Republicans and alleged child abuse by David Koresh? Mr. Schumer's smoke did more than anything else to obscure realities we're now facing. Webster Hubbell, the convicted felon from Little Rock, was Justice's point man with the White House on the Waco siege. He also is in a sensitive frame of mind. In his recent memoirs he obviously makes excuses for his role in approving the use of dangerous CS gas against the Branch Davidians. He even claims to have come up with a "solution" to the standoff hours before the final assault began, but was blocked from entering the FBI building until after the gas rounds were fired. Sure would be nice if former Senator John Danforth could establish the truth of this claim. What precisely is at issue here? It is clearly in the public interest to have a full and complete historical record, in part to defuse conspiracy theorists who already believe the government is out to get them. More precisely, at issue in Senator Danforth's independent probe of Waco is whether and how law enforcement overreacted. The Branch Davidians were a particularly deranged sect, and four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents were killed in the initial raid that started the seven-week siege. But we will probably never conclusively learn who or what started the fire that killed dozens of Mr. Koresh's followers that day. In any event, law enforcement did learn an important lesson from Waco. No similar incident has occurred during the administration of FBI Director Louis Freeh. In 1996, for instance, a group of con artists in Montana named the Freemen were safely lured out of their armed standoff with the Feds through the use of more patient tactics. But the unfinished business of Waco persists in the public mind: Was there a coverup? Is there something beyond the death of two dozen children to explain the extreme sensitivity of the FBI, the Justice Department and Congress on the issue? It is certainly interesting that one of Mr. Danforth's primary missions is to explore the implications of the 1878 "Posse Comitatus" law. It forbids use of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement actions. The Texas Rangers seem to have uncovered evidence that members of the Army's elite Delta Force anti-terrorist unit were at Waco. The law provides for a Presidential waiver in case of emergencies; President Reagan signed a waiver, for example, to use Army units to quell prison riots. The White House claims no one ever asked President Clinton to sign a waiver for Waco. So Mr. Danforth has to determine, was Delta Force at Waco, and if so, on whose authority? Obviously it didn't move there on its own, and breaches of the military chain of command are a serious national issue. Mr. Danforth will need a thorough investigation and candid report to still the drums of conspiracy. A sequel to an Emmy-award winning independent film on Waco, for example, will soon question the denial that the White House counsel's office ever considered a Posse Comitatus waiver. Indeed, Mr. Danforth may find himself plowing some of the same ground covered by Kenneth Starr. Lisa Foster, widow of the late White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, told the FBI that her husband was deeply troubled by Waco and blamed himself for the death of the children there. A Waco file was inventoried in the contents of his office. Mr. Danforth says he is reluctant to question President Clinton about the issue of a Presidential waiver from Posse Comitatus. That is understandable, given the fate of the last prosecutor to ask probing questions of the President. Yet considering the sorry credibility of the White House, the Justice Department and the FBI, he has a responsibility to make sure the record is straight and complete. Otherwise, we'll all be adding Waco as one more item in the high pile of Clinton contradictions from which we're all supposed to "move on."
|
