In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Senators take fresh look at Waco evidence

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited January 2002 in General Discussion
Senators take fresh look at Waco evidenceNew activity said to be part of 'interest in cleaning up the FBI'
By Jon Doughertyc 2002 WorldNetDaily.com A small group of senators is set to take a fresh look at materials that cast doubt on former special counsel John Danforth's conclusion that FBI agents did not fire on Branch Davidians who were fleeing their burning Mount Carmel complex outside of Waco, Texas, nearly nine years ago. A spokesman in the Tempe, Ariz., office of Republican Sen. John McCain confirmed that he has been given "a tape" as well as a summation of findings "submitted by another individual" that refute Danforth's November 2000 report, where the former Missouri senator concluded "with complete certainty that the government did not direct gunfire at the Branch Davidian complex. ..." Tom McCanna, an aide to McCain, told WorldNetDaily that he is currently examining the materials. "I'm just now finishing up my review of the tape and this document, and I'm going to send it up to Washington [D.C.] within the next few weeks," he said. When asked about McCain's plans for the materials, McCanna quickly said, "No one has decided to do anything. They don't even know anything about this. This is all premature," he added, noting that even his boss didn't know he was looking at the materials. "They will figure out where they need to go with it." Without naming names, McCanna said, "There are other senators looking at" the materials as well. One source familiar with the events said the renewed interest in Danforth's conclusions could be related to reforming an FBI hurt by years of scandals. "This is all being done in the context of renewed interest in cleaning up the FBI," said the source, who asked not to be identified. Danforth was assigned by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 1999 to take one final look at allegations that FBI agents shot at fleeing Davidians. As part of that effort, he staged a recreation of the assault in March 2000 at Fort Hood, Texas. One of his mandates was to see if flashes of light picked up by an aircraft-mounted FBI infrared camera during the final assault in 1993 were agents firing their weapons at fleeing Davidians. Infrared and weapons experts who saw the tape identified the flashes as gunfire, but the government has long maintained the flashes, called "glint," were reflections of sunlight off debris. After the fire, government officials said some of the 80-plus Davidians who burned to death were found with gunshot wounds to their heads. The FBI maintained that some Davidians committed suicide or were shot by other members of the group. When he issued his final report in November 2000, Danforth backed the FBI, noting that his recreation proved "that the government did not direct gunfire" at Davidians. Said to be part of the materials currently under examination by McCain's office, WorldNetDaily has obtained a copy of a draft report criticizing Danforth's conclusions and recreation. The report, whose author requests anonymity, also suggests that many of the conditions present at Waco in 1993 were not present in the March 2000 recreation. "If considered individually, the numerous errors that riddle the [March 2000] Danforth 'Waco Recreation' might be consistent simply with massive incompetence," said the draft report. "But when all of these errors are considered cumulatively, it becomes much more difficult to accept the 'bumbling idiot' explanation." The report goes on to say Danforth's conclusions that FBI agents did not fire at Davidians "is more suggestive of an intentionally rigged test, and thus of a continuing cover-up of the Waco tragedy by the very persons who were charged with finding the answers" to lingering questions. Fatal flaws? The firm Danforth employed to help stage the recreation and analyze FLIR - forward-looking infrared - videotape of staged gunfire "had never before been hired" for that task, the draft report said. The company, Vector, of Great Britain, "is a wholly-controlled subsidiary of a firm (Anteon Inc.) which draws a majority of its income from contracts with the U.S. government, whose customers include the Justice Department and the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)," the draft charged, and "was neither expert nor independent." Those charges echo earlier ones made by Waco documentary filmmaker Michael McNulty and others in a series of exclusive WND reports last year, in which McNulty - citing his own findings as well as those of other experts - claimed that Danforth's test was rigged. McNulty said Danforth's team used the wrong weapons and ammunition to stage the recreation and failed to adequately reproduce dust conditions, all of which combined to reduce gunfire signatures on Danforth's infrared tape when compared to the FBI's original. "Determining whether the flashes were gunshots keyed to a large degree on determining the brightness, size and duration of gunshot flashes," the draft report stated. "The FBI riflemen at Waco were issued civilian ammunition. The Danforth 'recreation' protocol called for use of the same ammunition that [was] used at Waco. Instead, someone substituted military ammunition treated with a flash retardant composition. ..." Also, the report said, FBI agents at Waco were carrying carbine versions of the M-16 rifle, but shooters in Danforth's recreation "were instead issued a standard M-16" with a longer barrel. Carbines tend to produce more flash, experts say. Environmental conditions were also questioned. "Dust is an important variable in a test of this type," the draft said. "Experiments have demonstrated that airborne dust greatly increases the size, intensity and duration of a gunshot flash as seen by a FLIR sensor." Noting that conditions at Waco were "quite dusty," the draft report said Danforth's team took "exceptional measures ... to suppress dust" during the recreation, such as saturating the test area with water, then keeping it "covered with tarps until the test was ready to begin. ..." "No explanation has ever been given for these measures," the report states. McNulty, a court-sanctioned weapons expert, also told WND in the past that the flashes on the FBI infrared tape could not be sunlight "glint" because the "cyclic rate" of reflection is too rapid. Danforth impartial? Others have questioned whether Danforth was ever in a position to be impartial. Appointed by President Bush to be special envoy to Sudan in September, Danforth also was recently asked by troubled Enron auditor Arthur Andersen, LLP "to conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of Andersen's records management policy and to recommend improvements," the Associated Press reported last week. Also, at the time he was asked to re-examine Waco-related charges, Danforth was being considered as a running mate for George W. Bush. That lone fact, believes Mike Caddell, an attorney for surviving Branch Davidians, should have disqualified him. "I think Danforth is a very ambitious person, and I always distrust someone who says they are not ambitious and yet seems to pursue ambitious goals," Caddell said. "At the same time that he was claiming that he had no interest in political office, he was spending hours with Bush interviewing for the job of vice president." Danforth's recreation was held in March 2000; by May, Bush was contemplating him as a running mate. "He had his people working around the clock in May [2000] so he could get his report out and eliminate that as an obstacle to his becoming Bush's running mate," said Caddell. "When he issued that report, he believed he would become Bush's running mate." Caddell said that alone doesn't prove that Danforth consciously covered up wrongdoing, "but does it mean that he dug as deeply as he could have?" "It was easier for him, if he was to have any shot at becoming Bush's running mate, to not author a report that was going to be critical of the Justice Department and the FBI," Caddell said. "He could not go into a campaign with that cloud hanging over his ability to work with those people." "At the same time he was examining the ethics and morals of the FBI and the Justice Department, he himself was compromised," he added. "Inevitably, no matter how moral a person you are, you cannot help but have that influence you. Were they going to issue a report that said that high FBI officials and lawyers with the Justice Department should be criminally prosecuted? No - and they didn't." Recommendations The draft report lists four recommendations for action to reverse what its authors believe were a series of "biases" in Danforth's recreation. The authors recommend a new recreation be conducted "in Texas ... with non-federal family member presiding." Also, any new recreation "must incorporate all of the principles illustrated in [McNulty's third documentary film] The F.L.I.R. Project, conform to a proper scientific protocol, and be observed by all concerned parties and the press." Also, the results of any new recreation "must be published for any interested party to view freely," though authors did not list how or where results should be posted. "Depending on the results," the authors said, "further investigations or criminal referrals may be warranted. ..." Finally, the report suggested that "an appropriate congressional committee" investigate Danforth's recreation "and the firm which conducted it," with an eye toward disciplinary actions. "A U.S. district court was induced, by Mr. Danforth's staff, to accept a supposedly impartial and expert firm as a witness for the court," the draft report said. "The firm was paid considerable sums for meeting a fixed protocol, and yet violated its most critical elements..." "Offenses which may merit investigation," the draft continued, "include obstruction of justice, perjury, filing false information with federal agencies or departments, and violations of the False Claims Act." http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26083

Comments

  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And this new material was submitted to John McCain, who is well known to be completely impartial due to his lack of ambition for higher office . . . .
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ICONOCLAST- Very good.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Imagine MY nightmare...Janet Reno now wants to be the Governor of My State of Florida...You wanna talk Waco? Waco was the most horrifying spectacle ever engineered and covered up by a government in recent memory. No evidence was ever put before the public to justify this attrocity, other than the FBI and Justice Depts' own feeble explanations. Where were all those illegal "Machine guns"? Don't you think a layout and photo for the media (as is always done in big drug busts) would have been in order? Hint: There were no machine guns at Waco in the hands of Dividians. And what in Hell prompted a Tank assault? I mean really. And any idiot who says you cannot set a bone-dry wooden building ablaze with a CS gas grenade has no knowledge or is a liar. I'm ex-military, have handled about every small arm and grenade in the inventory, and can tell you first hand that both smoke and CS grenades generate enormous temperatures when lit.....So let's get real. Reno is lying, the FBI is lying, the Justice Department is lying...and it's about time to stop all the nit picking and tip toeing and remember why the Second Ammendment was written in the first place..it was written to give the people of America the right to keep and bear arms specifically to defend themselves against their OWN GOVERNMENT should it become a threat to their freedom and very lives. To prevent the GOVERNMENT from holding absolute power over its' citizens. We need to remember that.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Madminute. No. The second amendment was actually written to provide the states with a means of establishing a militia, and to prevent the Federal government from interfering with that means(the people).
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Read the book "This Is Not An Assault" for the real scoop about Waco. Unbelievable!Strange that it never made the mainstream news when several people who were doing the expert research for the Waco congressional investigation mysteriously died.Suicide and private aircraft accidents. Sure took a lot of lives during the Klinton years.
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Lowrider . . . sounds something like the death toll before / during / after the Warren Commission investigation, doesn't it? It's absolutely amazing the number of people who have fatal accidents who just coincidentally are key witnesses in high profile investigations into (possible) government misconduct. Sometimes makes me wonder if I live in Argentina . . . .
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't know the precise armory inside the Davidian camp, but I believe they did have a .50 caliber or two; whether there were any machine guns I have no idea. The tanks approached the complex to administer the gas, for one thing. At least some, if not all, of the gas introduced into the building was introduced by those tanks which drove up and shoved pipes inside to blow in gas. This does not mean I think the raid was legit. In the first place, there was no imminent event to precipitate the assault on the building. In the second place, I saw some fairly convincing infrared aerial footage of what looked like teams circling the building in the dark and picking off any Davidian near a door or window. In the third place, there was a documentary being shown for a while, of indeterminate legitimacy, that showed video of the tanks inserting the gas WITH SMALL FLAMES on the end of the pole being shoved inside. These flames are NOT visible on any of the media's videotape of the same incidents, so one must wonder about doctoring. The fact that I have questions does not make me a "black helicopter conspiracy theorist" -- necessarily. Whether there was conspiracy and coverup, or just botched incompetent strategy (the only two choices), my conclusion is the same: Americans, brainwashed or not, deserve the opportunity to walk out alive -- especially children. I think some people's reaction to Waco, in the long term and after some reflection, is about the same as the reaction to Kent State -- what is going on here, when our troops are killing our own American children for protesting? The trouble with Waco was that not everyone inside was a criminal combatant, unlike, say, the SLA house that burned down while cops surrounded the place. It was a screw up no matter how it went down. It's not worth considering whether the FBI/BATF knew the gas might cause fires. Everybody knows tear gas shells are liable to cause fires. The only mitigating thought that makes any sense at all to me is that somebody calculated that with kids inside, the adults would HAVE to be flushed out of the buildings. If so, it was a bad miscalculation. About as bad as calculating, say, that all airplane highjackers will want to live through the event. I will be interested to see what, if any, additional details come to light. Frankly, I'm tired of the speculation resorted to so often these days in the reporting. Just give me what you KNOW.
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    SALZO: Uh...thats what I said...you just said it in a more politically correct phrasing. The Second Ammendment exists to give the people the right to defend themselves against their own federal government. So OK, I left out the "Militia" part...but what purpose could that militia of private state citizens serve other than defense of the state from the federal gov.?Anyway, I find it amazing that anyone would downplay or sugar coat any aspect of the Waco fiasco and the dead women and children resultant from Ms. Renos' actions. And that no one is ballsy enough to call the old "Iron Maiden" out on the carpet for it. You can be sure that if she continues to pursue the Governors office here in Florida, more than just a passing mention of Waco and several other Reno jack-boot ops (remember Elian Gonzalez? Ruby Ridge?)will come up in the course of the campaign.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Madminute- I am sorry to disagree. The second amendment was written to give the STATES the ability to form militias, in case of tyrrany. It was not written to give the PEOPLE the ability to shake off tyrrany.Only with the adoption of the 14th amendment, does the second possibly qualify as a RIGHT that cannot be infringed upon, by the Feds or the States. That is not to say that I think as the antis do, that the Feds can make laws that prohibit firearms use by someone who is not part of a state militia. The Feds cannot make laws, because it hampers the ability of the states to arm their populace in ways that they deem appropriate. But the Second amendment without the 14th, certainly allows states to restrict or prohibit gun ownership
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • badboybobbadboybob Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    No way Salzo. Read the Second Ammendment again. How can you say the Second Ammendment applies only to the states? Do you believe the other ammendments only apply to the states and do not guarantee individual rights?
    PC=BS
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'd like to hear former Texas Governor Bushes' position on the Waco debacle.Being familiar with organizational behavior,I believe big decisions like Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Gonzales outrage were made at the very top by Clinton. Reno must have taken pleasure in being the fall "guy".
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Badboybob- Yes, I most certainly do think that the Bill Of Rights is binding only on the Federal government, and not the states(At least, that was the intentions of the founders).
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    See, what keeps happening here with the Constitution is similar to what is constantly done with the Bible, Koran, or Torah....People focus so heavily on the nit-pick "and" or "thus" or "He sayeth" and micro-examine every little word and comma to the point where the MESSAGE gets LOST. And we ARE losing the MESSAGE here. The message is this: The Founders of this Nation had all come from European countries where Monarchy and the Dictatorship of religion was the rule, and absolutely ANYONE with ANY official title could abuse their position to extreme degrees. Freedom of Speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, are all directly linked to injustices suffered at the hands of the English. In a flash of logic still unprecedented in human history, they realized that the ONLY way to keep a centralized government from eventually and inevitably becoming yet another dictatorship, was to guarantee in writing the right of the people to arm themselves. An armed populace gets a lot more respect from it's governing bodies than an unarmed docile herd of sheep, and they knew this. So I must disagree, Salzo, with your view (which is of course constitutionally protected) that the intent of the Second Ammendment is that narrow. In the time and context it was written in, the meaning of it seems perfectly clear. To keep the Government from having all the weapons and thereby exerting absolute power over the people.
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Excuse my long-winded nature this morning...BUT...It is SO powerful an ammendment that even though certain powers in American politics have repeatedly tried, they cannot get rid of it. All they can do is regulate and attach licensing and fees. Understand that contrary to popular belief, you as a private citizen can own virtually ANY weapon in the military inventory. Machine Guns are NOT illegal. Nor are Assault Rifles, Belt Fed MGs, Bazookas, Mortars, Anti-Tank guns, etc etc. You just need the required expensive licensing and permits. They litteraly cannot tell you "No, you CAN'T own a functional M-60 tank, fully armed" because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! What they CAN do is charge you thousands of dollars in licensing fees, put you through FBI and Interpol background checks, and limit where you can operate your tank..but they MUST allow your right to OWN it....like I said, I'm ex-Military (a tank guy actually) and a Motion Picture Weapons Handler / Armorer / Pyrotechnician.....So if I want to cough up the money, and own about 500 acres of desert to run around on shooting off my 105mm gun, they HAVE to LET me...I know several guys who actually DO. The Second Ammendment is a VERY powerful thing guys. We need to protect it unconditionally.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Madminute- I am not microexamining anything, you on the other hand, are practicing revisionist history. You seem to think that the founders and writers of the constitution main objective was to guarantee citizens rights. That is not the case. The founders were trying to get states on board, and the states wanted certain rights guaranteed to not be violated by the Federal government. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a state from making laws about religion, prohibiting free press, prohibiting firearms ownership, or anything else that is covered in the so called Bill OF RIghts.And there is nothing in the constitution that says the Federal government is to police the states to make sure they are guaranteeing civil liberties. Nowadays, people look at the Federal government and its constitution and its so called bill of rights as the protector of individual rights and liberties.. That was not the case at the beginning of this countries history. The constitution was written to place limits on the Federal government, with most governing handled by the individual states. The Federal government was subservient to the states, now it is the other way around.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Did you ever know they were building a free energy device to free themselves from power elite servitude ? That they had a working prototype in the so called bunker .... BURN! baby BURN ! now you know why.....
    _%_S
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Really? That's an interresting opinion. Of course, all history is to a degree revisionist and utterly subjective. Neither you nor I am old enough to profess to know what was in truth the motivations of every word of the Constitution, so since NONE of us were there, it's ALL in reality heresay.BUT in fact the Supreme Court has on many occasions overturned STATE laws on Constitutional grounds, as the STATES are bound by the Union to UPHOLD the Constitution. Now in truth, States pass and enforce unconstitutional laws every day. But when confronted on Constitutional grounds by a Supreme Court ruling, they must abolish said law.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes madminute that is true that the Supreme court overturns convictions because they are unconstitutional. But as I said originally, that is due to the 14th amenmdnet, which was not a part of the constitution at its inception.In a nutshell- States agreed to join the Union if the Federal government had authority in governing in very limited narrow areas, that are explained in the constitution. The states feared a central government that would take their governing powers away, and wanted federal powers limited. With the 14th amendment, everything that the states were concerned about became a reality. With the 14th amendment, the Federal government took away the governing that the states enjoyed prior to the fourteenth, and putsupreme rule and law in the hands of the Federal government-which is exactly what the founders did not want.
    Happiness is a warm gun
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes, in ways true, but upon a careful reading of the 14th amendment, it becomes clear the intent of it. One must realize that the 14th was a direct result of the Civil War. Without the 14th amendment, any given State of the United States could establish itself as an unregulated independant government and dictate law to its people which could be completely contrary to the protections of the Constitution. In essence, the state of say, Florida, could ignore all US constitutional freedoms and set down by decree of the Governor anything it saw fit to. The 14th does exactly what I said,making the States answerable to the higher constitutional power and ensuring that no State could violate the basic rights of any US Citizen by passing its own contrary laws....
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    In conclusion, the 14th amendment does NOT usurp the power of the States to govern themselves. The States have and always will govern themselves. But it DOES make the States ANSWERABLE for their METHODS of Government. I'm certain that a LOT of previously powerful Governor / Dictators * themselves over the ratification of the 14th in 1868, because it took away their previously enjoyed autonomous dictator status and made them all answerable to a higher standard. GOOD!
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ANYWAY........What's this have to do with Branch Dividians and the Waco Massacre? Everything I think. I'd like to read that original search warrant that allegedly started the whole thing.....anyone know where it can be found? Because once again, as spelled out in detail in the Bill of Rights, a search cannot be conducted or warrant issued unless the specific location and specific items alleged to be there are named in the warrant...so if they were serving a warrant on illegal weapons, it would have cleared up a LOT of * to just lay out those illegal weapons for all the media to see...Of course, if they were serving on allegations of child abuse, they pretty much tied up all the loose ends there, didn't they? Anyone know where that warrant copy can be found?
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    The Feds, especially the BATF, are well-known for conducting raids armed with with BLANK search warrants. Just fill it in after you've searched/trashed the place.
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The context of the writing of the documents helps a bit. At the time, there were those who felt that much of what was written down in the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because it was so self-evident that it was like recording that "the sun shall come up in the morning." I'm just glad they didn't leave it to "common sense" to allow a free people their rights. Turns out common sense is fairly uncommon. Now we have people righteously declaring that "we are a country of laws!" when in reality we were intended to be a country that didn't need a great deal of law. Turns out we need good laws now after all, for protection against others with intrusive agendas.
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
Sign In or Register to comment.