Who Waco! Probe Clinton's Ties To Riady to Rappoport to Why Waco!

(APFN) (25-Jul-2000

rotstar.gif (16380 bytes)MESSAGE BOARD  rotstar.gif (16380 bytes)

Re: Who Waco! Probe Clinton's Ties To Riady to Rappoport to Why Waco!
Tuesday, 25-Jul-2000 10:42:22

    so why were Indonesian soldiers who later became assassination squads in E.
    Timor where allegedly thousands of people were murdered, trained at Little
    Rock by U.S. forces ?....Riady-Suharto-Clinton !!! don't have to be
    very bright to see the connection thats for sure !!!...oil and mineral
    reserves in Timor !!

    patricia jukes


Government critics of the Waco raid won't be silenced by the Danforth report.
Tuesday, 25-Jul-2000 13:28:55

Clinton felt "personally responsible" for Waco
Tuesday, 25-Jul-2000 13:39:03


    Clinton felt "personally responsible" for Waco

    Updated 1:19 AM ET July 25, 2000

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Days after the government was absolved of wrongdoing
    in the 1993 siege and fire at the Branch Davidian compound, the White House
    released Monday testimony from President Clinton in April that he "felt
    personally responsible" for the roughly 80 deaths.
    Clinton believed he "made a terrible mistake" in allowing FBI agents to storm
    the sect's compound to end a seven-week standoff, according to testimony
    during an April 21 interview with Justice Department investigators probing
    alleged campaign finance violations.

    The president was asked specifically about a meeting with Indonesian
    businessman James Riady at the White House on April 19, 1993, the day of the
    siege at Waco, but he said he could not recall much about the meeting since
    he was preoccupied with the events in Texas.

    Clinton's thoughts on the Waco siege were made public after an outside
    investigator last week completely absolved Attorney General Janet Reno and
    the government of wrongdoing, saying the group's leaders set the fire and
    shot at their own people.

    Former Sen. John Danforth, a Republican from Missouri, told a news conference
    Friday there was "no evidence of wrongdoing" by the government.

    But in his testimony in April, Clinton indicated that he still struggled with
    what happened in Waco that day.

    "Once this thing happened, I was totally preoccupied with it, because I felt
    responsible for it," Clinton said, citing a similar situation that occurred
    while he was serving as governor of Arkansas.


    In that case, he said he argued successfully against a storming of the
    compound in question, located in the mountains of north Arkansas. The area
    was evacuated and arrests were made without any deaths.

    "And that's what I thought we should have done. And I gave in to the people
    in the Justice Department who were pleading to go in early, and I felt
    personally responsible for what had happened, and I still do," Clinton told
    the investigators.

    About 80 sect members, including the group's leader, David Koresh, died in
    the fire which followed the FBI raid.

    The standoff began on Feb. 28, 1993, when agents from the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco and Firearms tried to serve Koresh a warrant. A gunfight erupted,
    killing four of the agents and six of the cult members.

What the Waco jury never heard
Tuesday, 25-Jul-2000 13:55:36

    Houston Chronicle
    (Sunday Op Ed Section)
    July 23, 2000
    Page 1D

    What the Waco jury never heard

    By Stuart A. Wright

    On July 14, an advisory jury of five persons answered
    interrogatories assessing no blame on the federal government for
    actions taken against the Branch Davidians sect in 1993. As might
    be expected in a high-profile case where the defendant is the
    U.S. government, the trial became heavily politicized. [Editor's
    note: On Friday, an independent investigative commission headed
    by former U.S. Sen. John Danforth issued a preliminary report
    exonerating the government of responsibility for the Branch
    Davidian tragedy.]

    Under the circumstances, the trial had little to do with such
    lofty virtues as finding truth or championing justice. With their
    already tarnished reputations on the line, the FBI, U.S. Bureau
    of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Justice Department officials
    marshaled an impressive array of resources to overwhelm questions
    of liability.

    Michael Bradford, the lead co-counsel for the government, boasted
    after the verdict: "What this shows is that the responsibility
    for the tragedy that happened at Waco is with David Koresh and
    the Branch Davidians." He added that, "It's time to put this to
    rest and move on."

    But few scholars and observers think this latest verdict will put
    the Waco incident to rest. There are too many disturbing
    questions about the civil trial. Consider the first interrogatory
    posed to the jury. The jurors were asked if the ATF used
    excessive force in executing the warrants in either of the
    following respects: 1) by firing at the Mount Carmel compound
    without provocation; and 2) by using indiscriminate gunfire at
    Mount Carmel on Feb. 28, 1993. Unanimously, the jury said no to
    both parts. But the response was largely a product of severely
    narrowed questions in the interrogatories. Key evidence was not

    Judge Walter Smith granted "discretionary function" exemptions to
    federal officials, essentially giving them immunity for making
    bad decisions, and restricted evidence and arguments to the
    51-day period between the failed ATF raid on Feb. 28 and the
    final FBI assault on April 19.

    The jury was not privy to the damning evidence that the ATF had
    ample opportunity to serve the warrants to Koresh when he was
    alone. Why was this important? Because by isolating Koresh, ATF
    could have avoided imperiling the lives of 130 other residents,
    including infants, women and elderly persons, at the Mount Carmel
    compound in a dangerous, high-risk "dynamic entry."

    U.S. Treasury Department officials and congressional
    subcommittees reviewing the Waco debacle subsequently castigated
    ATF commanders for shoddy planning and a bungled surveillance
    operation that failed to apprehend Koresh away from the
    residence. Indeed, ATF initially claimed that Koresh never left
    the complex. But later investigations determined that this
    information was obtained second-hand from an unreliable source.

    What else did the jury not hear? Evidence that the ATF
    manufactured claims about Davidian drug trafficking to the
    military in order to obtain Close Quarters Combat training at Ft.
    Hood and secure aerial surveillance and support from the Texas
    National Guard in an effort to circumvent the Posse Comitatus
    Act. The law prohibits the use of the military to enforce
    domestic law, except in cases of drug trafficking. It did not
    hear evidence that the ATF raid commanders were told to call off
    the raid if they lost the element of surprise. An ATF undercover
    agent, Robert Rodriguez, was inside the Mount Carmel compound the
    morning of the raid and learned that the Davidians had been
    forewarned. Agent Rodriguez left the complex and informed his
    superiors that the element of surprise had been lost. The raid
    commanders ignored orders and proceeded anyway. As well, the jury
    did not hear evidence that the warrants were filled with numerous
    errors of fact and false statements.

    The truth is, the entire incident on Feb. 28 was avoidable. Had
    ATF agents served the warrants while Koresh was jogging down
    Double E Ranch Road or while he was in town on other business,
    the raid would have been unnecessary.

    Other law enforcement agencies, including members of the McLennan
    County Sheriff's Department and the Texas Rangers, have made the
    same observation. The Treasury Department report puzzled over
    this question, noting that those in charge ignored less lethal
    options, acting as if they were on a "pre-ordained road."

    The final report on the Waco hearings by the joint House
    Committee on Government Oversight and Reform and the Senate
    Judiciary Committee was less kind: "The ATF's investigation of
    the Branch Davidians was grossly incompetent. It lacked the
    minimum professionalism expected of a major federal law
    enforcement agency."

    Was lethal force excessive? I believe it was. The operation was
    carried out in the form of a high risk, paramilitary assault,
    planned two months before surveillance, undercover and
    infiltration efforts were even begun, organized under the false
    pretenses of a drug nexus, targeting a residence housing infants,
    women and elderly persons, while ignoring opportunities to arrest
    the suspect alone. What jury would absolve the defendants if they
    had been allowed to hear all the evidence?


    Wright is associate director of graduate studies and professor
    of sociology at Lamar University in Beaumont. He is editor of
    Armageddon in Waco and testified in the 1995 hearings on Waco.

    Stuart A. Wright

Groups differ on lessons learned from Mount Carmel siege
Tuesday, 25-Jul-2000 15:58:30


    Groups differ on lessons learned from Mount Carmel siege

    By MARK ENGLAND Tribune-Herald staff writer

    Ramsey Clark told an advisory jury in Waco a little more than a week ago that
    they should rule in favor of the Branch Davidians in their lawsuit or "no one
    here will be free from the violence of their own government."

    His argument failed to sway jurors, who ruled the government was not guilty
    of negligence at Mount Carmel.

    Clark, who represents many of the longtime Davidians, said his closing
    argument was not rhetoric. He worries that government officials will see the
    jury's ruling as the public's endorsement of their operation at Mount Carmel
    €” during which four government agents and 82 Davidians died.

    "If you say the conduct of the ATF did not involve excessive force, and the
    conduct of the FBI did not involve negligence, the government has no
    accountability for their acts ... You have said the government is free to do
    somewhere else what it did at Waco. I don't think anyone wants that," Clark

    He said the ruling could fuel a trend toward law enforcement using military
    tactics against civilians.

    "Just look at the proliferation of SWAT teams," said Clark, a former U.S.
    attorney general. "Where does the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team train? Quantico.
    There's a tendency to glorify all that. Whatever place military tactics may
    have in national defense and in wartime, it can't be consistent with the life
    we seek for our people at home in America."

    Government co-counsel Michael Bradford, however, said the public doesn't have
    to worry that federal authorities see the Waco jury's ruling as a thumbs up
    for its handling of Mount Carmel.

    "I think there have already been a lot of internal reviews about the way
    crisis situations like that are handled," said Bradford, the U.S. attorney
    for the Eastern District of Texas. "There have been lessons learned and
    changes made in policies."

    Bradford points to the 81-day siege of the anti-government Freemen group in
    1996 that ended peacefully.

    FBI Director Louis Freeh acknowledged the agency tried "a fundamentally
    different approach" in Montana than at Mount Carmel and Ruby Ridge.

    "The negotiation team has been elevated to equal status with the tactical
    team as far as hierarchy in a crisis situation," Bradford said. "They're
    present in any kind of discussion so there's no doubt the field commander has
    full input from everybody. It's not necessarily any kind of feeling that the
    tactical people were wrong. But there was a perception that the tactical
    people and some of the negotiators had differences of opinion. Changes were
    made to make sure in the future that there's no miscommunication."

    Clark, though, isn't so sure that the government has changed its approach to
    groups like the Davidians.

    "One swallow doesn't make a summer," Clark said. "You don't have tragedies
    like Waco very often. I think it's indisputable that it's the greatest single
    disaster for domestic law enforcement in our history. You can't find another
    time when more than 80 people lost their lives. You can find it in Indian
    wars, but those were wars, so to speak. There's nothing like it in

    Attorney Kirk Lyons of North Carolina, who assisted the plaintiffs in the
    civil trial, believes many people in the FBI learned a lesson at Waco. Like
    Bradford, Lyons said he saw proof of that in Montana.

    However, Lyons still thinks the Waco jury sent the wrong message to the

    "Government needs to be constantly watched," Lyons said. "The message I'm
    seeing now is, 'The jury let us off the hook; we can go back to business as
    usual.' It's only matter of time until someone in the agency tries a
    bone-headed stunt like that again."

    Bradford, however, said the jury was actually just turning a deaf ear to the
    plaintiffs' message.

    "I think the plaintiffs were implying that the agencies were out of control,"
    Bradford said. "I think the jury clearly rejected that message. You have two
    choices in any kind of hostage situation. You can sit and wait, or you can
    take affirmative action. If you wait and something bad happens to the
    hostage, you get blamed. If you take action, you can get blamed, too. It's a
    no-win situation for law enforcement."

    Mark England can be reached at or 757-5744.

    Mark England


         "There is no Statute of Limitations on MURDER!"

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by


"....a network of net workers..."

Without Justice, there is JUST_US! 

bulldog_big_barking_md_wht.gif (12093 bytes)

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

mailbox1-a0.gif (1700 bytes)


Hit Counter

Last updated 04/08/2009