WACO PHOTO:
Posted on 11/28/2003 4:06:52 PM PST by drypowder
Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention
Email this Story
Nov 28, 5:03 PM (ET)
By PETE YOST
(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, then NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, is... Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army division commanded by Wesley Clark supplied some of the military equipment for the government's 51-day standoff with a religious sect in Waco, Texas, and Clark's deputy, now the Army Chief of Staff, took part in a crucial Justice Department meeting five days before the siege ended in disaster, according to military records.
Clark's involvement in support of the Waco operation a decade ago was indirect and fleeting, according to his former commanding officer. But the assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies by military officers around Clark and soldiers under his command has prompted a flurry of questions to his presidential campaign.
Internet chat rooms and several news stories speculate that Clark played a role in the tactical planning for the operation that ended with the deaths of about 80 followers of the Branch Davidian religious sect and its leader, David Koresh.
Clark's campaign flatly denies any planning role by Clark in Waco. And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.
Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.
"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
Regarding Taylor's comments, Clark campaign spokeswoman Mary Jacoby said "this is exactly what we've said all along; Gen. Clark had no involvement."
But critics such as documentary filmmaker Michael McNulty say there are many unanswered questions about the deaths at Waco, including the nature of the military equipment that came out of Clark's division and whether it was used.
Taylor said the FBI sent requests for assistance to the Department of Defense, which forwarded them to the Department of the Army and "ultimately some of these requests came down to me," said Taylor.
Much of the military equipment for Waco came from the Texas National Guard, including 10 Bradley fighting vehicles. It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.
However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.
Regardless of who supplied the military items, Danforth's investigation concluded that no one from the government fired a gunshot - despite being fired upon - at the Branch Davidian complex on the final day of the siege.
Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire.
Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.
The Justice Department and the FBI requested Schoomaker and William Boykin "by name to meet with the attorney general," states one internal Army document created before the meeting. "These soldiers have extensive special operations experience and have worked with the FBI on previous occasions. Schoomaker "told my watch NCO ... that the FBI plans to pick him up at Fort Hood and fly him first to Waco to assess the situation, and then on to Washington D.C.," states the internal Army document. Schoomaker, currently the Army Chief of Staff, has a background in Army Special Forces. Boykin, who has similar experience, is the Army general whose controversial church speeches cast the war on terrorism in religious terms, prompting recent calls from some in Congress for him to step down.
At the meeting with Reno, Schoomaker and Boykin refused an invitation to assess the plan to inject tear gas into the buildings, a move designed to force the Davidians to flee the compound, an internal Army document states.
"We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in civilian law enforcement operations.
McNulty, whose documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" won an Emmy in 1998, provided The AP with several internal Army documents referring to the meeting and obtained from the military under the Freedom of Information Act.
First, let's address the term militia.
The term militia, does not IMHO, mean the national guard. The term militia is the organization of the town's folk. Armed and ready to do what the local law enforcement is not able, or willing to do. We must be clear on this. The national gaurd, was brought in years ago, as a defense/protection...that is, a bunch of guys with M-16's, camo's, and tanks on the State's nickle(tax payer funded, government overseen).
It is also of my opinion that if an organization is state/federal funded, armed with aviation and armor, we are splitting hairs when we call the army and national guard two different entities. They are both armed as they are, and both on a federal government payroll. If I am mistaken, and the national guard is not receiving their checks from the same bank the actual army's checks are drawn from, then the individual states are paying national guard personnel with grant money from the same bank...if you get my drift. They are the military and it is my view, posse commitatus was written forbidding the military from police action. The actual law uses the term Army, but we all know the intended use of the term.
I understand what you are saying, but the guard's lineage goes right back to the minute-men and our congress and courts consider them the militia for Constitutional purposes. That is why Posse Comitatus does not apply to them and never has. The Guard works for the state governors and is under the day to day control of each state's Adjutant General--not an active Army type. Neither the active Army nor the President can tell the Guard what to do unless they are ordered on federal active duty.
I think the differences are more profound than splitting hairs. You may not want the National Guard to enforce the law and may believe Posse Comitatus should apply to them, but the original intent was clearly to apply to the federal military, not the state forces--it was Southern resentment over the use of federal troops to enforce laws during Reconstruction that drove the enactment of Posse Comitatus along with the military's dissatisfaction with being called out by the local sheriff every time he needed a posse or some back-up.
Bottom line: there were no Posse Comitatus violations at Waco.
You're wrong, the evidence doesn't show that, and it was the Davidians THEMSELVES that performed this act.
Admission by Gramme Craddack (sp?), a Daviadian who made it out, confirms this, but, of course, you, blinded by your rage and hopelessly bowled over by the continuing 'hype' on this subject MISS this little item.
Instead, you put complete and continuing faith in a dubious work produced by Mike McNutty and a small group of ex-CNNers and those who used to produce "A Current Affair" ...
CONTINUED OBLIVIOUSNESS to the 'facts' are only going to cause you nothing but lasting anger TOWARDS the wrong people and continue to twist your thinking in directions OTHERS would have you go; for it was Vernon Wayne Howell who:
a) held a number of people mental hostage (some, the potential troublemakers were 'allowed' to leave by Vernon Wayne Howell - Note: those children 'allowed to leave' were *not* his progeny, it was his kids who he kept in the compound)
b) finally called for the 'Armageddon Event' and had the fires lit CULMINATING in the deaths of 80 some people he had 'held' there for 51 days ...
Nice job of setting up a scenario NOT exactly as the first poster put it and to whom I was addressing a particular point, IOW, NICE Clinton-class slander.
It would help if some of you guys would at least accurately portray the message and it's context when framing an argument, otherwise, you are just setting up 'straw men' suitable for your own pillorying ... and NOT addressing the specifics as they exist.
But then, maybe you can't figure that out, and that's also why you guys have the mental block on Waco too.
Conjecture and assertion without proof.
ALSO - this statement stands in contradiction to other, physical evidence as well as statements of a) personnel present that day as well as b) statements about the fire's origins by Davidians Gramme Craddock (sp?) and Clive Doyle .
Admissions of Branch Davidians.
Davidians who survived the fire have acknowledged that other Davidians started the fire.Graeme Craddock, a Davidian who survived the fire, told the Office of Special Counsel in 1999 that he observed other Davidians pouring fuel in the chapel area of the complex on April 19, 1993.
He further stated that he saw another Davidian, Mark Wendel, arrive from the second floor yelling: "Light the fire."
Davidian Clive Doyle told the Texas Rangers on April 20, 1993, that Davidians had spread Coleman fuel in designated locations throughout the complex, although he declined to state who specifically lit the fires.
Point refuted.
You are in error on that point.
DO you even know who was in office when the original investigative work by the BATF of the Davidians was undertaken?
Once again, it appears some of you are not beyond 'making stuff up' to further your arguments, points or your 'attacks' on someone with a contrary argument or point and substantial supporting common sense, physical evidence and witness statements (including Davidians) to back up those points.
FLIR:Mike McNulty responds
by John Blanton
Turns out it's a small world after all.The January issue of The North Texas Skeptic had been out a few days when I received a phone call from Mike McNulty. McNulty is the writer and award winning producer of three documentaries related to the Branch Davidian siege near Waco in 1993. He wanted to clear up a few points I had touched on in the January issue in an article titled FLIR.
In FLIR I had reviewed McNulty's documentary of the same name, and I had noted some discrepancies between points made in the video and what had reasonably been demonstrated. In mid-January we discussed his concerns in a brief phone conversation. I followed up the conversation with a short e-mail recapitulating the points discussed. Here is that e-mail edited a bit:
1. I mentioned you say in your video that federal police deliberately killed innocent BDs on 19 April 1993. You deny it says that. You say the video only states that to a great degree of certainty that is what happened.McNulty noted that he was pressed for time due to work commitments (new project coming up), and he would not be able to respond directly. He did say in his response to my e-mail he was forwarding my note to his experts for consideration. He did provide the following comments in his response:2. I asked about the hot gun barrels that show up bright in your video but do not show up at all in the 19 April video. You said the gun barrels are too narrow (about 1/2 inch) to make an image from that distance. You emphasized the 19 April video was from over 4000 feet away. You did not touch on the fact that this was with a telescopic imaging system that effectively removed most of that 4000 feet. I pointed out that object size is not what determines whether a bright object will show up in the image. Rather it is the total amount of energy that reaches the image plane. I asked if you knew anything about stellar astronomy where (up to recently) even the biggest telescopes produce only point images of stars, yet the stars still produce an image on the plate/sensor array. You said stellar astronomy does not count because that is done with visible light, not IR. I told you your knowledge on this topic is incorrect.
3. You objected to my contention that the dust conditions on 19 April were nowhere near the conditions of your (COPS L.L.P.) tests, where they kicked up dust in front of a weapon before firing it. You also said dust on 19 April would have coated objects on the ground, suppressing any glint. Ergo, the flashes seen in the 19 April video were gun fire.
4. In response to my question as to why some agents on 19 April risked their lives to save BDs from the fire while others were using automatic weapons to finish off the survivors, you said their actions depended on whether they could be seen by the TV cameras. We did not discuss how these Keystone Cops on 19 April knew the exact location of very TV camera at every instant.
5. I brought up the issue of BDs being killed by BDs. Specifically I asked "Who killed Vernon Howell?" You said the children in the bunker were not shot, and you mentioned some autopsy data concerning other BDs in the compound. That is still unresolved. My information on this is based solely on newspaper reports of the findings of the investigators.
6. I mentioned my information that both 14-inch barrel weapons and 20-inch barrel weapons were tested at Fort Hood. Your video states the Fort Hood tests did not incorporate the 14-inch barrel weapons, which would have a more pronounced muzzle flash. You contend that Senator Danforth's commission required the short barrels be used, but they were not. You disregard the FBI's statement that the short barrels were also tested at Fort Hood.
I am sorry that I can't give you more than this. I'm up to my eyes trying to get the final report on this subject off to Congress and other important items...McNulty copied Barbara Grant, David T. Hardy, and Fred Zegel on this e-mail, and I subsequently received some comments from Hardy:I can't comment in the detail needed on your "Phone recap", there are a number of misconceptions and errors... I just don't have time to walk you through them.
I think this might be helpful though, go to the S.P.I.E organizations web site and look up vol. 4370. There you will find Fred Zegal's papers on the tests, Barbara Grant's and David Hardy's independent material and on the Government's side, Dr. Klasen and Mr. Frankel's material on the "recreation." Once again, I would also recommend looking at the Danforth Preliminary report, the Danforth Final report an the Protocol agreement and the Vector Data Systems report and the Federal Judge's (Walter Smith) final ruling.
Regarding your item # 2 about hot gun barrels being or not being visible to the FLIR used by the FBI - the issue is Spatial Resolution of the sensor. There is not really any relativity to the magnification used in conjunction with the ocular portion of the instrument. The issue here is the detector footprint relative to the size of an object on the ground. Please see Barbara Grant's work for more on this subject.
Sorry I can't be of more help right now, but again, I think the final report to the Congress may be of further assistance to your understanding of this issue and the sited papers above will definitely round out your knowledge on the subject. 1
I'm sorta popping in on this conversation at the last minute, and this is not my field, but....Barbara Grant calculates the "footprint" (I believe the term is IFOV, Instantaneous Field of View, but again, this is not my field) of each sensor element and pixel on the Waco FLIR at between 9" and 20" on the ground, depending upon the aircraft altitude and slant angle. Even at the former, a CAR-15 barrel would only be about 1/18 pixel wide and shy of two pixels long.
A half-inch wide hot object is going to be emitting photons ... but represents only a small part of each element/pixel. It may not be enough to raise the brightness of the entire pixel, and thus may not appear. Mike's later tests were filmed at much closer range, where the gun barrels completely fill multiple pixels, so that they are seeing an area entirely filled by the photon emitters.
MORE: see www.ntskeptics.org/2002/2002february/february2002.htm
I could just rest my case on your own words here. However, I'd like to remind you that this was the defence of countless nazi war criminals--"I vas just following orders!". Most everyone who particpates in a genocide offers this defense--but it doesn't seem to play very well with the world court.
. Once the decision was made at higher levels to provide the support, it becomes an order and there was no option at III Corps or the 1st Cav or Wes Clark or any of the other units to turn it down. Nobody at Hood was out trolling for business--ask anybody with significant Army experience--these kind of taskings are both relatively routine and a pain in the butt.
Yea, right. Just like the FBI was just following orders--all helpless pawns of bureaucratic chains of command. Do you think maybe it was gremlins that caused the children of the branch davidians to break their own bones like terminal anthrax victims from CS flashover byproduct?
As for the National Guard, you simply have that wrong. There is no command relationship between the regular Army and the National Guard until they are federalized--and that was not done at Waco. The chain of command for the guard goes from the individual soldier through his unit commander and the state Adjutant General to the governor. And it stops right there until and unless that soldier or his unit is ordered to federal active duty.
I do not have it wrong--you are simply refusing to read what I've written with your brights on. You are addressing the wrong issue. I an not a weasily lawyer looking to get my gangster client off on a legal technicality, so it doesn't wash with me. If substantial parts of the national guard budget is supplied by the feds, and If the national guard CAN be under the army's command, at the army's volition, it is a part of the army, from the point of view of anyone trying to make a moral determination. And, secondly, it is a doubtful distinction to claim that the national guard is the state militia allowed for by the constitution under these circumestances, so even your legal-weasil defense would be doubtful in a seriously honest court of law that took the constitution at it's word.
Debunking the Waco FLIRMORE, inculding many photographs, videos and analysis of McNutty's 'work' at:
(c) 2001 Ian Williams GoddardThe 51-day standoff in Waco, Texas between members of the Branch Davidian sect and federal agents ended tragically when the Mount Carmel Center burned to the ground, leaving over 70 of its inhabitants dead. Before and during the fire an aircraft circled overhead with a heat detecting FLIR (forward-looking infrared) video camera. The documentaries Waco: the Rules of Engagement [1] and Waco: A New Revelation [2] produced by Michael McNulty popularized the claim that the FLIR recorded gunshots being fired into Mt Carmel before and during the fire.
What is the evidence of gunfire on the Waco FLIR video? Bright flashes that appear on the ground and on the roof of Mt Carmel. However, when the Waco FLIR was run through the VIPER, a computer program that detects gunshots on FLIR, [3,4] no gunshots were found because the flashes are not like gunshots. [5] Additionally, expert analyses have shown that Waco flashes are thermal reflections on visible reflective debris. [6-8] These scientific analyses have not deterred proponents who continue to promote the claim that the flashes are gunfire.
...
MORE outlandish donh lies - like in your pro-drug arguments ... MUCH evidence (both photographic and forensic) exists to squash just about ANY contention you wish to beat your chest about and misrepresent factually ...
The evidence you have presented does not show that. What is shows, if none of it is rigged, is that the Davidians might have burned themselves up before the feds did it for them, or not.
Taken at face value, What the evidence you just presented glaringly shows, is the errant disregard for life displayed by federal forces in ventilating AND FILLING WITH AN INFLAMMABLE GAS, a building in which they knew a fire was likely about to start, and which was occupied by children.
The logic here is a patent crock of dung, and it is very hard not to believe some of it was concocted, to tell an exonerating story after the fact, and distract attention for the flagrant disregard for those children shown by federal forces that day. As evidenced by a packing crate full of child's corpses, said which children the Branch Davidians themselves had secreted underground, as far from harm's way as they could manage.
Repeating:CONCLUSIONThe Waco FLIR gunshot claim purports that federal agents machine gunned men, women, and children as they tried to escape the Waco fire.
In other words, the United States government is guilty of the systematic mass murder of its own citizens -- a crime against humanity.
However, as the facts above demonstrate, the alleged evidentiary basis for this most serious charge -- that the official report lists fifteen bodies shot to death near the rear exit -- is completely false.
And the flashes recorded on FLIR that are said to be the gunshots killing those allegedly trying to escape do not actually resemble real gunshots. Instead, the long durations of the flashes resemble thermal reflections.
Furthermore, the flashes appear on detectable pieces of reflective debris. The entire Waco FLIR gunshot/mass murder claim is a confabulated mirage built upon falsity and bad analysis.
Prior to the acquisition of empirical data about gun-muzzle flashes and thermal reflections on FLIR, and prior to detailed analyses of the contents of the Waco FLIR, it was a reasonable concern that the flashes might be gunshots directed at Mt Carmel.
However, the empirical data and analyses cited in this report leave no room for doubt that the Waco FLIR flashes are thermal reflections on debris, not gunshots.
Yet the gunshot claim continues to proliferate due to a concerted effort to sell videos on the topic.
Unfortunately the technical nature of the subject leaves most at a loss to see the Waco FLIR gunshot claim for the hallucination that it is. Hopefully this report will serve as a beacon of reason in a sea of misinformation.
The entire Waco FLIR gunshot/mass murder claim is a confabulated mirage built upon falsity and bad analysis.Class dismissed....
Hopefully this report will serve as a beacon of reason in a sea of misinformation.
I'll bet you know perfectly well that there were federal cameras there, not one which managed to work well enough to provide footage to congress at a critical juncture related to these arguments. And I'll bet you know prefectly well that the federal police authorities BULLDOZED THE CRIME SCENE, and managed to lose the front door, and I'll bet you know that the bodies of those kids all ACCIDENTLY got de-refrigerated before they could be re-examined, and I'll bet you know that federal officers had to recant the flashbang story.
You are standing up for a bunch of lying BS artists on the federal payroll who have been caught repeatedly destroying and altering evidence. There is no credibility left on your side of this argument, because your witnesses have tainted themselves in court, and flailing away at irrelevant, unrelated issues in gratuitous ad-homimem attacks won't change that.
As for following orders, soldiers are obligated to follow legal orders just as they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. The orders were correct and legal, irrespective of whether or not donh liked them or not. Write your congressman & change the law if you don't like it. Don't fault the U.S. Army for following it.
And again, on the National Guard, you profoundly misunderstand its role. The U.S. Army CANNOT call it up at its own volition, as you say. There are separate and distinct chains of command and it would not matter if the Chief of Staff of the Army showed up in person at the Waco Armory and ordered the National Guard commander to take his tanks, tear gas and a basic load of matches to link-up with Wes Clark at the Koresh compound to receive his Branch Davidian genocide instructions. The Chief of Staff of the Army has no authority to do so and the National Guard troop has no obligation to follow those orders or any others issued by an Active Army officer. The National Guard commander's boss--at least then--was Ann Richards.
Well, and also due to what anyone whose ever fired an automatic weapon can plainly see by looking at the film--reflections can't produce even timing like that. This so-called analysis is bought and paid for from a defense contractor, and it depends on a bullshit recreation put on by the accused's interested parties. This would not stand up in an honestly run courtroom, any more than a murderer's computer recreation of a murder would.
Like the flim-flam we just went through regarding tanks penetrating the building, this is expensive camoflage the feds have paid through the nose for to make everyone think they didn't see what they obviously saw.
THIS is disingenuous, bordering on deceit AND a waste of my valuable technical time.
Tilt at this windmill if you wish, construct a website that addresses the issues in question here factually and sign your name to it - and maybe, just maybe I'll take a look at it.
'til then - you're just so much wind ...
At a siege using military equipment, that lasted for month's being broadcast on the national airwaves. Wow, what responsible behavior that is.
--where do you come up with this stuff? Second, Clark's unit was one of several at Fort Hood that provided support for the civil law enforcement agencies at Waco--why do you think he had some special role? The military support provided by the Army at Waco was in accordance with Posse Comitatus and applicable laws--it has been investigated exhaustively to include by people who are no friends of the military and there is no evidence of military wrongdoing--because there wasn't any!
I see, the flashbangs marched over the WACO and fired themselves off. I've got it now.
As for following orders, soldiers are obligated to follow legal orders just as they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. The orders were correct and legal, irrespective of whether or not donh liked them or not.
Legal orders killed the jews in the ovens at Auschwitz.
Write your congressman & change the law if you don't like it. Don't fault the U.S. Army for following it.
Everyone has a conscience, and a duty to exercise it at all times--not just congresscritters. I think most ordinary people can tell that it's kinda wrong to ventilate a building full of children and fill it with flammable gas when a fire is about to be set off. Or is that just me?
And again, on the National Guard, you profoundly misunderstand its role. The U.S. Army CANNOT call it up at its own volition, as you say.
That is an irrelevant point. It the fact of federalization that levers my argument--whether the army can call reserves up directly, or has to get some other federal entity to do it, it is still a federal standing army on domestic soil.
There are separate and distinct chains of command and it would not matter if the Chief of Staff of the Army showed up in person at the Waco Armory and ordered the National Guard commander to take his tanks, tear gas and a basic load of matches to link-up with Wes Clark at the Koresh compound to receive his Branch Davidian genocide instructions. The Chief of Staff of the Army has no authority to do so and the National Guard troop has no obligation to follow those orders or any others issued by an Active Army officer. The National Guard commander's boss--at least then--was Ann Richards.
It was provisionally Ann Richards, at any time, at federal whim, it could have been federalized. If, for example, the Texas Rangers had asked them to intervene and throw the lawless brigands of the FBI out, before they murdered any more Texas citizens, for example.
What a bag of wind. The "totality of the evidence" which no one disputes, is that the feds gased and burned and crushed a whole bunch of kids with military equipment, right in front of God, CBS, and everybody, and have been sending out flappers like you to make it seem otherwise for about a decade now.
Valuable technical time indeed. Barfing up expensive, loony, technical-sounding federal ass-covering BS. Fact is, your client had his ass in the crack ever since he bulldozed the crime scene and lost the front door. Something he obviously knew better than to do to a crime scene, unless he had something rather major to hide--as all his subsequent evidence-concocting shenanigans show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.