[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1888-E1889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               THE TRAGEDY OF WACO DESERVES ANOTHER LOOK

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. BOB BARR

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 29, 1997

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Waco tragedy in early 1993 
killed 4 Federal law enforcement agents and 76 men, women, and 
children, in the worst law enforcement tragedy in American history. 
Congressional hearings to uncover the truth of what happened at Waco, 
and to take steps to see that a similar tragedy never happens again, 
were held in mid 1995, but failed to achieve their full potential 
either in uncovering the truth about Waco or in taking meaningful steps 
to prevent a recurrence.
  One of the reasons the hearings were less than fully successful, was 
the lack of complete information and evidence available to Members of 
Congress conducting the hearings. For example, much evidence at the 
scene of the tragedy was destroyed by the Federal Government 
immediately after the buildings burned to the ground. Also, important 
pieces of evidence, such as firearms reportedly seized by the 
Government, were neither objectively tested nor made available to the 
Congress. Continued evasion and stonewalling by the FBI and the 
Department of Justice continues to this day.
  Recently, however, private citizens produced and released a movie, 
entitled ``WACO: the Rules of Engagement,'' which is playing to limited 
audiences across the country. The film ought to be reviewed by every 
government official and law enforcement officer at the FBI, the ATF and 
the Department of Justice, and many at the Department of Defense. The 
film ought also to be required viewing for every Member of Congress, 
and every citizen of this country who is concerned about the dangers of 
militarization of domestic law enforcement in America, and who shares 
an interest in accountability by those clothed with the power to 
enforce the laws of our country.
  I have reviewed this film, and find it to be a compelling and 
objective analysis of this tragedy known forever more as simply, WACO.
  I include for the Record a review of this important documentary tape, 
which aired on September 20, 1997, on the Siskel and Ebert Show, and 
was reviewed in writing by Roger Ebert, on September 19, 1997, in the 
Chicago Sun Times. Both of these respected and widely read film critics 
gave ``WACO: the Rules of Engagement'' a thumbs up. The reason they 
gave it two thumbs up was that it fulfilled its purpose, which was to 
raise important questions in the minds of the viewers about how the 
U.S. Government handled the WACO tragedy. The reviewers found it to be 
fair, persuasive, and an important documentary. Roger Ebert found the 
film compellingly presented witnesses who were telling the truth and 
that the American people were sold a bill of goods about the Branch 
Davidians that wasn't necessarily true.

  In his written review, Mr. Ebert also correctly noted that after 
reviewing the tape, it was clear the original raid staged by ATF, in 
which both Branch Davidians and Federal agents were killed, was simply 
a publicity stunt. He also found the film presented testimony from both 
sides and resisted efforts to take cheap shots which would have been 
relatively easy. The reviewer also was struck by the scenes in the film 
taken by FBI heat-sensitive cameras, which seemed to show, including to 
the reviewer, FBI agents firing into the compound even though the FBI 
steadfastly denies firing any shots into the compound.
  The movie is a compelling documentary which very clearly raises the 
question of why the American people and the Congress are not demanding 
as loudly as possible that further investigation of this tragedy be 
conducted, in order to come much closer than previously to answering 
for those dead children and future generations of Americans why this 
tragedy happened. How is it that a joint operation of the ATF, the FBI, 
and, in some respects, our military, under the direction of the top 
leaders of this country, could result in the gassing and burning of 
dozens upon dozens of men, women, and children, and virtually no steps 
resulting in accountability be taken? This matter needs to be reopened 
and reexamined. I commend the reviews of this movie and the film itself 
to all Americans.

                [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 1997]

                     Waco: The Rules of Engagement

                            (By Roger Ebert)

       Like many news-drenched Americans, I paid only casual 
     attention to the standoff at Waco, Texas, between the Branch 
     Davidians and two agencies of the federal government. I came 
     away with the vague impression that the ``cult,'' as it was 
     always styled, was a group of gun-toting crackpots, that they 
     killed several U.S. agents, refused to negotiate and finally 
     shot themselves and burned down their ``compound'' after the 
     feds tried to end the siege peacefully with tear gas.
       Watching William Gazecki's remarkable documentary ``Waco: 
     the Rules of Engagement,'' I am more inclined to use the 
     words ``religion'' than ``cult,'' and ``church center'' than 
     ``compound.'' Yes, the Branch Davidians had some strange 
     beliefs, but no weirder than those held by many other 
     religions. And it is pretty clear, on the basis of this film, 
     that the original raid was staged as a publicity stunt, and 
     the final raid was a government riot--a tragedy caused by 
     uniformed boys with toys.
       Of course I am aware that ``Waco'' argues its point of 
     view, and that there is no doubt another case to be made. 
     What is remarkable, watching the film, is to realize that the 
     federal case has not been made. Evidence has been ``lost,'' 
     files and reports have ``disappeared,'' tapes have been 
     returned blank, participants have not testified and the 
     ``crime scene,'' as a Texas Ranger indignantly testifies, was 
     not preserved for investigation, but razed to the ground by 
     the FBI--presumably to destroy evidence.
       The film is persuasive because:
       1. It presents testimony from both sides, and shies away 
     from cheap shots. We feel we are seeing a fair attempt to 
     deal with facts.
       2. Those who attack the government are not simply lawyers 
     for the Branch Davidians or muckraking authors (although they 
     are represented) but also solid middle-American types like 
     the county sheriff, the district Texas Rangers, the FBI 
     photographer on the scene, and the man who developed and 
     patented some of the equipment used by the FBI itself to film 
     devastating footage that appears to show its agents firing 
     into the buildings--even though the FBI insists it did not 
     fire a single shot.
       3. The eyes of the witnesses. We all have built-in truth 
     detectors, and although it is certainly possible for us to be 
     deceived, there is a human instinct that is hard to fool. 
     Those who argue against the government in this film seem to 
     be telling the truth, and their eyes seem to reflect inner 
     visions of what they believe happened, or saw happen. Most of 
     the government defenders, including an FBI spokesman and 
     Attorney General Janet Reno, seem to be following rehearsed 
     scripts and repeating cant phrases. Reno comes across 
     particularly badly: Either she was misled by the FBI and her 
     aides, or she

[[Page E1889]]

     was completely out of touch with what was happening.
       If the film is to be believed, the Branch Davidians were a 
     harmless if controversial group of religious zealots, their 
     beliefs stretching back many decades, who were singled out 
     for attention by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
     for offenses, real or contrived, involving the possession of 
     firearms--which is far from illegal in Texas. The ATF hoped 
     by raiding the group to repair its tarnished image. And when 
     four of its agents, and several Davidians, were killed in a 
     misguided raid, they played cover-up and turned the case over 
     to the FBI, which mishandled it even more spectacularly.
       What is clear, no matter which side you believe, is that 
     during the final deadly FBI raid on the buildings, a toxic 
     and flammable gas was pumped into the compound even though 
     women and children were inside. ``Tear gas'' sounds innocent, 
     but this type of gas could undergo a chemical transformation 
     into cyanide, and there is a pitiful shot of an 8-year-old 
     child's body bent double, backward, by the muscular 
     contractions caused by cyanide.
       What comes through strongly is the sense that the attackers 
     were ``boys with toys.'' The film says many of the troops 
     were thrilled to get their hands on real tanks. Some of the 
     law-enforcement types were itching to ``stop standing 
     around.'' One SWAT team member boasts he is ``honed to 
     kill.'' Nancy Sinatra's ``These Boots Are Made for Walking'' 
     was blasted over loudspeakers to deprive those inside of 
     sleep (the memory of that harebrained operation must still 
     fill the agents with shame).
       When the time came, on April 19, 1993, the agents were 
     apparently ready to rock 'n' roll. Heat-sensitive films taken 
     by the FBI and interpreted by experts seem to show FBI agents 
     firing into the compound, firing on an escape route after the 
     fires were started, and deliberately operating on the side of 
     the compound hidden from the view of the press. No evidence 
     is presented that those inside started fires or shot 
     themselves. Although many dead Davidians were indeed found 
     with gunshot wounds, all of the bullets and other evidence 
     has been impounded by the FBI.
       Whatever happened at Waco, these facts remain: It is not 
     against the law to hold irregular religious beliefs. It is 
     not illegal to hold and trade firearms. It is legal to defend 
     your own home against armed assault, if that assault is 
     illegal. It is impossible to see this film without reflecting 
     that the federal government, from the top down, treated the 
     Branch Davidians as if those rights did not apply.


     
                                                                    ____
                ``WACO: The Rules of Engagement'' Review

                          (By Siskel & Ebert)

       GENE SISKEL: The United States Congress investigates the 
     debacle that four years ago killed 76 men, women, and 
     children who belonged to the Branch Davidian religious sect 
     based in Waco, Texas in a new documentary called ``Waco,'' 
     which clearly attempts to establish that the agents from the 
     FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms lied to 
     Congress and the American people, and needlessly harassed and 
     ultimately murdered religious worshippers. To start with, the 
     FBI claims that they fired no shots at the Branch Davidians. 
     But the documentary has hired experts who argue otherwise, 
     based on looking at surveillance tapes.
       GENE: The documentary also argues that the FBI acted out of 
     a macho, don't-trifle-with-us posture toward the Branch 
     Davidians after, to be sure, a two-month standoff.
       GENE: Singled out for scorn is the then-new Attorney 
     General of the United States, Janet Reno who, the film 
     argues, let the FBI run wild, and crucially walked away from 
     responsibility by choosing to give a speech in nearby 
     Baltimore rather than stay in her office and supervise the 
     FBI's invasion of the Davidian compound.
       GENE: ``Waco: The Rules of Engagement''--that's the full 
     title of this documentary--it's fascinating in the way it 
     argues that the FBI acted irresponsibly. Would the 
     documentary be stronger if the FBI had been allowed to argue 
     its own case? Yes, definitely yes. But this is clearly an 
     advocacy piece of filmmaking, and it certainly raised 
     plenty of questions in my mind about how our government 
     handled the Waco tragedy. Thumbs up from me.
       ROGER EBERT: Thumbs way up for me, too. And you know, 
     although it does have a particular point of view, it tries to 
     be fair. It does show information from both sides, but the 
     defenders of the government positions are inarticulate, they 
     are clearly I think not saying everything that they're 
     thinking or that they know, and they're hewing to a party 
     line. You can look in the eyes of the people in this film and 
     tell who you feel is telling the truth and who isn't. And 
     what it amounts to here is that the American people were sold 
     a bill of goods about the Branch Davidians what wasn't 
     necessarily true, that these people were demonized...
       GENE: Yes.
       ROGER:..in a way that wasn't accurate. And then ``boys with 
     toys,'' Gene.
       GENE: Yeah, I know.
       ROGER:...all those guys who never got a chance to drive a 
     tank before, and who were excited and ready to go. Like that 
     guy who says, ``I'm honed to kill, I'm honed to kill.'' They 
     just couldn't wait to start shooting.
       GENE: Well, that's why this is an important documentary in 
     addition to just the case that it deals with. Two things: 
     one, the macho element. Hey, If you're on point for two 
     months, you're going to want to shoot something if you 
     haven't been able to! That's telling us something. And the 
     other one, and I think this is the most interesting one, is 
     how we learn from the media. The fault, ultimately--and I'll 
     pick myself okay?--is that I wasn't as plugged in to this 
     story as I should have been, because I'm getting sometimes a 
     headline service...
       ROGER: But of course, at the time there was no information 
     available about the other side! And now, when you see this 
     film, what's interesting as if you're looking for people who 
     are unbalanced zealots...
       GENE: Right.
       ROGER:... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, 
     you find them among the FBI and Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
     Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to 
     be feared, I think.
       GENE: Well, but what I'm saying is that when we do these 
     religious cult stories, when the media does these stories, 
     then they better do a little bit harder reporting. I think 
     that's one of the things you take out.
       ROGER: Yeah, well, they should stay away from the trigger 
     words like ``cult'' and ``compound.'' How about calling it a 
     ``religious group and their church?'' That would have changed 
     the entire perception of what went on.
       GENE: Because to me the stunner is who was in that 
     compound. Weren't those . . .
       ROGER: Sensible . . .
       GENE: Seemed like it.
       ROGER: * * * sincere people who were not under the hypnotic 
     leadership . . .
       GENE: This is not Jim Jones, and the film makes the Guyana 
     story, repeatedly makes that comment.
       THE CRITICS' JOINT COMMENT FROM THE SUMMARY PORTION OF THE 
     PROGRAM
       GENE: Two thumbs up for the shocking documentary ``Waco: 
     The Rules of Engagement,'' a special motion picture.
       ADDITIONAL, INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS
       GENE: So we do have some young filmmakers here, but the 
     real discovery is ``Waco.''
       ROGER: This movie is moving around the country. They are 
     sometimes having discussions after it. I think that anyone 
     who thinks they know what happened at Waco has another thing 
     coming.

                          ____________________