Advertisement
A close look at the news reports covering the 1993 tragic death of over 80 people at the Mount Carmel Center near Waco, Texas, reveals that a willingness to ignore the obvious is still with us. The obvious question is: “Who is going to be tried for involuntary manslaughter?” The basic facts of the Waco tragedy are not contested.
Fact No. 1
In 1993, Federal employees were ordered to launch two attacks on the Mount Carmel Center. Together, both attacks resulted in the loss of over 80 lives. Subsequent Congressional hearings and published books have indicated that neither attack was necessary—other options were available to decisions makers.
Fact No. 2
The Federal crime of “involuntary manslaughter” applies when a government employee conducts a lawful act, “without due caution and circumspection”, that results in death. [Title 18, 1112]
Former Senator John Danforth was recently appointed as a “special counsel” to investigate the 1993 Waco tragedy. At the starting gate, Danforth stated publicly that his investigation will not address the question of whether or not the two assaults on Mount Carmel were a good idea. In other words, the Danforth inquiry will intentionally ignore the obvious question so that the decision makers involved will not be held accountable by the criminal justice system. And, it appears that the press will also go along with the plan to focuses on technical details such as: Who did what? Who lied?
Over 200 years ago, in 1770, eight British soldiers, under the command of Captain Thomas Preston, shot and killed five people. Within one year of the Boston Massacre, the nine military personnel were investigated, received a trial by jury, and two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced. (Captain Preston was tried first, in a separate trial, and was found innocent because the jury determined he had not ordered the troops to fire.)
It has now been over six years since the 1993 Waco tragedy. (Book author Carol Moore called it The Davidian Massacre .) To date, there have been: (a) two management reviews—one by the Department of the Treasure and the other by the Department of Justice, (b) two Congressional hearings, and (c) two employees in Treasury Department temporarily suspended. The actions of the surviving Branch Davidians have been investigated, some received a trial by jury, and several have received sentences ranging up to 40 years. However, there has not yet been a comprehensive independent criminal investigation of the Federal government decision-makers and employees involved. And certainly, none of these participants have received a trial by jury. That is, people currently working for the U.S. Government have not been held as accountable as were the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. Neither, the Boston Massacre nor the Davidian Massacre were premeditated acts.
Again, the obvious question not being asked is: Why aren’t the key government people being tried for involuntary manslaughter? If our criminal justice system is to function impartially, a jury needs to pass judgment. Trying a person, who is presumed innocent, for an apparent crime allows the accused to either clear his/her name or serve the time. In either event, a jury decision would clear the air.
A search warrant for illegal guns and an arrest warrant for David Koresh was the stated legal justification for the first raid. What were the other options? How do the decision makers justify not:
- Conducting the search for illegal firearms when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was invited to do so on July 30, 1992.
- Executing the search warrant on February 28, 1993, without an armed raid.
- Executing the arrest warrant while Koresh was traveling outside the Mount Carmel Center.
During the standoff, the Government’s goal appeared to be to force the Branch Davidians to “come out” of their home. Even if they had emerged en masse, what then? Because only a few Davidians had actually handled a firearm, almost all of them would have been released within a day or two to return to their home—where they were when the Government insisted they must “come out.” Some of the other options to the second raid were:
- Backing off, arranging for medical attention for all of the wounded, letting tempers cool, and then working out a way to execute the warrants.
- Requesting permission for the law enforcers to go into the Center to do the bureaucratic law-enforcement chores.
- Transferring control of the siege to the Texas Rangers, whom the Davidians trusted.
Until the key people are tried before a jury of citizens for involuntary manslaughter, the message to the American people will continue to be: “The United States Government may kill its citizens, either on purpose or accidentally, and the responsible officials will not be held accountable.” This message needs to be corrected.
Prepared by: Bill Buckel, 1641 Hess Blvd., Columbus, OH 43212, Ph. 488-8963. Buckel is the Democratic candidate for Congress in central Ohio’s 15th district.