The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What happened in [Waco] during the 1993 siege?
The Ender
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I wasn't sure whether this was a topic more suitable for a quick H/A thread or a more involved D&D thread, but given the scope of the subject matter I figured I may as well make the post here.
Waco? Where's that? And what 'siege'?
I'm going to assume everyone here already knows at least the basics of the Waco Siege (...which occurred in a rural area outside of the city of Waco, not within it). To encapsulate the background: a very disturbed man with a complex, violent & abusive history named Vernon Howell (who would change his name to David Koresh, the name he's commonly known by today) established a radical Christian cult & concubine in a compound on Mount Caramel. A package being delivered to the compound via UPS accidentally opened on the way there, revealing weaponry, black powder and grenade casings; the UPS driver immediately called the police, who contacted the ATF, who sent agents to the compound to investigate possible weapons violations.
What happened beyond this point for weeks, including an eventual escalation by the state to an FBI-organized siege of the Mount Caramel compound, is historically fuzzy as far as I've been able to gather.
Basically, I've been reading about the siege & the background of Mr. Howell, and I'm trying to get my sources straightened-out. There are two primary perspectives on the siege that aren't considered fringe (again, as far as I've been able to tell):
- The siege and eventual death of nearly 80 people in a fire within the compound was a result of mutual violence / aggression between law enforcement & Howell's cult, and the antagonizing force was the ATF. Koresh was not doing anything illegal until agents from the ATF arrived and, in a panic, started shooting at armed members of the cult who then returned fire. This escalated into the siege.
- More or less everything was the fault of Howell & his inner circle of followers, who attacked & murdered ATF agents on sight, refused any and all attempts at negotiation and was engaged in illegal activity that the state had every right to investigate / stop when they first dispatched the ATF (including statutory rape and various weapons violations that I honestly do not understand the legal complexities of, or how said legal complexities interact with the 2nd amendment within the U.S.).
The first perspective relies on the testimony of survivors from the compound (who obviously would have their own biases - but who also have independently testified in favor of the FBI agents who were present during the siege on multiple occasions, including testifying to the fact that Howell is the one who started the fire at the compound), allegedly deceptive statements made by the FBI (the FBI claims that no agents ever fired a weapon at the compound during the siege, despite coming under attack by cultists. They also initially claimed that no incendiary weapons were used) and evidence that is supposed to show these statements to be deceptive (FLIR imaging that is contended to show persons firing into the compound and at least two incendiary grenades thrown into an empty swimming pool which the FBI now acknowledge must have been used by their agents).
The second perspective relies on the testimony of the FBI (including retired agents who have no reason to lie on behalf of the bureau), local police (who have no reason to lie on behalf of the bureau, and who in the past have been very reluctant to testify in their favor), transcripts of negotiations between Howell and federal agents & eavesdropped audio from between Howell & his followers, Howell's violent past, and the (allegedly) plainly maniacal state of affairs at the compound (a very large weapons cache, a concubine that arguably was not free to leave the premises, alleged claims of ongoing statutory rape, etc).
Who is considered the most objective, third-party source to go to for information on the Waco siege? Does such a source even exist?
What the Hell happened on and after the 28th of February on Mount Caramel, and where/whom can I go to to read about it without being reasonably sure I'm being misled?
Waco? Where's that? And what 'siege'?
I'm going to assume everyone here already knows at least the basics of the Waco Siege (...which occurred in a rural area outside of the city of Waco, not within it). To encapsulate the background: a very disturbed man with a complex, violent & abusive history named Vernon Howell (who would change his name to David Koresh, the name he's commonly known by today) established a radical Christian cult & concubine in a compound on Mount Caramel. A package being delivered to the compound via UPS accidentally opened on the way there, revealing weaponry, black powder and grenade casings; the UPS driver immediately called the police, who contacted the ATF, who sent agents to the compound to investigate possible weapons violations.
What happened beyond this point for weeks, including an eventual escalation by the state to an FBI-organized siege of the Mount Caramel compound, is historically fuzzy as far as I've been able to gather.
Basically, I've been reading about the siege & the background of Mr. Howell, and I'm trying to get my sources straightened-out. There are two primary perspectives on the siege that aren't considered fringe (again, as far as I've been able to tell):
- The siege and eventual death of nearly 80 people in a fire within the compound was a result of mutual violence / aggression between law enforcement & Howell's cult, and the antagonizing force was the ATF. Koresh was not doing anything illegal until agents from the ATF arrived and, in a panic, started shooting at armed members of the cult who then returned fire. This escalated into the siege.
- More or less everything was the fault of Howell & his inner circle of followers, who attacked & murdered ATF agents on sight, refused any and all attempts at negotiation and was engaged in illegal activity that the state had every right to investigate / stop when they first dispatched the ATF (including statutory rape and various weapons violations that I honestly do not understand the legal complexities of, or how said legal complexities interact with the 2nd amendment within the U.S.).
The first perspective relies on the testimony of survivors from the compound (who obviously would have their own biases - but who also have independently testified in favor of the FBI agents who were present during the siege on multiple occasions, including testifying to the fact that Howell is the one who started the fire at the compound), allegedly deceptive statements made by the FBI (the FBI claims that no agents ever fired a weapon at the compound during the siege, despite coming under attack by cultists. They also initially claimed that no incendiary weapons were used) and evidence that is supposed to show these statements to be deceptive (FLIR imaging that is contended to show persons firing into the compound and at least two incendiary grenades thrown into an empty swimming pool which the FBI now acknowledge must have been used by their agents).
The second perspective relies on the testimony of the FBI (including retired agents who have no reason to lie on behalf of the bureau), local police (who have no reason to lie on behalf of the bureau, and who in the past have been very reluctant to testify in their favor), transcripts of negotiations between Howell and federal agents & eavesdropped audio from between Howell & his followers, Howell's violent past, and the (allegedly) plainly maniacal state of affairs at the compound (a very large weapons cache, a concubine that arguably was not free to leave the premises, alleged claims of ongoing statutory rape, etc).
Who is considered the most objective, third-party source to go to for information on the Waco siege? Does such a source even exist?
What the Hell happened on and after the 28th of February on Mount Caramel, and where/whom can I go to to read about it without being reasonably sure I'm being misled?
With Love and Courage
0
Posts
I don't have any cites off-hand.
My opinion has more to do with watching the events unfold. I became interested in Camp Davidian long before the siege - starting with the Child Protective Services investigation.
It was pretty clear to me from the beginning that the FBI and ATF did not have control of the situation and they effectively stuck their collective dicks in a hornets nest without a coherent plan. But this is mostly from memory, and I don't have any links to back it up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Immediate testimony from people in the compound really really disagrees with what media was reporting in real time. So its possible theres a third story, and it's what the media hyped to the public. Also the compound was so large, those inside may not have been privy to what others were doing.
Basically, the ATF obtained a legitimate search warrant. The UPS driver had the grenade casings and powder, there were reports of automatic gunfire coming from the compound, and former Branch Davidian members had reported that Koresh had converted lower receivers. There were also the statutory rape issues, and I believe some bad check issues, but I may be mixing the bad checks up with Ruby Ridge.
When the ATF went to execute the search warrant, the Branch Davidians had been tipped off (the AFT was aware of this) and ambushed the ATF. It's not completely clear who actually fired first, but either way it really doesn't matter. When Law Enforcement is executing a valid search warrant, arming up and taking defensive positions is armed resistance.
Basically, the vast majority of the blame falls directly on Korean and his followers. It may be true that the ATF could have just talked to them and not executed a raid, but either way they were entirely in the wrong.
In the most extreme reading of events in favor of the Davidians, they planned to and then did fire on federal law enforcement officials with a valid search warrant. They killed four federal agents in the initial extended exchange of fire. No Davidians were killed until after the initial standoff, when a group of Davidians tried to break through the sealed off area back into the compound, supposedly in ignorance. Koresh ordered or allowed a number of his followers to leave but retained dozens of children, including some he admitted to having fathered children by in a video he provided to the FBI. After six weeks of negotiations and siege tactics, the FBI/ATF attempted to breach the compound. The Davidians again returned gun fire, called for a fire to be started and Koresh and his aids killed themselves. Three fires started inside the compound simultaneously or nearly simultaneously and 76 total Davidians were killed in the fire, by fellow Davidian members or their own hands. None of the bodies of these individuals had wounds consistent with being killed by FBI or ATF agents. Inside the compound, hundreds of illegal weapons including full automatic machine guns, silencers, grenades and large caliber sniper rifles.
The tl;dr version is:
It was a large apocalyptic cult that was stockpiling heavy weapons and raping children. When the cops showed up, they shot at the cops. They were given every chance to surrender or leave for six weeks and some did. When the cops finally tried to go in, they killed themselves/each other.
This isn't a 50/50 situation. At worst its a "the law enforcement tactics in taking down a bunch of evil and crazy people was possibly suboptimal."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
By showing up 100-strong, equipped for a full-on raid, the ATF played directly into the psychology of an eschatological survivalist cult. They were paranoid that the government would raid them someday; then one day the government raids them. It doesn't take a PHD psychologist to see that this was a bad plan. They fulfilled Koresh's prophecy.
The event vindicated birfer/survivalist/gun-nut paranoia. Here was a real-life modern example of 'jack-booted thugs' from Washington swooping down to take somebody's guns away - exactly the sort of event that gun-nuts hoard guns for.
None of this excuses Koresh for his child sexual abuse. He was clearly sexually violating underaged girls. The compound needed to be broken up. They just went about it in a tactically awful way.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If you're browsing books online, I'd read anything from the federal agents who were connected to the Siege.
I do know that there's still tons of debate over the fire. The surviving members of say the Feds intentionally started the fire to smoke them out. The Feds all claimed that the smoke bombs unintentionally caused the fire. And many investigations of the bombs afterwards show them either as the most volatile things that have ever existed, or they couldn't start a fire if you were stuck in the wilderness with only that to survive. There is evidence that the Feds potentially lit the fire to smoke out the Branch members to arrest them, due to some old handbook information and other such evidence.
But when members ran out the back they were fired upon and fled back inside, so they couldn't be apprehended. And it's still not clear as to why the Dividians were fired upon when trying to flee the burning building. Official sources and books all have different views as to how and why all that happened.
Do you have a source for the claim about the Davidians leaving out of the back? I know almost all of the survivors dispute this claim, and two of the survivors claim they only reason they & their children weren't killed was because they ducked down as ATF agents fired into the building.
There is no credible dispute over who started the fire. I believe there is only a single survivor of the 7 that believes it was the FBI - the rest agree that Howell ignited the building.
Augh, it looks mostly like I'm typing out my ass, so I'll shut up until I can get my hands on proper information.
The most startling part of this is the popular response, I think. The idea that even if you are assembling a underage harem, you are still owed a treatment more gentle than a broadcasted demand of surrender followed by live fire. More than a century after the Civil War, the American federal government is still unable to convince a large group of its nationals that they are part of a single nation.
The suicides? The forensic evidence covered in the special counsel report. Basically, everyone who died of gunshot was shot close range to the head by weapons used by the Davidians but not the feds. A baby was stabbed instead of shot. Everyone else seems to have died of smoke inhalation. So you're saying the fact that the local law enforcement had a friendly relationship with the heavily armed apocalyptic cult of child rapists means local law enforcement was better suited to lead the arrests?
Local law enforcement is, by and large, grossly incompetent. Local law enforcement being tight with a group of local criminals doesn't mean they're the best people to work with on Sons of Anarchy or the real world. The cultists were never going to just let themselves be arrested. Koresh was God. When one of his cultists was shot in the initial fighting, he was executed (possibly consensually) instead of leaving the compound to seek treatment. It didn't matter how nicely they were asked, they weren't going to come along peacefully.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of course he had a better relationship with them. He had nothing to fear from them.
You better believe though that if Roscoe and the rest of the local boys showed up to seriously investigate or arrest Koresh, they would have gotten a polite no thank you, and when they exerted their lawful authority, it would have been the same damn ugly situation - guns and all.
To fringe-right survivalists, it's not really about an "underage harem." It's about the guns.
Take a look at the comments made by the Oklahoma City bomber a few years later: http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=76090
Keep in mind that at the time of the raid the evidence available to the public in favor of child abuse was weak. Much of what we know about the child abuse was corroborated by survivors of the siege after the fact. The famous video where David Koresh admitted to taking underaged girls as wives was filmed during the siege and released to the public long after the siege was over. The warrant was over violations of firearms law. And there was the PR blunder of Janet Reno talking about "kids being beaten" and immediately being contradicted by William Sessions.
The perception then was that the allegations of child abuse were fabricated by authorities (based on exaggerated descriptions of corporal punishment) to justify a gun raid.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No; Winston Blake, Peter Gent and Peter Hipsman, the four Davidians killed by the ATF on February 28th. You said these people were killed when they tried to break-out of the compound. What is the source for this?
So nuke it from orbit, that's the only way, huh?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Look at the people raising Dorner up as some hero. Forget the LAPD being a bunch of inept fucks in that situation - people considered Dorner a HERO. The Boston Bombers. McVeigh. The Columbine shooters. Some disenfranchised and probably mentally ill people are going to make a hero out of the worst villains there are.
Fuck those guys. The way to handle them isn't with kid gloves because it's going to raise sympathies among like minded nuts, it's to make sure they are relegated to the dustbin of history, hopefully without giving them an opportunity to take dozens or hundreds of innocent people along with them.
these people weren't lawfully executing their second amendment rights
I recall that the National Guard was involved in a support role, which isn't a violation of posse comitatus, and there were tanks and support crew that were on loan from the Army to the ATF and local authorities, which also isn't a violation of posse comitatus.
Outside of the fringe, I've never heard any credible reports that regular military units participated in the raid. There are certain places that regular military is able to participate in law enforcement operations - usually if their equipment is 'loaned' to law enforcement authorities. The big one is dog / handler teams, as the dog is considered 'equipment' but the handler is the only 'operator' who is capable of using it. I think - not certain - that military heavy equipment and aircraft also would arguably fall under that exception to posse comitatus if it's equipment law enforcement lacks the training to use.
BTW... IIRC, Koresh and his followers offered no resistance to the Waco county sheriff's department when they were arrested for the shootout a few years prior, but I can't find a corroborating link right now.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't think that a scorched earth approach works in the backwater counties of the midwest US any more than it works in the middle east.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
if someone wants to be a warlord in America, it's a tragic situation if this ends up happening, but I think it's preferable to allowing warlords to exist here!
A few Harvard legal scholars would disagree with you, for whatever that's worth - essentially claiming that the laws the ATF were executing warrants on are unconstitutional.
IANAL and have no idea whether or not this argument has any validity, but this issue hardly seems like one that is settled at the moment (personally, I think anyone stockpiling ought to be investigated - but I'm trying to filter opinion for facts at the moment, and the facts seem very scattered & confused).
if they were unconstitutional they had the opportunity to face them in court
opening fire at the cops issuing the warrant is not a legitimate response
I'm not talking about scorched earth. I'm talking about police work - investigation, arrests, and sending people to prison.
If people are going to point guns at the police and take up defensive positions to resist execution of lawful warrants, the government absolutely has a duty to nip that in the bud. I really am not a fan of militarization of the police - really, not at all. But I do think militarized resistance of lawful government action is something that a functioning society absolutely can not tolerate.
No argument there on any front.
Well, let's get something straight here. There is a matter of fact, and there is a matter of jurisprudence.
They were clearly violating gun law. They had weapons that they had no legal right to have, including unlicensed fully-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons that had been illegally modified to be fully-automatic, and explosives.
Whether the authorities had gathered sufficient evidence of that fact is a question of jurisprudence. It is a valuable question in that we want our legal authorities to follow proper procedures. But it doesn't change the fact of the matter.
No, we just have people willing to drive trucks into federal buildings, crash planes into federal buildings, hang census workers, and shoot law enforcement officers. You're not going to end the survivalist/militia culture by force.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, I think it is about the women. The guns and explosives are what make them dangerous to outsiders, in the same way that mail fraud is what makes Sovereign Citizens damaging, but the drive toward an isolationist unity is fuelled by a decidedly more archaic tribal behaviour. The guns happen to be useful symbols of tribal affiliation. Gun disarmament or ineffectiveness would just shift the choice of symbols to something else.
There would have been no isolated 'community' for McVeigh to identify so tightly with, if there had been more miscegenation of tribal affiliations. Identity politics occurs all the time, as part of the human condition, even with the most commercialized and petty and trivial choices. But these are self-limiting because at some point a friend of a friend will belong to your hated enemy. You only get to the point where everyone you personally care about is exclusively in your tribe if there is a large tribe which systematically enforces isolation to begin with.
Yes, and I don't think anyone disagrees with this - but a few lawyers, and not fringe lawyers as far as I'm aware, said after the fact that the automatic weapons laws the ATF was acting on may very well be unconstitutional. Apparently they haven't been tested in court?
Again, IANAL and don't understand any of the technicalities here, but it's something I've read repeatedly in the sources I've been studying.
I question the neutrality of your sources, particularly if they combine speculative jurisprudence with discussions of facts.
The guns, by any account, were part of the core reason for the church's existence. Gun shows & gun sales were a large part of the revenue that even allowed the church to continue. The other components (Howell's religious convictions, the sex (both with adults and minors) and the isolationism) were certainly also central, but the guns were just as important.
so its not really in anyone's interests to pursue that
*I am pretty sure that the courts have said it's okay to restrict automatic weapons though
To a certain extent, the death count is a failure regardless of justification.
well, of course. The year is 2013 and one cannot live by agriculture alone, not without an Amish material quality of life that forces even the alpha chimp to engage in backbreaking manual labour. The mail fraud that sovereign citizens engage in is also central, in the sense that it's a necessary component to raise required funds. The pseudomedicine that Scientologists sell is also central, in the sense that it's a necessary component to raise required funds.
But that's all they are: a way to raise funds.
but the middle east has never scorched the earth. That's why they have still have ethnic polities that would be quite happy if something genocide'd all their neighbours: because they have neighbours of different identities who are still alive, with fences that are inconsistent with the state structures they have to live under.
it is hardly as if the federal government of the US hasn't dismantled violent religious communities living in the midwest before, forcing them into eventual nonviolence and integration through repeatedly undermining the forces that fuelled isolation and unity. You may know it as the LDS Church.
Quite fair; my sources so far have been the ATF & FBI reports, and books written by survivors, members of the FBI, attorneys related to the case and local police.
None of this is neutral, which is why I'm trying to find more material.
The sources for the constitutional arguments are David Kopel & Paul Blackman; obviously they are not neutral, but they are experts in their field and I'm not.
The federal laws restricting fully-automatic weapons have been tested multiple times and upheld multiple times. Examples: US v Warner, 1993. US v Rybar, 1995.
There are those who believe that the US government does not have the power to ban certain classes of weapon (Supreme Court Justice Alito is one of them). I think it's safe to say that this is a fringe belief with no appreciable influence on current firearms law.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I doubt that a gun ban would cause survivalists to rally around statutory rape as a new 'symbol of tribal affiliation.'
If you don't believe me, I invite you to go to any given gun show, find a table selling copies of The Turner Diaries, and ask them if they'd like to join NAMBLA.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.