Talk:Waco siege

Tanks

About midway through the category "The Siege", the article states that it is unconstitutional to employ armored vehicles in civil situations. But don't SWAT teams do that all the time? Its not like it was a real tank with a turret; all it is is a huge piece of armor that moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.213.15 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree this seems like a strange point to make. I feel it is quite obvious that the constitution doesnt make references to tanks so it should be clarified. The citation isn't something that can be easily confirmed like a book or website. I feel this should be removed unless some one can clarify the interpretation that says that the deployments of tanks is unconstitutional. 69.123.106.132 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)69.123.106.132

Trying to second guess the original poster: under the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), it is unlawful to employ the federal military in law enforcement without a declaration of martial law. This might be the source of the belief it is unconstitutional to use the military in law enforcement period. (The normal exception is that the Coast Guard is considered as much a federal law enforcement agency as it is a branch of the military.) Other exceptions are made on claims of War on Drugs or War on Terror, but even there strict constitutionalists have a skeptical eye. Use of military in law enforcement has usually been subject to constitutional constraint. The use of Bradleys and M60 CEVs at Waco may have been within the law, but according to the Branch Davidian survivors, it was counterproductive: it reinforced the siege mentality and loss of hope that led to the final stand. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to call an armored vehicle that hoses the target with a flamethrower a "tank". I was watching the live coverage on CNN. (I am unable to locate a tape of this anywhere. Miraculously I conceal my astonishment. Ted Turner was a big Clinton contributor.)4.246.3.91 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The only difference is a Tank has steel treads on it rather than tires. Otherwise, technically, it's an armored car (trivial point--people still die from them. Like the Irish civilians from the Brits...?)68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

68.231.188.151 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

TANKS: The CEVs (Combat Engineering Vehicles) used to ram the walls of Mt. Carmel Center and introduce gas were M60 tanks with the guns removed. Since they were "unarmed" and borrowed from the military, USAG Janet Reno considered them the equivalent of "good rent-a-cars" according to her Congressional testimony. Treaded armored vehicles, CEVs (ex-M60 tanks) and Bradley fighting vehicles, were present at the Waco Siege (see authenticated news video in "Waco: Rules of Engagement" (ROE)); they had neither cannon nor machineguns. Although they did have 40mm grenade launchers used to fire literally hundreds of Ferret CS gas grenades, they were unarmed not tanks. That was not an assault and hundreds of 40mm gas grenades were not gunfire by FBI. FLAME THROWER: Although the mix of methelene chloride and CS powder was considered flammable, the armored vehicles had no source of ignition, although McNulty (ROE) claimed the Texas Rangers found a 40mm Flash-Bang grenade at one of the points of ignition of the fire. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding to a comment above, an actual tank has a turret, otherwise it is an armored vehicle or a tankette.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Structural Inadequacy of Proposition: "Who Fired First?"

"All Law is Anthropology." -Justice Holmes

"Who Fired First" is at best inadequate and more likely a disservice. It falls into the all too general pattern of Wikiwork as lacking any referencing of Law. This could be amended to ask "Who Fired Last". The section should point out that the Government is prohibited from prior restraint and force is always reactive and proportional. The articles in general lack this facet of a jurisprudential understanding. As it stands, the prior submission is most correct- the dogs were the first to die.

The article perforce needs be IMMEDIATELY amended. 24.72.179.175 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually everything in the controversies section should be integrated into the relevant sections; then there is no need for questionable section titles. There are dozens of missing controversies as well, and too disorganized to try to make two sections. But I am way behind on doing that work... ON my list :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Does YFZ Ranch deserve text mention???

A YFZ Ranch description was added to Waco_Siege#Related_incidents even though its only relation is that some media have made a comparision. I could easily rustle up 5 or 6 incidents similarly compared, both before and after like MOVE#1985_incident and some incidents in Category:Nonwar_armed_confrontations.

I don't have a problem with a See also reference but am opposed to text reference. Rationales for including it in text, and my replies, are:

1. August 24, 2009 Bachcell (→Related incidents: YFZ Ranch, this time with sources); relevance more important in this case
2. August 24, 2009 Carolmooredc Removal: deleted incident onlly compared to Waco, not related; dozens of things have been compared but can't include them all; irrelevant; ditto.
3. August 26, 2009 Apostle12 (Revert. Actually this well-sourced addition describes a major event that parallels Waco in many respects. I think it should be included.); still not relevant.

Others thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ruth who signed off on the Treasury report on Waco saw parallels with MOVE and Ruby Ridge. Several government and news media sources cite Jonestown as a parallel. A lot of us see parallels and differences with the YFZ raid. I would support a See also link and maybe one line for these. Including text summaries here on MOVE, Ruby Ridge, Jonestown, YFZ, and other incidents with which one might find a parallel to the Waco siege would clutter this article with inadequate summaries here of those events with maintenance problems when their main articles are updated. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are specified as "similar" and not "related" and are short I don't have a problem with it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Fatti vs: "mg possession"?

I am glad some appealled bogus charges of "possession of a machine gun", and won. Machine Guns (Automatic weapons of Class 3 destructive Devices, National Firearms Act of 1934) are Legal for public possession/use in the US. Some individual states restrict them.( Not Texas.) So long as you have the federal licensing, registration, taxes, waiting period, etc, in order, you can possess as many M/Gs as you want/can afford in TX. This should not have been recorded as a "charge" against Fatti; it should have been in quotes, like some one's "opinion".You should know by now that peace officers can throw all kinds of "charges" against anyone; only what is the Law will hold up in court, and that's what counts.68.231.188.151 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Verification for Koresh jogging and eating locally.

"Although ATF claimed that Koresh stayed inside the compound and could not be served with a warrant, Koresh was regularly seen jogging along the Waco roads and ate at local restaurants every week."

I'm going to remove the above sentence unless someone can provide verification. In fact the whole NPOV of this section seems highly suspect.

I'll also remove this: "Some believe the media hype influenced both the FBI and the ATF and the strategies they employed during the siege." for similar reasons, not to mention WP:AWW.

SolomonTrim (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Second the above and further deletion

I second the above recommendation and I am going to go ahead and remove that material. There is no source, and it is definitely not material that should just be taken at face value without need of evidence. It reads like one of the many anti-government blogs on the subject. Did the ATF want to serve a search warrant on Karesh outside of the compound? I don't know why they would since a search warrant is typically served at the premises being searched. Did the ATF claim that they could not? Was Karesh seen jogging around and eating and was thus able to be served at any time? None of this is verified and every last point needs to be or else I am sorry but it's not believable.

The second part I am deleting is this:

"Despite being personally invited by Koresh as early as July 30, 1992 to inspect the Davidians' weapons and paperwork (eight months before the raid), and refusing, the ATF pursued a strongly confrontational policy. McClennan County Sheriff Harwell was convinced that if ATF had simply called Koresh, he would have shown at the county courthouse with his lawyer, Wayne Martin. Koresh told people that the Ruby Ridge Standoff of 21–31 August 1992 convinced him that the reason ATF refused his request was they were planning a raid regardless of what he did. Between July 1992 and Feb 1993, Koresh's sermons became increasingly apocalyptic."

Again, no source is given for any of it. It again is argumentitive, clearly POV pushing as the language demonstrates an obvious condemnation of the ATF (I'm not taking a side on that one, but neither should the article) and makes great pains to paint Koresh as a martyr. I don't know what happened to be honest and maybe everything said here did happen. Maybe he did invite the ATF to view the compound and maybe the Sherrif was convinced that if they had called Koresh, he would have shown up to the courthouse. I don't know because this passage gives me no reason to know outside of the fact that the editor is convinced that it's true. That's not good enough. It makes me think this was read on a blog and since that would obviously not be seen as a reliable source, the author simply inserted the material unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

??????? "Karesh" ??????

I don't think I have ever deleted something just because it was unsourced and I did not want to believe it, lacking any evidence to believe it to be false. I do know I have found things that seemed unclear and posted so in Talk, or did some research and edited to clarify the presentation or add a source. There is a WP guide line "Be bold". However.....

It is one thing to flag material as source needed or please clarify or mention the issue in Talk-- it is quite another to delete it with the comment "unsourced and dubious" with the comment in Talk that basicly it is dubious because you don't want to believe it. That someone would delete parts of an article and spell the name wrong as "Karesh" more than once says something about the quality of their edits.

That Koresh tried to talk to ATF seven months before the raid is documented in Congressional Hearings on Waco that were broadcast on CSPAN, which testimony has been repeated in so many books (and included the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement") that it is not believable that anyone who has studied this subject could not find it believable.

From the 1995 Congressional hearings (including Waco ROE):

Stuart H. Wright, Editor, Armageddon at Waco:

   Why was a warrant sought in the first place since David Koresh, on
   learning that he was being investigated by the ATF, invited the
   agents on July 30th, 1992, through his gun dealer, Henry McMahon,
   to come to his residence and inspect his firearms?

and later when the former ATF Deputy Director Robert Sanders testified:

John B. Shadegg, US Congress, Arizona (R):

   They never once followed up on that offer. Never even tried to
   follow up on that offer . . .

Robert Sanders, former ATF Deputy Director:

   I can't imagine any circumstances when I would not take up such 
   an offer. It indicates a mind-set. Perhaps it was non willful.
   Perhaps what the ATF thought were violations of the law were really
   things that Mr. Koresh thought were legal.

John B. Shadegg:

   It suggests that what they really wanted to do was conduct a raid,
   not make an arrest or conduct a search.

Robert Sanders:

   In the opinion of the agents, you know, the planning for Waco and
   the manner in which it was done was done for the purpose of
   publicity.

Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 395 April 9, 2001, posted by Timothy Lynch, Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, from the timeline:

 o July 30, 1992: ATF agents interview Texas firearms dealer
Henry McMahon about his business dealings with Branch Davidian
leader David Koresh. During the interview, McMahon telephones
Koresh. Koresh tells McMahon that if the ATF agents perceive any
legal problem, they can come to Mt. Carmel and check his
inventory and paperwork. ATF agents decline the invitation.[5]

5. Henry McMahon, Testimony, 1995 Congressional Hearings, part 1,
pp. 162-63.

Seperately Henry McHahon and ATF Agent Davy Aguilera have stated repeatedly (a) Aguilera interviewed McMahon 30 July 1992 (b) on the phone Koresh asked to speak to Aguilera (c) McMahon told Aguilera that Koresh was wanting to talk to Aguilera and offering to let ATF come and inspect his guns and paperwork and (d) Aguilera refused to touch the telephone.

After the ATF refused the 30 July 1992 inspection offer, the federal siege of the Weaver family went down at Ruby Ridge ID 21-31 Aug 1992. The Ruby Ridge Siege is well documented and occurred after 30 July 1992. It was a nation-wide sensation for weeks. Koresh was very much aware of it and told dozens of people about it. David Thibodeau in his book on life with the Davidians recounted Koresh being upset by Ruby Ridge, and that Koresh connected the ATF refusal to talk to him with the treatment of the Weavers.

I have a thick envelope of 1993-1994 newspaper and magazine clippings as part of my research for an article I wrote for the local Mensa group newsletter on Waco in 1994: in the aftermath of the raid the ATF told the newspapers repeatedly that they had to raid because Koresh never left the compound and could not caught off the grounds be arrested. Also interviews with the townspeople recounted seeing Koresh in Waco during the period the ATF claimed he was holed-up and they could not serve an arrest warrant.

And if you think I am being snarky, you should have been around when I made my first sloppy edits. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting getting the facts in. Do you have electronic copy of the Hearings? I posted links to them I found but could not get them to work at the time. Haven't been able to get to the PDF links, but maybe it's my connections fault. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have had to rely on a posted transcript of Waco ROE for snippets of the House Hearing testimony. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture References

None of the "popular culture" examples are properly cited. The Waco Siege wasn't the first religious group to have government troubles, so television shows and movies which appear similar may actually be based on a different event. Even if these pop-culture references bear an undeniably strong resemblance to the actual historical events, they are meaningless without a cited quote from the originators (otherwise it is Original Research). Regardless, none of these references help us understand either the historical account nor the public's perception of these events. ∅BRIT 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I do think it is useful to include these "popular culture" references, because they point up the extent to which the Waco events affected our collective psyche. Unless the authors of the various episodes were to write specifically that they were influenced by events at Waco, we will never truly know the inspiration behinde their writing. Nevertheless, a strong circumstantial case can be made that the Waco events penetrated the national psyche in a unique way and likely influenced the authors. After all there were untold numbers of charismatic, authoritarian dictators before Hitler, yet when we see the portrayal of such a dictator in theater or film there is little doubt we are witnessing a Hitler-inspired production. How about if I soften the connection to eliminate any confusion.

If you continue to have doubts about the appropriateness of including this info, might a suggest a tag asking for sourcing? That way you will not have destroyed a valuable collection of apparent Waco references in popular culture, which references undoubtedly took various editors a great deal of time to assemble. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Within a day or two I'll add sourcing for the Updike note, which I happen to know is correct. Out of time right now.Apostle12 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've said above illustrates the problem with this section. We need to have referenced material, and much of this is not. It is unfortunate that people have put time into collecting the material, but if we cannot find reliable proof that the reference is intended as a reference, we cannot leave in text claiming that it is. Even if we add "appears to" and similar wording, we still have the problem of using speculation instead of fact. We cannot be making circumstantial cases for inclusion; we can only use what we can prove. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now sourced the Updike entry, using an expansive review of Updikes work written by Gore Vidal. (If you read it, please be patient, as it discusses much of Updike's other work before arriving at the relevant mention of Waco.) I favor tagging and patience (months, perhaps) rather than wholesale deletion. I notice that you left the South Park episode untagged in an apparent nod to the episode's obvious relationship to Waco. Apostle12 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a deletion war, so I'll leave your edits for now, but you've missed a major point. It is not simply that the information is unsourced (though this is a major problem), it's that the information itself offers no valuable insight into the Waco Siege. That the television show Lie to Me mentioned the Siege is unremarkable. The show has also mentioned Sarah Palin's CBS interview, the belief in Big Foot, and the Manson murders, but none of these articles on Wikipedia mention Lie to Me as a valid metric of cultural saturation, nor should they. This is as true for "police procedural television shows," obscure books of fiction, independent music, and satirical comedy shows. In fact, you could also find references in each of these to snow plows, multiple sclerosis, chemotherapy, and pigeons, but what does that tell us?

Unfortunately, these sections become a dumping ground for every pop-culture reference witnessed by overzealous Wikipedia editors. Without context, none of these mentions add any value to the article. ∅BRIT 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to your opinion that references to a major event like Waco can be likened to references to snow plows, multiple sclerois, et al. I also disagree with your conclusion that mention of references to Waco in popular culture adds nothing of value. The events at Waco occurred more than 16 years ago, yet Waco continues to resonate in our collective consciousness; an entire generation has come of age since then that has no memory of the actual event. You may find all this "unremarkable," however I don't think that is necessarily the case.Apostle12 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I find Waco unremarkable; it was a historically significant event (and was just as fascinated as everyone else while the events unfolded on the news). But this is exactly my point. That Waco was mentioned on South Park is unremarkable and is an invalid metric for measuring cultural resonance. On the other hand, that Timothy McVeigh used Waco as inspiration for his terrorist activity is undeniably remarkable. I definitely believe that it's important to note the cultural significance of the Waco Seige, but this isn't accomplished by simply listing each and every media reference to the event. We can't simply say that something is mentioned, we need to say why. For example, if the cultural effect has been studied (especially in relation to domestic terrorism), we can (and should) quote the study. Otherwise, a simple list of unrelated and unsourced material trivializes an important event. ∅BRIT 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki:Trivia, Wiki:Pop-Culture and Wiki:Handling Trivia, I moved relevant references (specifically the books) and deleted unrelated material. After a fairly exhaustive search, I couldn't find any references by the shows' authors or producers which indicate them being directly influenced by the Waco Siege. Even the needlessly detailed description of the South Park episode Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub does not mention Waco by name (in fact, the cult itself seems based more on Heaven's Gate), not that Wikipedia is allowed to be self-referential. Either way, the cultural effects of Waco are already addressed in this article without adding random media facts. This is not to say that these fictional portrayals aren't, in fact, based on Waco; only that secondary sources cannot confirm their inspiration (per Wiki:Pop-Culture) ∅BRIT 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A close look at many of the popular culture references to Waco-like cults or Koresh-like leaders in fictional dramas will often show more parallels with the historical Heaven's Gate (religious group), or Jim Jones and the People's Temple than to the historical Branch Davidian and David Koresh. Such pop cult trivializations obscure understanding of what happened, why and how a tragedy like the Waco Siege could be avoided. They fog the subject rather than shed light on it. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

source of the fire

That the source of the fire is contested should be an uncontested fact about this incident.

• Waco: The Rules of Engagement, 1997 film directed by William Gazecki, produced by Michael McNulty. The Congressional testimony and interviews of Davidian survivors David Thibodeau, Clive Doyle and Derek Lovelock actually support unknown origin including accidental ignition (although the filmmakers lean toward FBI started the fire).

The origin of the fire at Waco 19 Apr 1993 is not neatly settled. Davidian survivors David Thibodeau, Derek Lovelock and Clive Doyle in Congressional testimony and interviews denied any plan by Davidians to start a fire; the descriptions by Thibodeau and Doyle describe the fires as unknown origin, could be accidental, or deliberate by the Davidians or the FBI. The FBI had turned off the electricity the first week of the siege. For weeks, the Davidians were using Coleman lanterns for lighting; the Davidians' discussions at 7:00 am the morning of 19 Apr 1993 of how much fuel was available and how it was distributed had an innocent explanation; the fact that the Davidian's bought diesel fuel can be explained by the fact they were running a ranch. You drive tanks through a building lighted and heated with lanterns and stoves that run off gasoline or fuel oil and the potential for accidental fire should be obvious. Of course to beat tort suits the government is going to declare the Davidians guilty case closed.

Appendix G of the Treasury Dept Waco Report, written by the Historian of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Dr. Frederick S. Calhoun, puts the siege on the Branch Davidians at Waco in the context of the sieges on the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) at Los Angeles, Gordon Kahl at Smithville Arkansas, Bob Mathews at Whideby Island, and the Covenent Sword and Arm of the Lord (CSA) in Arkansas (US Government Printing Office: 1993-358-365). All these sieges but the CSA siege ended in FBI tear gas attacks followed by fire. At Waco, the Texas Rangers found metallic 40mm grenades of the type fired from M79 military grenade launchers: M651 tear gas grenades and flash bang grenades by NICO Pyrotechnik; the manufacturers told the Texas Rangers these incendiary devices had been sold to the FBI. It is amazing the number of "cults" that have ended sieges with suicide by fire after a tear gas attack: MOVE, SLA, Posse Comitatus, the Order, the Branch Davidians. The only major "cult" siege listed by Calhoun that did not end in suicide by fire after a gas attack was CSA. In the context of discussing the Waco Siege on page 498 of his biography "My Life" (Vintage Books, 2005), Bill Clinton claims that as Gov. of Arkansas in 1985, he called off the planned FBI raid on the CSA and insisted on a negotiated surrender no matter how long it might take. Clinton claimed he regreted not following his gut instinct to handle the Davidians like the CSA. Since Waco the CIRG has handled political/religious sieges like the CSA siege was handled: negotiate til hell freezes over. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Capitalisation in this article is a mess, especially in the information box. I cleaned up a little in the article, but it needs to be thoroughly line edited.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why delete Koresh's legal name?

Couple people keep removing "then-Davidian leader Vernon Wayne Howell, better known as David Koresh." Please explain the rationale for deleting it, especially when it is needed to identify him in a later quote from a government document? His name is also part of the title of the Treasury Dept report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why include more than is necessary to convey to the reader that he changed his name? As it is now, it seems to be pretty well handled, with a few key mentions of the name change and then editing to address your VERY VERY VERY minor concerns about clarity and consistency. Explain why anything more is necessary.