-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://hss.fullerton.edu/comparative/danforth.reactions.htm";>http ://h ss.fullerton.edu/comparative/danforth.reactions.htm</A> The Danforth Report: Reactions Semantic Difficulties in Danforth Report on Waco by Stuart A. Wright (Associate Director of Graduate Studies and Professor of Sociology at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. He is editor of Armageddon in Waco (University of Chicago Press, 1995) and he testified in the 1995 Congressional hearings on Waco.) Was anyone else confused by the inconsistencies between the Special Counsel's conclusions and the substantive discussions of material in the report on Waco? On Friday, July 21, Special Counsel John Danforth absolved the government of wrongdoing and concluded that there was no cover-up in the Waco disaster. A 152-page Interim Report was issued to the press and can be downloaded over the internet (www.osc- waco.org). Curiously, much of the report is spent discussing missing or concealed evidence (audio tapes, FLIR tapes, expended pyrotechnic projectiles, incriminating page from FBI evidentiary lab report), FBI misstatements to the Attorney General, Congress and the public, the failure of government prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence in the 1994 Davidian criminal trial, withholding key evidence of incendiary devices in the civil case by an FBI attorney, the ailure by officials who authored the Justice report to discover and document use of pyrotechnic devices, and various other instances of miscommunication, negligence and vital omissions. No cover-up? The authoritative Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines cover-up as "something used for hiding one's real activities, intentions, etc.." The report even chides government personnel for "non-disclosure," suggesting that these individuals might have sought to conceal information for fear of "personal or professional ruin." How does the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) define "cover-up?" The answer lies on p.44 of the report. It states: "Whether or not there was a cover-up is in many respects dependent upon nuances in terminology." Nuances in terminology? A central issue in the Danforth investigation has been the use of incendiary devices by the FBI during the April 19 CS insertion. For six years, the FBI denied using incendiary devices that might have started the fire that killed 74 Davidians. These denials were relayed to the Attorney General immediately after the tragic conflagration. Indeed, the AG asked for and received assurances that no incendiary devices would be used prior to the April 19 assault as a condition of her approval for the gassing plan. These denials were repeated in the 1994 criminal trial of the Davidians in San Antonio, as prosecutors failed to disclose evidence of pyrotechnic rounds in their Brady v. Maryland submission to defense attorneys . They were repeated in the 1995 Congressional hearings to members of the subcommittees who specifically requested "a listing of all pyrotechnic and incendiary devices" used at the Davidian complex. And finally, they were repeated in responses to requests for FBI documents in the civil case.For the semantically challenged, the report explains that there is an important, though subtle, difference between "pyrotechnic" and "incendiary" devices. The purpose of an incendiary device, we learn, is designed to cause a fire. Technically, therefore, a pyrotechnic tear gas round is not incendiary, presumably because a pyrotechnic round may cause a fire but is not intended to do so. Incredibly, the Danforth report concludes that the FBI (mis)statements to the AG, the Justice Department, to Congress and the American public that "they never used any incendiary devices" were "technically true," excluding, of course, the failure to disclose to Congressional subcommittees who asked for a list of both pyrotechnic and incendiary devices. In the latter case, the federal prosecutor, Ray Jahn,admitted to making a false statement, claiming he was merely "negligent. "Further complicating matters was that different terms were used for pyrotechnics rounds by different personnel. Pyrotechnic rounds were variously referred to as "military rounds," "bubbleheads," and "cupcake rounds." Who could know that these terms all referred to pyrotechnic devices in the absence of a government linguist or translator? Another complication, we are told, was that HRT commander Dick Rogers, who authorized the use of pyrotechnic rounds, claimed that the AG's prohibition against pyrotechnics applied only to its use at the living quarters of the Davidians and not the concrete construction pit where they were apparently fired. Never mind that Attorney General Reno believes her exact words prohibited pyrotechnics at the compound, "which...included the concrete construction pit." Apparently, Rogers did not share this belief, "so there was no meeting of the minds." Rogers also failed to correct false statements given to Congress by the FBI in 1993 and the Attorney General in 1995 even though "Rogers attended the congressional hearings precisely to ensure that Congress was provided with accurate information." The OSC downplayed the actions as merely "a significant omission." FBI attorney Jacqueline Brown twice failed to disclose key evidence of military rounds in the civil case brought by the Davidians against the government. She also attempted to conceal her actions to the OSC. "Brown repeatedly made inconsistent, self-serving, misleading, and false statements to the Office of Special Counsel," the report states. Her punishment? Barring additional evidence, the OSC declined to pursue criminal prosecution. What appears as nuanced terminology to the OSC may seem more like a rather straightforward case of cover-up to government outsiders. The Danforth team expends a lot of energy apologizing for government misdeeds by attributing the problem to "semantic difficulties." While the Special Counsel's findings that the government did not start the fire at Mt. Carmel or shoot at sect members trying to escape are a welcome relief, the correlative claim that no cover-up took place suffers semantic difficulties of its own. A careful reading of the report, in conjunction with other evidence, suggests that government officials in the FBI and DOJ were fearful of disclosing the use of pyrotechnic devices for obvious reasons. Waco is a touchstone of antigovernment sentiment and a black mark on federal law enforcement. While the government was cleared of these specific charges, there are plenty of other things they did wrong at Waco which neither the OSC investigation or the civil trial addressed. Let's be honest. The failure to disclose evidence, whether by intent, omission, or negligence, was an exercise in damage control to preserve the already beleaguered image of federal law enforcement. Or perhaps in some cases, an effort to avoid "personal or professional ruin." The OSC should takes its own advice; government has a responsibility to be open and candid to the American people so as to restore confidence in public officials. _______________________ Counterpoint: Who should decide what the public needs to know? by Karen Foss ("St. Louis Post-Dispatch," August 26, 2000) I am writing not as a representative of the news organization for which I work, but rather as a concerned, individual journalist.I commend former Sen. John Danforth for his service to our country, but I disagree with his expectations of the news media as outlined in his Aug. 22 letter to the editor. His comments raised many questions for me. Danforth suggests that the media have not learned the "lessons" of Waco, and he points to follow-up reports on the tragic killing of police officer Robert Stanze as evidence of an irresponsible media. Danforth asserts that news organizations erred by reporting on a news conference called by the family of the man charged with murdering the officer. First of all, I object to Danforth's disdainful characterization of the "curbside" news conference. As a reporter, I can testify that cosseting a speaker in a wood-paneled conference room does not guarantee his credibility.Second, I take exception to his broadbrush characterization of the "media." In so doing, he perpetuates the myth that news organizations act as a pack and conspire to inflame public opinion. In reality, the competitive nature of daily news coverage -- and varying concepts of what warrants attention -- will lead to differing degrees of scrutiny paid to any event by various media outlets.But my greatest concern is with his assertion that news organizations should not bestow "public credence" by reporting on unofficial claims. Danforth acknowledges that the Post-Dispatch report (and I would add News Channel 5's reports as well) included not only the family's claims of brutality, but also their lack of documentation, as well as denials of abuse from the police and sheriff's department and the hospital. In other words, the reports were textbook good journalism. They were balanced and inclusive, giving the reader or viewer information from which to draw conclusions. Many of whom, no doubt, came to the same conclusions as Danforth.I would ask him to consider what would have happened if the "media" had docilely accepted the official explanations regarding the Watergate break-in? Would he have liked us to accept the theory that Monica Lewinsky was a deluded young White House intern with an overactive imagination? Would he accept the denials from New York City police officers, later convicted, of a savage sexual assault on suspect Abner Louima? Finally, who would Danforth like to charge with the responsibility of making those decisions about what the public needs to know? Surely he would not have journalists pre-judge which claims are "sensational but baseless." Would he truly want us to limit the scope of public discourse and report only the unchallenged official positions on controversial issues? Danforth seems to regard open, inquiring media as a "nuisance." He shows little confidence in the abilities of the men and women of this region to process conflicting accounts and arrive at sensible conclusions. Who better -- I would ask -- to draw those conclusions than an informed citizenry, armed with all the information available, thanks to a constitutionally guaranteed free press? Karen Foss is a news anchor at KSDK, Channel 5. --------------- -- Best wishes Woolybooger for the day: If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. - President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
