Time: Mon Sep 22 12:26:37 1997 by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08638; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:16:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:16:14 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Roger Ebert on Waco film (fwd) <snip> > >*Jus Dare* >Roger Ebert on Waco film > >*Jus Dare* >Roger Ebert on Waco film > > >WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT / *** 1/2 (Not rated) > >September 19, 1997 > >A documentary directed and edited by William Gazecki. Running time: 135 >minutes. No MPAA rating (scenes of violence and corpses; unsuitable for >younger viewers). > >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 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. > >Copyright c Chicago-Sun-Times Inc. > > > > * * * * * > >*Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." >This list deals with the perversion of the Supreme Court. > >To subscribe, send the message "add yourmailname.server" >in the body of a message to jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net >or contact Dave Delany <freedom@hancock.net> > >Visit us on the web: http://hancock.net/~freedom > >Dave Delany's Freedom House PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 >*Jus Dare* is a service of Hearthside Family Publications. > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail