Columnist Paul Craig Roberts has charged that a new investigation of Waco “won?t get to the bottom of anything” and that “It is merely the latest phase of a continuing cover-up.” Roberts says, “The issue is not why flammable devices were fired at the Davidians, but why the Davidians were illegally attacked with deadly force…Why are the federal officials who approved the illegal attacks still in public office and not in federal prison?”

These are good questions, but his premise is wrong. The attack on Waco was not necessarily illegal under federal law, and the use of Army troops in the final assault may not have been illegal, either. On the use of the Army, attorney Alan Woll says, “There would have to be a presidential finding under a statute or under the Constitution that he was authorized to deploy the military troops in this law enforcement activity and he was going ahead and exercising that power.” Would that have to be public? “Not to my knowledge,” he says.

Attorney Woll is the co-author of a memorandum on the use of presidential powers to use the U.S. Armed Forces. It declares that the limitations imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act and related statutes are no significant check to presidential powers to use the armed forces to take such measures as the president considers necessary for the public good. His memo cites a statute, known as the insurrection act, which expressly allows the president to use the military to put down domestic disturbances, whether state or local authorities want federal help or not. This law is found in Title 10 U.S. Code at Sections 331, 332, and 333.

Woll?s assertions are supported by David Kopel, the director of research at the Independence Institute who served as Assistant Attorney General for the State of Colorado. He says the insurrection act could be used by the president to order Army troops to engage in the assault on Waco. “It is conceivable that he could have signed an order saying an insurrection exists at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and I authorize the Army to suppress that insurrection. That would be at least legal under the terms of the statute.” Furthermore, Kopel says, “There?s nothing in there that says this declaration has to be public.”

This explains why there has been so much media interest in the issue of whether the president made a finding or signed a waiver that authorized Army involvement. White House press secretary Joe Lockhart has said, “…the president did not—was not asked to sign a waiver, nor were we aware of any activity that would have required a waiver.”

However, immediately after the Waco tragedy occurred, Clinton seemed to personally acknowledge that he sought the military?s help in preparing the final assault. At a news conference, Clinton said that he asked whether the military had been “consulted” in the decision. Clinton himself described Waco as “not a typical law enforcement situation” and that “Military people were then brought in” to help “analyze the situation…” In our next broadcast: Did Army troops fire on the Branch Davidians trying to flee the burning building?

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author