Posted on 11/28/2003 4:06:52 PM PST by drypowder
Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention
Email this Story
Nov 28, 5:03 PM (ET)
By PETE YOST
(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, then NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, is... Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army division commanded by Wesley Clark supplied some of the military equipment for the government's 51-day standoff with a religious sect in Waco, Texas, and Clark's deputy, now the Army Chief of Staff, took part in a crucial Justice Department meeting five days before the siege ended in disaster, according to military records.
Clark's involvement in support of the Waco operation a decade ago was indirect and fleeting, according to his former commanding officer. But the assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies by military officers around Clark and soldiers under his command has prompted a flurry of questions to his presidential campaign.
Internet chat rooms and several news stories speculate that Clark played a role in the tactical planning for the operation that ended with the deaths of about 80 followers of the Branch Davidian religious sect and its leader, David Koresh.
Clark's campaign flatly denies any planning role by Clark in Waco. And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.
Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.
"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
Regarding Taylor's comments, Clark campaign spokeswoman Mary Jacoby said "this is exactly what we've said all along; Gen. Clark had no involvement."
But critics such as documentary filmmaker Michael McNulty say there are many unanswered questions about the deaths at Waco, including the nature of the military equipment that came out of Clark's division and whether it was used.
Taylor said the FBI sent requests for assistance to the Department of Defense, which forwarded them to the Department of the Army and "ultimately some of these requests came down to me," said Taylor.
Much of the military equipment for Waco came from the Texas National Guard, including 10 Bradley fighting vehicles. It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.
However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.
Regardless of who supplied the military items, Danforth's investigation concluded that no one from the government fired a gunshot - despite being fired upon - at the Branch Davidian complex on the final day of the siege.
Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire.
Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.
The Justice Department and the FBI requested Schoomaker and William Boykin "by name to meet with the attorney general," states one internal Army document created before the meeting. "These soldiers have extensive special operations experience and have worked with the FBI on previous occasions. Schoomaker "told my watch NCO ... that the FBI plans to pick him up at Fort Hood and fly him first to Waco to assess the situation, and then on to Washington D.C.," states the internal Army document. Schoomaker, currently the Army Chief of Staff, has a background in Army Special Forces. Boykin, who has similar experience, is the Army general whose controversial church speeches cast the war on terrorism in religious terms, prompting recent calls from some in Congress for him to step down.
At the meeting with Reno, Schoomaker and Boykin refused an invitation to assess the plan to inject tear gas into the buildings, a move designed to force the Davidians to flee the compound, an internal Army document states.
"We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in civilian law enforcement operations.
McNulty, whose documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" won an Emmy in 1998, provided The AP with several internal Army documents referring to the meeting and obtained from the military under the Freedom of Information Act.
The photo is from one of the links I found searching google.com using these search terms "Waco tanks" in fact the first photo that is displayed using just a search for "Waco" the first image displayed shows the Branch Davidian compound burning. The photo I posted is identical to all the other ones returned by my search. You can verify this by following the link.
I really wish some of the boiling water IQs he groupies for, would come in and tell us where we are possibly mistaken. On other threads, all the folks saying the government is on the up and up on this one, all more or less plagerize from the soft side of our media and have nothing to add them selves.
Posse Comitatus restricts the use of active duty military personnel to enforce the law; normally interpreted to mean involvement in searches and seizures and arrests. It does not restrict the loan of equipment or providing logistic support or training. Further, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard--the state's militia.
Most of the equipment and armored vehicles came from the Texas National Guard. No federal military personnel operated any of the equipment and most was run by civil law enforcement agents who had been trained by the military.
The active Army equipment and training came primarily from Fort Hood. In accordance with normal procedures, the requirements went up from the civil agencies on the scene at Waco to Washington and then down through standard channels to the closest military base owning the equipment--Fort Hood, Texas. III Corps HQ, the headquarters responsible for Hood and all units on it, received the tasking. Based on equipment availability and training and deployment schedules and such mundane considerations as who had to support the last tasking, the III Corps staff would then designate one of its subordinate elements to meet the tasking. This procedure is followed every day for literally dozens of taskings. Clark commanded the 1st Cavalry Division--one of several subordinate commands to III Corps. If III Corps designated the 1st Cav to handle one or more parts of these taskings, Clark's staff, not him, would normally receive and take care of the action. And there is no reason to believe anything other than that took place.
Clark's Assistant Division Commander(ADC) was Brigadier General Pete Schoomaker (newly appointed Chief of Staff of the Army by Rumsfield). Schoomaker was special ops who was back out in the field army getting "re-blued" as we say. He had recently commanded Delta Force. Because of his experience, somebody in Washington asked for him by name to comment on the Waco plan. Again, this had nothing to do with Clark--he was not in command at Hood & did not have the kind of experience that would cause anyone to seek out his input. It is Schoomakeer who is said to have made the comment "We can't grade your paper" to Reno. BTW, with Schoomaker at the meeting was another recent newsmaker--then Colonel Boykin. Obviously, Schoomaker would have said something to his boss after he returned from his Reno briefing in D.C., but that is as close as Clark got to Waco.
The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved. Other than that, you guys are all over it.
Most of these arguments would have applied at Sand Creek, 130 years ago. That doesn't make the babies killed there any less dead, or the armies complicity any more excusable.
YOU: Most of these arguments would have applied at Sand Creek, 130 years ago. That doesn't make the babies killed there any less dead, or the armies complicity any more excusable.
A typical display of conspiro-logic. You link two completely unrelated events and then based on that false relationship, establish a conclusion that would be unwarranted even if those two events were linked and then hide your lack of an argument behind emotionalism about dead babies.
The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, and providing advice, or oversight to the planners, a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify. Your long-winded argument is twaddle, as, for example, when you make such a grand point about the TANKS being guard tanks. When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army. In the face of hard physical evidence, in the form of requisition forms and ammo picked up off the ground, the army has conspired in the death of those children. The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations. Those children didn't die symbolically, they were murdered by out of control federal employees who are not facing the music, and that most definitely includes the commander of the suppliers of the material used, if he thinks he can run for president without this coming up.
Blood calls for blood, not mealy-mouthed political wallpaper spread over all the participants, nor 5 minute presidential spots. Clark should be facing a grand jury inquiry for conspiracy to murder, not presidential reporters.
I believe it's called the US Constitition, which, if memory serves me, is supposed, at least by conservatives, to apply to everyone. I'd like to suggest someone else to you that lived in a commune, of sorts, espoused the sharing of wealth with the poor, and fell into disrepute in his community for doing so--Jesus Christ.
Exactly. When federalized, such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.
The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,
So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do. What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?
The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.
The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling. You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument. So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?
You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".
I'm sure any response will be just as factual and logical as your previous posts.
Exactly. When federalized,
To a lawyer, maybe. Not to a grieving mother. If my child is killed by a bullet the army, in any manner, bought, paid for housed, and shipped, and advised on the deployment of, I really don't give a tinker's poop whether it was "federalized" at the exact moment it was fired.
such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.
This is legalistic BS, put in place to avoid addressing the embarassing fact that a Guard that is substantially paid for with federal funds, & can be deployed at any time by "federalizing" it, isn't the state's militia the constitution allowed for at all. If the army pays for a substantial part of it, and can control it at will, it is the army. And a standing army on domestic soil is not provided for in the Constitution.
.The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,
So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do.
Right. And the FBI only came in because the DEA requested help. So the FBI must be off the hook as well, right? In fact--isn't the DEA press secretary that scheduled the initial attack the only blameworthy party here?
What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?
No. What they should do, especially if they are smart guys like Clark, is understand that this is a weasily way of skirting around the intent of Posse Cometatas and exercise adult levels of care about servicing such requests.
.The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.
The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling.
Oh, give it a rest. The 7th was little big horn, a direct result of the action at Sand Creek, and more than a little connected, historically, with the militia at Sand Creek. This is an argument, not a history test. You cannot make an argument for the defense by grouching about my rhetorical bombasts.
You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument.
You don't have an argument, so you substitute caviling at any rhetorical irrelevancies you can desperately grasp at.
So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?
Wes Clark, a very smart guy, was in command of the unit that supplied help to WACO--a many month's long siege of US citizens on domestic soil using tanks high caliber ammo, and flashbang grenades, broadcast over the airwaves on national television. Even a hedgehog could have figured this one out, and no amount of legalistic weaseling can change that.
You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".
What a hot air merchant. For Wes Clark not to be aware of what was being done with his equipment with such a public display, day after day, going on over the public airwaves, is beyond credibility. It is, in fact, patent, apparent, absurd BS. Wes Clark was the commander, and the buck stops at Wes Clark's desk.
We believe that the Feds committed crimes at Waco; that they subsequently covered them up; and that you can clearly see evidence of these crimes from the FLIR.
But what do we know? We just enforce criminal laws for a living.
As for the National Guard, you simply have that wrong. There is no command relationship between the regular Army and the National Guard until they are federalized--and that was not done at Waco. The chain of command for the guard goes from the individual soldier through his unit commander and the state Adjutant General to the governor. And it stops right there until and unless that soldier or his unit is ordered to federal active duty.
"My money is on the former."
Mine too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.