by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 2, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

hen former FBI agent Frederick Whitehurst blew the whistle and shocked the media about corruption in the vaunted crime lab, his comments were dismissed as sour grapes. On the heels of his disclosures, rumors circulated, true or not, that he was seriously mentally disturbed. Whether psychological problems impeach his credibility is anyone's guess. Not since O.J. Simpson's acquittal on double homicide, has the public shown so much skepticism about the sacrosanct law enforcement community. Adding insult to injury, recent reversals on the FBI's official position that no incendiary devices were used in Waco, casts further doubt on the agency's tarnishing credibility. With a 100 million dollar lawsuit filed by survivors families against the government scheduled for trial in October and with 59 adults and 19 children going up in smoke on April 19, 1993, ascertaining who set the blaze is a now a matter of intense interest. Have damage control, spin and propaganda become the American way?

       "I have no reason whatsoever at this point to believe that the FBI was responsible for the deaths of these people. But I think it is important for the American people to know that we have pursued every question and pursued as far as we humanly can to get to the truth," said attorney general Reno back in 1993. Really. "If there is any information that indicates that the military canisters played a part in the fire," remarked Reno, "we will pursue it." More than six years later, following the release of a recent TV documentary depicting the FBI firing hot [incendiary/pyrotechnic] military tear gas canisters, the FBI has just performed a major back-flip.

       For more than 6 years, the Justice Department and FBI have categorically denied that they used a pyrotechnic device to end the 51 day standoff in Waco. Sifting through the charred remains of the Branch Davidian compound, the FBI maintained that cult leader David Koresh ordered the use of chemical accelerants in a self-administered act of Armageddon. When you consider the Branch Davidian's adverse publicity, it sounded highly credible. But survivors of the inferno have long insisted that the government set the blaze with pyrotechnic tear gas. Burned out tear gas canisters found in the charred rubble in 1993 indicated that they were military issue, hot canisters, quite capable of sparking the lethal blaze.

       "I will not stop till I get to the bottom of this," Reno told reporters on August 26, 1999, despite the fact that the FBI and Justice Department knew, since their exhaustive analysis of the crime scene debris in 1993, that the tear gas canisters found were military issue, pyrotechnic devices. Six years since the conflagration ended the siege, the FBI now changes its tune and admits that the tear gas canisters were incendiary devices. Committing herself now to finding the real answers sounds a bit like O.J. Simpson dedicating himself to finding Nicole's killers. Reacting to the public's frustration, Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) wondered whether the Justice Department was guilty of "a cover-up or negligent oversight." By not resigning, clearly attorney general Reno is claiming the latter. For if she knew about pyrotechnic tear gas all along, wouldn't that indicate an unmistakable cover-up? Not necessarily.

       FBI spokesman Tron W. Brekke admitted that recent disclosures, "undermine the confidence in our ability to do our job . . . it really hurts our ability to perform and it's very much of an embarrassment." Though Brekke's statement seems like good damage control, they leap way ahead of the facts by suggesting that the FBI's recent change of heart means that they were responsible for the inferno. At best, it only indicates that prior statements by the FBI and attorney general Reno regarding the use of cold tear gas were false. It doesn't rule out that other accelerants weren't used either by cult members inside the Branch Davidian compound or outside by FBI/law enforcement/Delta Force. Flip-flopping or changing stories usually hurts credibility, but it doesn't mean that admitting to the use of pyrotechnic tear gas proves a cover-up, conspiracy, culpability or anything else.

       Couldn't the Justice Department argue that their analysis indicated that the hot tear gas wasn't fired in the right direction to have caused the eventual inferno? Especially when fire wasn't observed for more than two hours after the canisters were hurtled into the compound. Yes, that's exactly what they've tried to do. But why all the denials since 1993 that the FBI used pyrotechnic devices to end the siege? Despite all the spin, common sense tells you that the denials existed because the FBI didn't want to accept responsibility for the loss of nearly 80 lives. FBI sharp shooters also wanted to disown accountability at Ruby Ridge, despite eventually paying out a multimillion dollar civil damage award. Mishaps occur in all types of law enforcement, but someone is usually held accountable — including department heads whose management styles seem to lax.

       With federal marshals seizing new audio tapes and evidence at FBI offices in Quantico, Va., that reveal the use of incendiary tear gas canisters, new questions are inescapable. Who ordered the use of pyrotechnic tear gas against the specific instructions of the attorney general? If a spur-of-the-moment decision was made to use hot tear gas, who was responsible? Was the military's Delta Force involved in the decision? Why, after 6 years and prior congressional hearings, did this new evidence turn up now? When did FBI director Louis Freeh and attorney general Janet Reno learn about the new evidence? How is it possible, with the high-profile, intense media coverage during the siege in 1993, that these questions remain unanswered?

       While the public and members of Congress appear outraged by recent revelations, controversy fades quickly in a tabloid culture consumed by lurid stories capable of selling better cereal and laundry detergent. Like private citizens, when the government makes mistakes it also engages in damage control. Unhappily for today's politicians, the public's paranoia index has never been higher. Thanks to the White House's current occupant, spin is more of a household word than Coca Cola. Politicians should be duly forewarned that a skeptical public won't buy the same old tired explanations.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.