By Cliff Kincaid

          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 illegal under federal law, and the use of Army troops in the final assault may not have been illegal, either. Clinton could have ordered them into action on the basis of a classified or secret directive.

          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.

          Woll is the co-author of a memorandum on this matter, noting that limitations imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act and related statutes are no significant check on the ability of the president 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, found in Title 10 U.S. Code at Sections 331, 332, and 333, asserts that the president can use "any" means necessary to put down a disturbance.

          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 have been 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..." It is entirely possible that a top secret executive order, known as a presidential decision directive, was issued to authorize Army participation in the Waco assault. Or the action could have been authorized by a finding or memoranda of some kind.

          The movie," Waco: The Rules of Engagement", points out that 27 members of the Branch Davidians were found to have died in the compound of bullet wounds. Senator Charles Schumer, then a member of Congress who was part of the Congressional inquiry into Waco, had claimed that these Branch Davidians either killed themselves or shot one another. He came to this conclusion, in part, based on FBI assurances that the bureau did not fire one bullet into the compound.

          If the FBI is telling the truth on this matter -- and that is a big if -- that leaves open the distinct possibility that the members of Delta Force had fired into the compound. Yet the Pentagon says they were only there as observers. The Waco film featured images from a FLIR video made of the final assault by a plane that passed overhead. FLIR, which stands for Forward Looking Infrared Radar, picks up flashes of light from weapons and tanks surrounding the compound. It was interpreted by Dr. Edward Allard, a retired night-vision specialist for the Defense Department.

          As the building blazed, Allard asks, "Why didn’t the Davidians come out once they saw the place was on fire?" He pointed to flashes to the rear of the building that were caused by automatic weapons fire. He said the fire was apparently directed toward a single exit door in a storage area where many women and children had taken refuge.

          If the FBI didn’t fire into the compound, that leaves Delta Force as the culprit. To that, attorney David Kopel responds, "It is possible the FBI did fire bullets and they just lied about it." This is one of the critical issues, he points out, because this might constitute homicide and require prosecution of the government agents on murder charges. If the Army did it, a presidential order authorizing Army involvement at Waco would not get the military off the hook. "In terms of who can shoot who, if you’ve got a bunch of unarmed Branch Davidians who are running out with their hands up, saying ‘we surrender, we don’t want to burn to death,’ clearly you can’t shoot them," he points out.

          On the other hand, if the Branch Davidians were firing weapons as they left the compound and the FBI or Delta Force fired in response, then government officials have committed perjury by denying that the government fired back.

          One way or another, federal officials are in deep trouble. How high does the cover-up go? The truth could lead to the impeachment -- and conviction -- of the president.