Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
There's a better case for making a martyr of David Koresh than Mumia Abu-Jamal. So why do liberals continue to overlook him?
Jun 19, 2000 | What does Mumia Abu-Jamal have that David Koresh doesn't? From Ed Asner to Alice Walker, liberals have flocked to defend Mumia -- convicted in 1982 of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner -- criticizing the way police and prosecutors handled his case and demanding a new trial. Luminaries of the left marched, chanted and purchased full-page ads in the New York Times to appeal to state and federal authorities to provide for Mumia, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for 18 years.
Meanwhile, conservatives have taken up for David Koresh and the 80 Branch Davidians who died in Waco in 1993. Why haven't liberals shown the same concern for them? While there are some questions about the conduct of police and prosecutors in the Mumia case, there are many more lingering questions about the police actions taken against Koresh and his followers. For instance: Why did the Department of Justice use tanks against civilians? Why did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms continue with its raid against Koresh when it knew the element of surprise had been lost? Why didn't the ATF simply arrest Koresh when he was shopping in Waco or away from the Mount Carmel compound in the weeks before the February 28, 1993, raid?
There are dozens of other questions, all of which are of particular importance now that the Branch Davidians' civil lawsuit against the federal government is going forward. Jury selection in the trial begins Monday. The lawsuit, being tried in Waco before U.S. District Court Judge Walter Smith, Jr., accuses the government of negligence in its actions during the standoff. So why haven't more members of the left rallied to the Davidians' side?
Indeed, of all the controversial police actions of recent years, the ATF's and FBI's assaults on the Mount Carmel compound are the ones that should have most aroused the left's passion. Never before or since has so much military firepower been brought to bear on a group of American civilians. That fact alone should be reason enough to convince the left to spring into action. After all, the left has long argued for demilitarization. Yet, when the military used tanks, helicopters and psychological weapons (including high-volume speakers blaring music to prevent Koresh and his followers from sleeping) against civilians in Waco, they remained, for the most part, silent.
A handful of liberals, including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who represents some of the Davidians and their survivors in the lawsuit, have weighed in on the matter. Another noted leftist, Howard Zinn, came out in defense of Koresh in an article he wrote for Z Magazine during the height of the Clinton impeachment debate. Zinn wrote that there were better reasons to impeach Clinton than having fellatio performed on him by Monica Lewinsky -- the foremost being the federal attack on Waco. The circumstances of the siege, he wrote, "did not warrant losing patience with negotiations and choosing a military solution."
Other theories that may explain why the left has ignored Waco revolve around the same broad issues that tend to galvanize Americans in general: guns, race, religion, class and the Clinton presidency.
Mumia Abu-Jamal has his own theory about the left's silence: Bill Clinton. In a recent exchange of letters from his death row cell in Waynesburg, Penn., Mumia opined that the main reason liberals haven't admonished the ATF and FBI is that they were "so hungry for a win in Washington after years of Reagan/Bush." Liberals "were certainly reluctant to pin Reno/Clinton to the wall after Waco," Mumia wrote, "and then proceeded to ignore and forget the carnage at Mount Carmel."
Former Texas State Sen. Jerry Patterson says the issue is guns. Patterson, a former Marine aviator, laughingly refers to himself as a "gun nut" and the "go-to guy for the black helicopter crowd." He authored the state's concealed-handgun law. He also used his connections with other Texas state officials to help filmmaker Michael McNulty, who produced "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," gain access to the state-controlled evidence rooms in Austin, Texas.
McNulty's investigation showed conclusively that the FBI fired numerous pyrotechnic devices at the Branch Davidian compound in the hours before the final fire that consumed the building on April 19, 1993. (The discovery served to discredit the FBI, which had long denied that any such pyrotechnic devices had been used.)
Patterson says liberals don't care about Waco because Koresh and his followers were gun enthusiasts. "The left has never believed in the Second Amendment," says Patterson.
Patterson, a conservative Republican, says the left's efforts to decrease the number of handguns in circulation, and its support of the Brady bill and harsher gun control measures, prevents it from supporting Koresh, whom federal authorities accused of possessing numerous unlicensed automatic assault rifles. Never mind that Koresh's weapons would have been legal under the laws in existence at the time of the siege if he had simply bought a $200 permit for each automatic rifle.
Nor has the left noted that the Branch Davidians could have argued in court that they were simply defending themselves during the original shootout with the ATF. Though it's rarely mentioned, Texas law would have permitted the Branch Davidians to fire back upon police officers if they believed the police were using excessive force.
