PARAMILITARY POLICE TACTICS IN US DESERVE THOROUGH REVIEW

It's safe to say that most Americans are fed up with the very idea of
special investigators -- the high cost, the seeming endlessness of the
investigations and results that oftentimes are trivial or inconclusive.

But an independent probe into the government's assault on the Branch
Davidian compound six years ago, which left some 80 Davidians and four
agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms dead and 20 federal
officers wounded, could not be avoided. It will be headed by former U.S.
Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., an ordained minister and former prosecutor who
seems a good choice for the job.

The incident, which began when ATF agents tried to arrest cult leader David
Koresh on a warrant alleging weapons violations and ended 51-days later in a
horrific fire, still troubles many Americans of all political stripes today.
The general feeling in the land is that it somehow could have been avoided.

Danforth is charged with finding out whether federal agents caused any
Branch Davidian deaths or covered up evidence.

Among the unanswered questions is this one:

Did the FBI, as it appears to have done, lie to U.S. Attorney General Janet
Reno and the U.S. Congress about its use of military-style, potentially
incendiary tear gas devices several hours before the compound became
engulfed in flames?

Some have alleged federal agents started the fire, purposely or accidently.
Others argue the blaze was set by the cult members.

Danforth must settle the question about what the FBI reported to the Justice
Department and Congress and whether it held back information to protect its
reputation.

He should also look into what role the U.S. military played in the
government's siege on the compound and whether any military personnel,
particularly members of the elite Delta Force, illegally participated. There
are reports that Delta Force soldiers were present, but only as consultants.

In the name of anti-drug and anti-terrorism policing, the military today
plays a larger role in law enforcement -- in training, surveillance and
active policing -- than our Founding Fathers thought good for the country.
The military influence can be seen in the armaments police forces are
adopting to counter increases in criminals' firepower. The military
influence can be seen in the commando-style uniforms and masks of police
SWAT teams across the country.

Using military personnel as police officers except during natural disasters
and general insurrections is illegal and unworkable.

"The problem is that the mind-set of the soldier is simply not appropriate
for the civilian police officer," law enforcement expert Diane Cecilia Weber
noted in a paper for the Cato Institute. "Police officers do not confront an
`enemy,' but individuals protected by the Bill of Rights. Confusing the
police function with the military function can lead to dangerous and
unintended consequences -- such as unnecessary shootings and killings,"
Weber writes.

It is clear that the FBI never should have been allowed to investigate
itself after the Waco conflagration. It is difficult if not impossible for
any organization, even one as well-respected as the FBI, to air its own
dirty laundry. The Justice Department's handling of the incident and its
cooperation with Congress also must be examined.

Danforth and his team have a large task before them that will take some
time. But answers must be found for the Branch Davidian tragedy in order to
reassure the public about the competency of its federal law enforcement
agencies and the constitutionality of their practices -- and the sooner the
better.