Now, I want to be sure that this is the impression you meant to leave, to give us. So if you could confirm my understanding and answer a very pointed question, are you suggesting that Ron Noble and those who approved the final Treasury report knowingly misled the American public and invented a condition called the element of surprise in order to protect themselves?

STATEMENT OF DANIEL HARTNETT, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ENFORCEMENT, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS

Mr. HARTNETT. I saw Ron Noble testify on a national program several months ago or a month ago where he said both Treasury and ATF ordered the commanders at Waco not to proceed, or to abort the raid if they lost the element of surprise. And what I'm saying to this committee is that I have never heard the term, "element of surprise," until after the raid, when we started using it ourself and the media started using it.

But I have to also add that in the briefings, the briefings that I had and Mr. Higgins had, the secrecy of the raid was discussed and was an element of the raid plan that was given to me and to Mr. Higgins. It was just that nobody ever called and said abort the raid if you use the element of surprise. That just never happened. But secrecy was a part of the plan-secrecy and safety. I mean it was discussed over and over again.

Mr. ZELIFF. Did you think you were set up?

Mr. HARTNETT. By Mr. Noble? I think Mr. Noble felt that he had to be very careful in a new administration not to look as if he was whitewashing anything. When I gave my statement to the review team, it was a lengthy statement. There's pages missing out of it. I got it for the first time the other day, and there were things that I said to the review team that have never appeared. They aren't even in my statement. They've never appeared in the review. One of those statements is, "Why did Waco happen and what could we do to prevent it in the future?" It's not there, it's not in my statement. It never ended up in the review report.

Mr. ZELIFF. If Ron Noble is so devoted to the line agents at ATF, would he have framed the Treasury report in such a way that led to the firing of ATF agents for a supposed failure that was never in the original plan?

Mr. HARTNETT. I can't answer that, sir, but I know what he said. I know what I read in the Treasury review, and what I'm saying is there were false statements in there, distortions, very significant omissions, testimony of Davidians were there and what they said, what the other agents said. It's like only one-half was given.

Like these men, one side or the other, are lying. Like nobody's ever been involved in a homicide or a tragedy before. That's not true. They called conflicting statements lies, and that's not right. These men went through the greatest tragedy they ever had in their lives and because they have conflicting statements that's a lie? That's not right. These men went through a terrible situation, and it's not unusual. I've handled a hundred homicides, hundreds of them, and people remember things the day after, 6 months later, a year later, and that doesn't mean they're lying. That means they've just been through a very traumatic condition.

Mr. ZELIFF. Did you ever see the words "element of surprise" anywhere in writing prior to the start of the review of the raid? Mr. HARTNETT. Prior to the I saw it in the media.

Mr. ZELIFF. But you never saw it written down. You never saw it in a report, you never saw the words "element of surprise” anywhere at all?

Mr. HARTNETT. Prior to the raid?

Mr. ZELIFF. Prior to the raid.

Mr. HARTNETT. No, sir.

Mr. ZELIFF. So basically it was not a part of the raid plan itself? Mr. HARTNETT. That terminology, that's correct.

Mr. ZELIFF. That terminology. In fact, the report describes a meeting at which the condition of the element of surprise is allegedly discussed and Mr. Noble is assured that it is in the plan. But as we saw from Mr. Higgins' handwritten notes in that meeting the only reason to abort that was mentioned was embarrassment to Secretary Bentsen if it should go wrong. In fact, the element of surprise was never in that plan. Is that correct?

Mr. HARTNETT. The terminology. Secrecy was a part of the plan, sir.

Mr. ZELIFF. One final question so that the record may stand clearly on its own. Do you believe that these facts demonstrate an intent to cover up the truth by the Treasury report?

Mr. HARTNETT. Yes, yes, I do.

Mr. ZELIFF. By Ron Noble, specifically?

Mr. HARTNETT. Yes.

Mr. ZELIFF, OK. There is one area that I would like to visit with you, Mr. Hartnett, while we have the benefit of your remarkable candor. If you would, just how did Mr. Chojnacki and Mr. Sarabyn get their jobs back?

Mr. HARTNETT. I don't-I don't think I could answer that, sir. I know that they appealed and they got their positions back. The only thing I've heard, that one of the charges against them was that they lied to their supervisor. I was their supervisor. They didn't lie to me. They made mistakes, mistakes in judgment, but I don't believe they intentionally led our people into that disaster. I never will.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Zeliff. Your time has expired.

Ms. Slaughter, I think you're next in line.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hartnett, I want to follow up on that a little bit, if I may. This plan, dynamic entry, does that say to you element of surprise? Can you do a dynamic entry if somebody knows you're coming?

Mr. HARTNETT. As I testified the other day, dynamic entry is being tossed around here and I've been on thousands of raids and I couldn't give you a definition.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, my understanding from all these hearings is you had two plans: siege and dynamic entry. Dynamic entry was chosen. Were you part of that choice?

Mr. HARTNETT. Î approved the plan, but not the terminology. Ms. SLAUGHTER. OK. You approved dynamic entry over siege. Does dynamic entry say anything to you about surprise?

Mr. HARTNETT. I don't think I understand your question, ma'am.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, what would you think would be an element of dynamic entry if it would not be surprise?

Mr. HARTNETT. That raid, a condition of that raid was secrecy, surprise, absolutely.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Does secrecy to you mean surprise?

Mr. HARTNETT. Yes, absolutely.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. OK. Then why did you have some sense that that was not important?

Mr. HARTNETT. Because after the raid it was used against my people. That terminology is what sets them up. It's like because they didn't catch everything that happened, because they didn't recognize things that were said to them or see certain things, that they didn't follow the order, an order that Ron Noble said was given to them to abort if they didn't have the element of surprise. I didn't give them that order.

But did I expect that raid, a condition of that raid was based on safety, security, surprise? Yes. That's why I sent the undercover agent back in the night before. I wanted to know what Koresh was doing.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Did you approve the notification of the press, the media?

Mr. HARTNETT. Approve the notification of the press?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. As I understand, Ms. Wheeler had talked with media ahead of time.

Mr. HARTNETT. No, ma'am, I had nothing to do with the press. Ms. SLAUGHTER. You didn't know anything about that?

Mr. HARTNETT. No, ma'am.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Wouldn't that have taken some of the element of surprise off what you were doing since

Mr. HARTNETT. I don't think what we

Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. The tipoff, as I recall it, Mr. Hartnett, came from a postman who got it from a television man; correct?

Mr. HARTNETT. That's correct, he got it from a TV cameraman. That TV

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Who had been told by?

Mr. HARTNETT. By an employee-well, no, told by another Channel 10 person-here's the way it went. The EMT, the Emergency Med. Evac. people were hired. A woman there had a boyfriend with Channel 10. She tells her boyfriend. Her boyfriend and she have a meeting.

Now this is what I've been told, this part. They have a meeting at Channel 10 and they send their people out to the compound to see if there's going to be a raid. This cameraman

Ms. SLAUGHTER. They're staked out, aren't they, throughout? They're at the road out there where they see the postman, as he comes by? We're here because there's going to be a raid, ATF is coming?

Mr. HARTNETT. No, the postman, or the from what I understand, that cameraman was lost. He walked

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Was lost?

Mr. HARTNETT. Lost. And he sees the postman. Now, it's Sunday and this postal truck is driving down the road and he flags him down and asks him where the compound is, and the Davidian says

to him, why do you want to know? He says because ATF is going to conduct a raid here and there's going to be shooting. You know, I've never been asked why all these people died and it was because of that irresponsible act that everybody

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, I'd like to find out how that irresponsible act came about because it seems to me, with all the planning and all the work that you did, somehow or other the media got involved in that. I'm very curious about that connection.

Let me yield the rest of my time to my colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. So in effect, what you're saying, Mr. Hartnett, is that surprise and secrecy basically mean the same thing?

Mr. HARTNETT. You can call them the same thing if you want. Mr. SCHUMER. So when Mr. Zeliff said, well, you never heard the terminology "element of surprise," did you hear talk about secrecy and not letting Koresh know of the raid?

Mr. HARTNETT. Yes.

Mr. SCHUMER. OK. So the one thing you would dispute, just to be fair and put it on the record, is that you hadn't heard that the raid should be called off if the element of surprise or secrecy was broken; is that correct?

Mr. HARTNETT. That's correct.

Mr. SCHUMER. That's your dispute, not that there wasn't surprise intended to be surprise, secrecy, call it what you will?

Mr. HARTNETT. That's correct.

Mr. SCHUMER. Because if you were throwing a surprise party for one of your colleagues, you'd want some secrecy there, right? Mr. HARTNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. The next question I have is of Mr. Merletti, who did the review.

Mr. Merletti, what would you-and by the way, I would say that go ahead, Mr. Merletti. You've heard Mr. Hartnett's critique of what you found in the report. First, do you see any difference between element of surprise and secrecy?

Mr. MERLETTI. I see no difference. The element of surprise is secrecy.

Mr. SCHUMER. Exactly.

Mr. MERLETTI. It's basic to a dynamic entry.

Mr. SCHUMER. So it's a difference without a difference.

Mr. MERLETTI. Correct. It's terminology. It means the exact same thing.

Mr. SCHUMER. Everyone, from Mr. Hartnett to Mr. Chojnacki to Mr. Sarabyn to Mr. Buford, everybody thought that this raid should be conducted under some form of secrecy?

Mr. MERLETTI. Absolutely. If they had reached the position in ATF, top management

Mr. SCHUMER. Absolutely does the job, because he's going to cut me off pretty quick these days.

The next question I have is what is your reading of whether— and you interviewed everyone under the sun in this and came out. What is your reading as to whether it was part of the plan to go ahead if the element of secrecy, shall we now call it, was broken?

Mr. MERLETTI. They should not have gone ahead if the element of surprise was lost.

Mr. SCHUMER. Did the higher-ups know that?

Mr. MERLETTI. Everyone knew that. That is so basic to law enforcement. They even approached the compound in two trailers

Mr. SCHUMER. Just let me we're trying to do it within 5 minutes. I don't mean to cut you off because I know you're a friendly witness to us, but as Ms. Slaughter had said, part of dynamic entry is obviously an element of surprise or secrecy, without any question, and anyone from top people through Mr. Hartnett on down would know that that had to be part of the case, correct?

Mr. MERLETTI. Absolutely.

Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that I hope to do today is try to get into some of the personnel aspects of this. As you know, I chair the House Civil Service Subcommittee. And really, you know, I think ATF and law enforcement, Federal law enforcement has taken quite a few bruises the last few weeks. First of all, discovering last week, when Mr. Hartnett made certain accusations or comments relating to hiring and firing and blames omission and that were, again, repeated here, I think that we need to find out through these hearings or if necessary, I intend to conduct hearings in September and October in the Civil Service Subcommittee if we don't get to the bottom of some of these personnel matters. But again, I think the public is dismayed just going home this weekend, they wonder what's going on with ATF, with the Good Old Boys Roundup, with the hiring and blame, sort of the finger pointing on who's responsible for this. It's not sort of like Congress or some other bureaucratic activity. We're dealing with law enforcement, Federal law enforcement. So there's a lot of serious concern about what's going on.

Mr. Potts, who I guess was with the Department of Justice, who oversaw the later part of this, was-and was disciplined and then elevated to Deputy FBI Director, since I guess they found some shredded documents, and has now been demoted, don't you think— well, Mr. Black, you're a personnel-you were in charge of personnel. Don't you think that this raises some serious questions about Federal law enforcement, all this going on?

Mr. BLACK. I'm not sure what your question is, Congressman.

Mr. MICA. All these incidents, what's been described here, the finger pointing, the blame, the hiring, the firing, the demotions, the elevations, and then the rehiring, don't you think this sends a bizarre message to the American public?

Mr. BLACK. Let me just say as the official responsible for the decision to remove the two individuals, Mr. Sarabyn and Mr. Chojnacki from their positions, in no way when we made that decision did we doubt

Mr. MICA. But again, all of these things do cast a bad light on ATF and the other agencies; is that correct?

Mr. BLACK. Yes, I think they do.