Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

joeb Show full post »
all the evidence in 4 DVD's


What We Want, What We Believe
  • [whatwewantwhatwebelieve]

What We Want, What We Believe

The Black Panther Party Library

Roz Payne (Editor)

  • Publisher: AK Press
  • Format: Mutiple DVD Set
  • Binding: DVD
  • Released: Jan 10, 2006

Published by AK Press



"The invaluable Movement documentaries Newsreel produced furthered the work of the Black Panther Party and now provide the essential visual record of the Party's early days. This new DVD collection offers an extraordinary compilation that includes historic behind the scenes details taken from a wide range of interviews and contemporary events as well as the classic Newsreel films."—Kathleen Cleaver, Communications Secretary, Black Panther Party, 1967–1971

For the first time on DVD, AK Press is proud to present three acclaimed Newsreel Films on the Black Panther Party: Off the Pig; Mayday; and Repression.

Formed in 1967, the Newsreel film collective was dedicated to chronicling and analyzing current events. In their time, they produced more than three dozen films throughout the US and abroad. By working directly with the Black Panthers, Newsreel was able to explore realities often ignored by traditional media outlets, while producing documents that the Panthers and other activists could use in organizing their own communities. The results speak for themselves and stand as true testimonials to the spirit of community self-defense and political savvy the Panthers are celebrated—and were targeted—for.

Accompanying the Newsreel films is a massive quantity of rare and exclusive materials culled from Roz Payne's extensive collection of FBI documents, correspondence, and interviews with Black Panthers and their supporters. It's all here, the government-sponsored repression, the trials, exile, triumph, and reunion.

What We Want, What We Believe is not a straight-forward documentary—the additional materials are like Roz Payne's home movies—but more like a tapestry woven from fragments of cloth. As a whole, these fragments present a rich and provocative history, straight from the mouths of Panthers, their supporters, and even the agents charged with neutralizing them.

These materials—over 12 hours—are crucial to our continuing understanding of the Black Panther Party and their legacy. Any student of American History, Black Studies, Political Science & Law, Film Studies, or Civil Rights struggles will find a wealth of valuable information in the Library.

A portion of the proceeds from this project will go to support Black Panther Prisoners through Books Behind Bars, the Jericho Movement, and the Human Rights Research Fund. We urge you to seek out these groups and donate time and resources to their ongoing work.

This 12-hour DVD features three films on the Black Panther Party and additional footage on their history and legacy.
Special bonus features: Documents from the Roz Payne Archives chronicling the movement and repression against it. English Language, Region Free

Disc One:
Three Newsreel Films, Interviews with Field Marshall Donald Cox, Footage from 35th Anniversary Reunion

Disc Two:
Interviews with Former FBI Agents discussing COINTELPRO tactics, Footage from the Wheelock Academic Conference on the BPP

Disc Three:
Interviews with various movement lawyers discussing Panther cases

Disc Four:
Interviews with Newsreel members, DVD-Rom extras from the Roz Payne Archives

"...a total Black Panther immersion."—Orange County Weekly

"If you have any interest in the history of the Black Panthers, civil rights, sociology or civil disobedience, you need this incredible four-disc DVD collection. With over ten hours of material, it gives even Black Panther experts something new to digest."—Film Threat
Quote 0 0
Obama’s Nominee for Civil Rights Post in Justice Department Faces Heated Criticism from Foes

President Obama’s nominee for head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has drawn strong criticism from opponents of the appointment of Debo Adegbile, Fox News reports.

They’ve described the former NAACP lawyer as “radical,” “dangerous” and “outside the mainstream.”

Now he’s being criticized for playing a role in overturning the death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in the 1981 killing of a Philadelphia police officer.

Asked about the overturned sentence, Adegbile responded: “It’s important, I think, to understand that in no way does that legal representation, zealously as an advocate, cast any aspersion or look past the grievous loss of Sergeant Faulkner.”
Quote 0 0



A Chicago-based agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged that he and other white colleagues planned a campaign of ''retribution'' against a black agent, Donald Rochon, whose case has prompted a national debate over racism in the bureau.

Newly released F.B.I. documents also show that the white agent, Gary W. Miller, has conceded that in 1985 he forged Mr. Rochon's signature on an application for death and dismemberment insurance for the Rochon family.

Mr. Rochon has described the unsolicited insurance policy as a death threat. Mr. Miller, who was suspended without pay for two weeks as a result of that incident and others aimed at Mr. Rochon, has denied that he was trying to harass the black agent. Agents Admit Harassment

Quote 0 0
There was a better than even chance FBI  agents supplied the explosives used to assassinate the civil rights leaders Harry and Henrietta Moore.
Also study the Judy Bari case where FBI  agents placed  explosives in Judi Bari's car and blew her up.
see   http://www.judibari.org/

The Most Dangerous Place to Be Black

Posted on Sunday, 25th August 2013

Quote 0 0

The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders
U.S. Intelligence's Murderous Targeting of Tupac, MLK, Malcolm, Panthers, Hendrix, Marley, Rappers & Linked Ethnic Leftists
The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders contains a wealth of names, dates and events detailing the use of COINTELPRO style tactics by the FBI against a generation of leftist political leaders and leftist musicians. Based on 12 years of research and includes over 1,000 endnotes. Sources include over 100 interviews, FOIA-released CIA and FBI documents, court transcripts, and many mainstream media outlets. Book is 192 pages of main text, 100 pages of endnotes, 8 pages of photos (incl. government/court documents) and some more pages of preface, foreword, afterword, and bios.
Table of Contents
ContentsChapter Page



Foreword by Pam Africa with Mumia Abu-Jamal

Introductory Summary 1

1-US Intelligence vs. Newton/Seale’s Black Panthers’ Aid to Blacks; Shakurs Lead Harlem 3

2-The U.S. Intelligence Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. 7

3-U.S. Intelligence Murderous Targeting& Harassment Arrests of Panther Leaders 14

4- FBI Agents in LA Cultural Group Attack Panthers:LA Murders & NY 21 Set-up 18

5-FBI/Cops Murder Hampton after He Politicized Gangs,and Shoot at War Vet Pratt 22

6-FBI Sets Up Fugitive Raids &Manufactures East/West Panther Feud in NYC 25

7-Multi-ethnic Revolts in US asAfeni Shakur Leads Panther 21 Tragicomic Trial 28

8-Malcolm X’s Assassination: Panther Infiltrator’s RoleSimilar to Agent in MLK’s 32

9-Cointelpro Continued: Mutulu Called Terrorist,Assata & Black Liberation Army 38

10-FBI Queried Tupac as CIA-Linked Dealer Hooked Afeni,Agent Hooked Newton 43

11-Tupac’s Panther Leadership & Newton’s Panther Renewal,"Anniversary" Murder 47

12-Evidence FBI’s Held Set Up Armed Attacks on Tupacafter Newton & Judi Bari 52

13-LA Riots; FBI Targets Fred Hampton, Jr, NAPO’s Tupac in Marin, & Musicians 55

14-Gang Peace, Monster/Sanyika, & Tupac’s "Thug Life" Plan to Radicalize Gangs 62

15-Tupac’s FBI File, Republican Attacks,Harassment Arrests, Specious Lawuits 65

16-Atlanta Police Shoot at Tupac& Target H. Rap Brown; FBI’s Grisly Cover-ups 70

17-Psychological Profiling of Tupac?Police Profiling Attempt to Murder Mumia 75

18-NYPD Agent: Sex Frame-up, Cover-upand Link to Tupac’s NYC Shooting 81

19-Wealthiest Start CIA Who Hire Nazis and Help Corporations Control Media 87

20-US Intelligence & Mafia Shaped R&B/Rock; CIA & Time Warner’s Rap Grip 95

21-Penal Coercion and FBI Cointelpro Tactics Set Up East/West Rap Feud 100

22-Death Row Signs Him Up:Record Company as U.S. Intelligence Front 104

23-Death Row Police Goals: Target Tupac & Rap,Traffic Drugs, End Gang Truce 108

24-Death Row Lines Him Up:FBI Watch Radical Tupac’s Murder in Mobland 112

25-Knight/Death Row Aid Murder & Police Cover-up,Re-ignite Bloods/Crips War 116

26-Warning Timing in Murder of Top Witness, a Panther’s Son; Suspect Killed 121

27-FBI & ATF Watch Again as Death Row Cops are Nailed in Biggie’s Murder 124

28-Media Aids LAPD Ramparts Cover-up of Death Row Cop Murders, Trafficking 128

29-Despite Knight’s Imprisonment,Death Row Targets Afeni, Snoop Dogg and Dre 132

30-FBI and New York’s National PoliceCointelpro Targeting of Rappers 136

31-Targets: Spearhead, Rage Against the Machine,Wu Tang, Dead Prez, The Coup 138

32-NYPD vs. Hip Hop Summit Rap MogulsRussell Simmons and Sean Puffy Combs: Targeting Public Enemy

33-FBI/Cops Frame & Murder? HSAN’s Jay-Z,DMX, Eminem & Jam Master Jay & Mos Def 146

34-FBI-Fostered Rap Feuds? Shots at Biggie Witnesses,50 Cent, Nas & Lil’ Kim 150

35-Past/Present CIA/LAPD Links in RFK Assassinationand Tupac’s Murder 155

36-CIA/Nazi/Chile Condor & CIA/NYPD vs. Rappers,Activist Black & Latino Gangs 160

37-Police and Federal Agents TargetBlack/Latino Police Groups, Activists & Leaders 169

38-Past Parallel: Jimi Hendrix’s Panther Support,Spy Manager, FBI Targeting 175

39-CIA Links to Reggae Revolutionary Bob Marley and Peter Tosh’s Early Deaths 180

40-Belafonte; Tupac, Hendrix & Marley;

Rep. McKinney & Tupac, Hampton’s POCC 184Endnotes 191

Afterword by Fred Hampton, Jr.

Biographies of authors

Also available thru distributors:

AK Press
674-A 23rd Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 208-1700

Afrikan World Books
2217 Pennsylvania Ave
Baltimore, MD 21217 Phone
(410) 383-2006
Quote 0 0
Former professor shares civil rights story

By Staff Writer
• September 12, 2014


By Rick Momeyer, professor emeritus

Creative Commons Photo

My FBI file and why it should concern you as a Miami Student today

When I was an undergraduate at Allegheny College, beginning in 1960, I was greatly benefitted by three different opportunities that each in its own way transformed my life. The first was to have some extraordinarily good teachers —teachers who took a very raw, ill prepared, but earnest young person seriously and challenged me to see the world in very different ways than I had acquired in my first 18 years. The second was the occasion when Bayard Rustin visited campus, in the fall of 1961, to enlighten us as to what was happening in the burgeoning civil rights movement. The third, growing directly out of these first two, was to go to Fisk University as an exchange student the second semester of my second year, winter/spring of 1962. Taken together, these three events have led to living a very different, and I believe, far more rewarding, life than the one I had envisioned at 18. It also brought me to being noticed by the FBI and began a long period of surveillance.

It is for good reason John D’emilio, in his biography of Bayard Rustin, subtitles the book “The Lost Prophet.” Rustin was a life long advocate for nonviolence, a close adviser to Dr. King, and the organizing genius behind the great March on Washington in 1963. After he addressed a full house in the Allegheny College chapel, he sat down with about 12 of us for further discussion. Rustin’s opening remark was: “How come you all decided to come to a segregated college?” That was a revelation to us, who had not thought of Allegheny as segregated; merely as lacking a significant population of Negro students.

So some of us set out to change this, mostly by proposing to help the admissions office recruit students of color. In the course of that effort, we learned that other historically white colleges (Colby, Wooster, Grinnell, and more) had for some years conducted one-on-one semester long student exchanges with historically black colleges. At Allegheny, we arranged such an exchange with Fisk University in Nashville, and in January of 1962 three students from each institution changed places.

The fourth day at Fisk, a picnic was held in Nashville’s park with a replica of the ancient Greek Parthenon, and the other two Allegheny exchange students and I were invited. The rather bizarre replica of the Parthenon was of little interest; the other picnickers were so engaging, even captivating, for the persons they were and the stories they had to tell.

Virtually all of the other 20 people at this well-integrated picnic were veterans of the “Nashville Movement,” the anti-segregation campaign that for two years had been one of the largest — and in some ways, most successful — parts of the protest and sit-in movement sweeping campuses and communities throughout the South. Probably half were also veterans of the previous summer’s Freedom Rides, most of whom were fairly fresh from Mississippi’s infamous Parchman Prison where Freedom Riders who made it as far as Jackson were routinely arrested and hustled off to spend the next three months. Their stories were compelling, and after they had been told, someone started playing a guitar and all broke out singing freedom songs that had so empowered and sustained the demonstrators against segregation and its attendant insults to human dignity.

I would venture to suggest that had you been 19 years old in 1962, as I was, and in the presence of people as smart, courageous, committed to justice, energetic and funny, you, too, would have wanted to be part of what they were about. Among those at the picnic were: Rev. James Lawson, a theology graduate student who had been expelled from Vanderbilt University for his Movement activities, and Fisk students Bernard Lafayette and John Lewis. Lawson is the Methodist minister who was a close ally of Martin Luther King and tutored Dr. King in Ghandian philosophy. Lafayette is a long time organizer of peace education and a distinguished professor of religious studies at Emory University. And John Lewis has been Atlanta’s Congressional representative for more than 20 years and is certainly the most admired and respected member of Congress on either side of the aisle.

On my seventh day in Nashville, I went to a workshop on nonviolence taught by Rev. Lawson to learn why all participants in the Movement were expected to return love for hate and how to protect themselves when physically assaulted. I was never entirely persuaded of the first, but learned much from the more practical part of the workshop that proved useful in days to come.

On my 10th day in Nashville, Peter Schwartz, another Allegheny exchange student, and I joined John Lewis and two other black students in seeking service at an upscale downtown restaurant, the Cross Keys. We got no service; instead, we got arrested, ostensibly for disturbing the peace of a racially segregated facility even though all we had done was sit at a table in our best clothes and politely request menus. We spent the weekend in jail (segregated cells) and went before a magistrate for a hearing on Monday morning. But the owner of the Cross Keys failed to appear to testify, and we understood the judge to dismiss the charges. We got back to campus in time to meet our classes.

But the Davidson County District Attorney had other ideas. Unbeknownst to our attorney or us he sought and obtained a Grand Jury indictment on three felony charges, all stemming from laws enacted in the 1890s when racial segregation was being codified in the wake of Reconstruction’s failures. We learned this two months later, but inasmuch as the DA wanted to test the constitutionality of these laws, we were rather pleased. We thought it might become an important case and go to the Supreme Court. But it was not and it did not.

More to the point, this was the beginning of my FBI file. I learned this 14 years later in 1975 when, as a young, still untenured assistant professor at Miami, I exercised my right under the recently enacted “Freedom of Information” (FOI) law allowing citizens access to secret files the government might have kept on their activities. I did not expect to find this five-page indictment in it, but I did expect there would be a file because in 1964 I made a complaint to the FBI and they had promised to investigate and get back to me. They had not gotten back.

When informed that the FBI would send me the file after I sent them $7.60 (10 cents-a-page copying charge), I thought, vaingloriously: “Damn, I’m important! They have 76 pages on me.” But when I got the file and read it, I was considerably less impressed with myself and more impressed with the FBI. Seventy-one of those 76 pages were the full field report filed by the several agents that Burke Marshall, Bobby Kennedy’s chief Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, had assigned to address my complaint.

In 1964, after graduating from Allegheny, I was hired onto the staff of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (at a standard salary of $9.64 a week, when, as it only occasionally did, SNCC had it) and assigned to work with the SW Georgia Project, eventually landing in very rural Colquitt County. (First, however, I came to Oxford, OH to help with the training for Freedom Summer volunteers. That’s a whole other, oft told story).

One early evening in Moultrie, where we lived, Herman Kitchens, the African-American fellow SNCC staff member with whom I was partnered, and I were shot at. We thought we were probably shot at by some young toughs who had been hassling black kids seeking service at the local Dairy Queen. I reported this to the local sheriff; he could have cared less. So with SNCC headquarter’s encouragement, I went to the local FBI agent, Royal McGraw. He did not seem to care any more than the sheriff, but he took my statement and said, “we will get back to you.”

As it happened, the FBI “solved” the case and took it to the local prosecutor. Apparently, he quickly dropped it, judging that he’d never get a conviction. No one told me. Nonetheless, I was impressed with the FBI’s effort.

I should have been less impressed. And this is the first reason you should be concerned about my FBI file and why it is a threat to you. It is not what was in the file that should concern you, but what was left out. For what was left out of the file I was sent in 1976 were 40 pages of surveillance reports on Miami University student groups in 1970, 1971 and 1972. In 1976, those files were stamped “Classified.”

I learned this nearly 30 years later when, at Miami, we were planning to celebrate Freedom Summer and Miami’s contributions to it with a 40th Anniversary Reunion/Conference.

For years, we had been trying to locate a list of volunteers who had come to Oxford for training in order to reach and include as many as were available in the Reunion/Conference. There was reason to think the FBI might have such a list, given their propensity for spying on (and more, through the notorious “cointel” [counter intelligence] program) provoking and disrupting groups seeking social change. So I asked for my file again.

This time, I was stonewalled for nearly a year. I repeated the request. They told me I had no file. I reminded them that in 1976 they had a file. What had happened to it? They found it. This time it was over 200 pages long. And I did not have to pay 10 cents per page to get it!

“Damn,” I thought again, being sometimes a slow learner, “I’m important.” But again, I was mistaken: all the additional pages were not really about me, but consisted of the list of volunteers and staff who came for Freedom Summer training, each identified by name, home town, and religious affiliation in 1964, and the earlier mentioned surveillance of Miami student groups from 1970-73. Both had been withheld in 1976.

Unfortunately, the censors had blacked out all the names on the list, with the exception of mine and, as it happened, Stokely Carmichael. But then, there never was any possibility of hiding the larger than life Stokely, founder of the original Black Panther Party in Lowndes County, Alabama and later a leader of the Black Power Movement.

I suppose every conscientious citizen should be concerned with FBI stonewalling in the light of the FOI Act, both for its slowness of response and more for its refusal to share a list of people who are to be celebrated for their contributions to social progress and their raw courage, especially working in Mississippi for civil rights in 1964. Maybe some few folks would be concerned that the FBI was compiling a dossier on a generally mild mannered professor of philosophy. But these need not be particular concerns to you as a student today; rather, the surveillance of campus groups with the collaboration of other students and university employees should be an ongoing concern and perceived as a direct threat to each of us
still today.

The groups spied upon in 1970-72 were anti-war groups, chiefly the “Student Mobilization Committee,” organizing protests on and occasionally off campus against the war the U.S. government was waging against Vietnamese peoples (and as we learned so painfully in 1970, against Cambodians and Laotians as well). These were groups that held open meetings and invited anyone and everyone to attend, which worked at publicizing and recruiting attendance. There was nothing illegal or nefarious in their very public planning and actions. And yet the government felt entitled to secretly spy on them, and for years, to keep that spying classified as secret.

The names of the spying agents are all blacked out in my file, but a close reading reveals that they had to be either or both other students or student personnel staff employed by Miami University. The reports were regularly submitted to the FBI office in Cincinnati (there was also spies reporting to Cincinnati from Antioch College and Ohio State University). We do not know, and likely will never know, whether some of these spies were also agent provocateurs. We do not know, and will likely never know, how all of this information was used by the government, what opportunities or rights it was used to curtail.

Heavily redacted versions of these reports landed in my file, first, I suppose, because I already had a file, but secondly, because I was the faculty adviser of record to the student organizations. In my 44 years at Miami I was faculty adviser, albeit a rather distant one, to more than half a dozens student organizations, always on the premise that students were entitled to organize around whatever their concerns were and the university required they have a faculty adviser.

But why is my FBI file a threat to today’s students, and not just a matter of possibly interesting historical fact? I would argue it should concern you because it is illustrative of the risk each of us is under from those who would presume themselves entitled to collect all manner of information about us and use it to whatever ends they wish without being accountable to those whose privacy they have so egregiously invaded. These days such monitoring of even our most innocent activities as shopping on line or posting to social media sites or talking on the telephone or writing an email or text are subject to surveillance. What we now call “data collection,” and “megadata mining” rather than intrusive spying in this Brave New World of doublespeak is
nearly ubiquitous.

We know both government and corporations engage in massive data collection and analysis; we know very little about what they do with this information and still less about what they could do with it. We should all regard ourselves as indebted to Edward Snowden for whistle blowing on National Security Administration (NSA) activities. At the same time, most of us appear oddly indifferent to the risks such massive government (to say nothing of corporate) intrusion imposes on our lives, on what use might be made of this information presently and in the future.

Has the world changed so much from the historical spying and the uses and abuses of collected information that I recounted here? In some ways it has, and for the better. We now have better developed protection of privacy policies for both citizens and students. How effective they are in this new era of information technology is an open question. But in some ways, we are clearly far worse off, for the enhanced capacity to spy on each of us — without having to send real people into our classrooms and meetings to do so — is far more powerful than the old ways. Phone tapping, for instance, no longer requires actual physical intrusion on our phones, or even a court order: the NSA can and has tapped virtually all our phones by electronically intercepting signals or coercing or enlisting the cooperation of telecommunications corporations to provide records.

Do we have a government today that is less fearsome than one of yore where “intelligence gathering” was overseen by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover, archenemy of Dr. King who once tried to coerce King into killing himself and with a disposition to see a fearsome “communist” hiding under every bed, in every closet, and manipulating all those who sought progressive change in the status quo?

Well, we aren’t fighting the cold war and Communism anymore, but arguably we have simply substituted the “war on terrorism” and “terrorist” for these perceived enemies. Further, we have a national policy that seems to authorize our secret armies to assassinate even U.S. citizens believed by the “intelligence” agencies to be “terrorists,” or even more problematically, “potential terrorists,” notwithstanding that there has been no due process of law, no trial, no jury of peers, to ascertain these suspicions are well-founded. Just send a drone — not James Bond — to kill suspects.

Perhaps of greatest concern is not what we already know of government and corporate spying but what we don’t know. What is being kept from our eyes today that even Snowden did not have access to? Will we only learn 30 years or more later, as I did, what this is? Will we ever know?

The concern here is not based on a Tea Party rant against big government as such, or a right wing Libertarian notion of freedom as entirely egoistic and individualistic. It is a concern I believe is shared by every conscientious citizen of any society striving for justice, equality and greater democracy.

I and my entire generation bear some responsibility for not being more inquisitive, more proactive, more demanding in countering the spying widely done on us in the past, a set of practices that left insufficiently challenged has helped lead us to the present where spying is still more rampant and the uses to which it is being put even darker. But even more responsibility is borne by those who are the subjects of contemporary invasions of privacy and indifferent to it, who fail to resist or inquire, or assert their right to privacy. Are you and your friends at Miami University at all concerned by constant surveillance of your life? And if you are, what are you doing about it?
Quote 0 0

Thousands Of FBI Documents About Civil Rights Era Destroyed By Flooding

Thousands Of FBI Documents About Civil Rights Era Destroyed By Flooding

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of COINTELPRO, a major FBI operation to "expose, disrupt and otherwise neutralize" hate organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan. It's just been revealed that many crucial questions about that period will remain forever unanswered, due to archival neglect.

Writing at the blog of the National Security Archive, Trevor Griffey— a lecturer in U.S. history and labor studies at the University of Washington—says that he learned about the loss of the documents when the FBI responded to a FOIA request. Hundreds of thousands of pages were destroyed last year during a hurricane, when the FBI archives in Alexandria, Virginia were flooded.

Among the losses: somewhere between one-fifth and one-third of the FBI's 62,000-page Birmingham, Alabama field office file on the United Klans of America, as well as documents on a Klan chapter created by the FBI to produce a rivalry with an authentic Klan group.

Griffey says those documents could have answered some significant historical questions:

To what degree were FBI agents and undercover informants in the Klan complicit in hate speech and hate crimes in the 1960s? What effect did FBI repression of the Klan during the 1960s have on the history of the right and on American politics more generally? These and other questions related to the history of the FBI's COINTELPRO against the Klan deserve further investigation.

And, Griffey adds, thousands of other historically significant files were destroyed:

Forty-one volumes (likely over 8,000 pages) from the FBI's main headquarters file on the National Negro Labor Council— one of the most important civil rights organizations of the early 1950s, which was driven out of existence by anti-communist pressure.
Twenty-four volumes (almost 5,000 pages) from the FBI's Chicago field office file on Claude Lightfoot, a prominent black communist for almost 60 years.
Nineteen volumes (almost 4,000 pages) from the FBI's Memphis field office file on the Nation of Islam.
Eight volumes (roughly 1,500 pages) from the FBI's massive Detroit field office general file on civil rights issues from the 1940s through the mid-1960s.

Griffey wonders whether news of this flooding will expose other weaknesses in the FBI's records management practices:

A more important question, however, is: why are these archives in the possession of the FBI at all? Why does the FBI continue to retain millions of pages of historically significant files, many of which are over 50 years old, that have no relevance to its contemporary law enforcement mission? Why have these files not already been transferred to the National Archives?

Many of the historically significant files destroyed in the Virginia flooding included a series of files that were supposed to have been transferred to the National Archives during George W. Bush's second term....Almost ten years later, these files should not still be in the FBI's possession.

Other files of major significance to the study of racial justice, the left, and U.S. foreign policy— particularly the FBI's 105 series files, which include hundreds of thousands of pages of files on the Black Panther Party— remain in the FBI's possession and decades away from ever being declassified or transferred to the National Archives.

These and other historically significant files that sit in secret FBI warehouses are vulnerable to more than just flooding. Decades-old standards for determining historical significance that tend to treat local history as unimportant, combined with wide latitude granted to FBI records management staff, have resulted in tragic and reckless destruction of many historically significant files
Quote 0 0
Color of Change../ one of my favorite groups
Support them


We Want a Future Without Fergusons

Your Take: Why ColorOfChange.org and a coalition of civil rights organizations delivered 900,000 signatures to the White House.
By: Rashad Robinson
Posted: Aug. 28 2014 5:02 PM

Rashad Robinson speaks to ColorOfChange.org supporters outside the White House Aug. 28, 2014.

Diamond Sharp/The Root

Since the tragic police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, we have heard time and time again that his brutal death unearthed the pain of old wounds. But those wounds are anything but old.

In Ferguson, Mo., and across the country, systemic racial profiling and nationwide police violence threaten the lives of African Americans—youths and adults—every day. American society is marred by implicit and explicit racial bias, which informs the actions of many police officers, with dangerous and deadly consequences for communities of color. It’s a national crisis that demands immediate federal intervention.

Today I stood at the White House with the Organization for Black Struggle and a number of other progressive groups to deliver the voices of nearly 900,000 people to demand justice for Mike Brown and systemic reforms to end racially motivated police violence.

A movement to transform national policing and create new systems of police accountability is growing and gaining power. These 900,000 people—mothers, fathers, allies, young people, voters and so many across the country—have had enough and are committed to long-term collective action.
Quote 0 0
see link for all the documents
site is to large to copy

google title if FBI agents change link


The FBI's Covert Action Program to Destroy the Black Panther Party

AUTHOR: US Senate, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities ("Church Committee")
TITLE: Final Report - Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans
DATE: 23 April 1976
PAGES: 185-223


A. The Effort to Promote Violence Between the Black Panther Party and Other Well-Armed, Potentially Violent Organizations

1. The Effort to Promote Violence Between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves (US), Inc.

2. The Effort To Promote Violence Between the Blackstone Rangers and the Black Panther Party

B. The Effort To Disrupt the Black Panther Party by Promoting Internal Dissension

1. General Efforts to Disrupt the Black Panther Party Membership

2. FBI Role in the Newton-Cleaver Rift

C. Covert Efforts To Undermine Support of the Black Panther Party and to Destroy the Party's Public Image

1. Efforts To Discourage and To Discredit Supporters of the Black Panthers

2. Efforts To Promote Criticism of the Black Panthers in the Mass Media and To Prevent the Black Panther Party and Its Sympathizers from Expressing Their Views

D. Cooperation Between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Local Police Departments in Disrupting the Black Panther Party

In August 1967, the FBI initiated a covert action program -- COINTELPRO -- to disrupt and "neutralize" organizations which the Bureau characterized as "Black Nationalist Hate Groups." [1] The FBI memorandum expanding the program described its goals as:

1. Prevent a coalition of militant black nationalist groups....

2. Prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify the militant nationalist movement ... Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammad all aspire to this position....

3. Prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups....

4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability by discrediting them....

5. . . . prevent the long-range growth of militant black nationalist organizations, especially among youth. [2]

The targets of this nationwide program to disrupt "militant black nationalist organizations" included groups such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), and the Nation of Islam (NOI). It was expressly directed against such leaders as Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokley Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Maxwell Stanford, and Elijah Muhammad.

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was not among the original "Black Nationalist" targets. In September 1968, however, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described the Panthers as:

"the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.

"Schooled in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the teaching of Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung, its members have perpetrated numerous assaults on police officers and have engaged in violent confrontations with police throughout the country. Leaders and representatives of the Black Panther Party travel extensively all over the, United States preaching their gospel of hate and violence not only to ghetto residents, but to students in colleges, universities and high schools is well." [3]

By July 1969, the Black Panthers had become the primary focus of the program, and was ultimately the target of 233 of the total authorized "Black Nationalist" COINTELPRO actions. [4]

Although the claimed purpose of the Bureau's COINTELPRO tactics was to prevent violence, some of the FBI's tactics against the BPP were clearly intended to foster violence, and many others could reasonably have been expected to cause violence. For example, the FBI's efforts to "intensify the degree of animosity" between the BPP and the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago street gang, included sending an anonymous letter to the gang's leader falsely informing him that the the Chicago Panthers had "a hit out" on him. [5] The stated intent of the letter was to induce the Ranger leader to "take reprisals against" the Panther leadership. [6]

Similarly, in Southern California, the FBI launched a covert effort to "create further dissension in the ranks of the BPP." [7] This effort included mailing anonymous letters and caricatures to BPP members ridiculing the local and national BPP leadership for the express purpose of exacerbating an existing "gang war" between the BPP and an organization called the United Slaves (US). This "gang war" resulted in the killing of four BPP members by members of US and in numerous beatings and shootings. Although individual incidents in this dispute cannot be directly traced to efforts by the FBI, FBI officials were clearly aware of the violent nature of the dispute, engaged in actions which they hoped would prolong and intensify the dispute, and proudly claimed credit for violent clashes between the rival factions which. in the words of one FBI official, resulted in "shootings, beatings, and a high degree of unrest in the area of southeast San Diego." [8]

James Adams, Deputy Associate Director of the FBI's Intelligence Division, told the Committee:

None of our programs have contemplated violence, and the instructions prohibit it, and the record of turndowns of recommended actions in some instances specifically say that we do not approve this action because if we take it it could result in harm to the individual. [9]

But the Committee's record suggests otherwise. For example, in May 1970, after US organization members had already killed four BPP members, the Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI office wrote to FBI headquarters:

Information received from local sources indicate that, in general, the membership of the Los Angeles BPP is physically afraid of US members and take premeditated precautions to avoid confrontations.

In view of their anxieties, it is not presently felt that the Los Angeles BPP can be prompted into what could result in an internecine struggle between the two organizations. . . .

The Los Angeles Division is aware of the mutually hostile feelings harbored between the organizations and the first opportunity to capitalize on the situation will be maximized. It is intended that US Inc. will be appropriately and discreetly advised of the time and location of BPP activities in order that the two organizations might be brought together and thus grant nature the opportunity to take her due course. [Emphasis added.] [10]

This report focuses solely on the FBI's counterintelligence program to disrupt and "neutralize" the Black Panther Party. It does not examine the reasonableness of the basis for the FBI's investigation of the BPP or seek to justify either the
Quote 0 0
Maxine Waters Demands Obama's "Star Chamber" Charges Be Made Public
August 6, 2010 • 11:32AM

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is demanding that the House Ethics Committee release the full document charging her with breaking House rules, and that her "trial" be held quickly and finish before the November elections, a source close to Waters told Politico yesterday. Waters is refusing to roll over and play dead before Obama's new Operation Fruhmenschen, which is being conduited through the unconstitutional Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

Waters's demands are an "aggressive maneuver ... aimed at picking apart the ethics committee's findings and methods," Politico commented.

Waters was also interviewed on FBI informant Al Sharpton's radio show yesterday morning, in which she said it was time to "stand up and be proud of the fact that we're representing our people, we're representing our issues.... This is the time to take it on."

Sharpton, who is working with the White House to mobilize black voters this year, fretted that the simultaneous attacks on Waters and Rep. Charles Rangel could hurt that effort. "Is this designed to make our community less than enthusiastic?"

In point of fact, there is tremendous backlash growing against Obama in the African-American community, who increasingly consider him a traitor and an Uncle Tom.


Couple of reads about the FBI Fruhmenschen
program and
Boston FBI Supervisors
Warren " ruby ridge sniper" Bamford and
Dickless " Suicided Reddit inventor Arron Schwartz " Deslauriers targeting Black Boston
Activist Diane Wilkerson who was also a State Legislator and Black activist Chuck Turner who
was also a member of the Boston City Council.

The FBI informant they used was then shipped across country.


Leland Yee Craziness / Politics Alleged FBI Agent Recycled Undercover Identity
Tue, Sep 23, 2014

The undercover FBI informant who allegedly contributed to Mayor Ed Lee’s 2011 bid for office may have been involved with another federal political corruption probe in Boston, Massachusetts in 2008, SF Weekly has learned.

Michael Anthony King of Buford, Georgia — aka UCE 4773, who illegally contributed $20,000 to Lee’s campaign, according to a civil lawsuit filed by Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow’s lawyers — matches the undercover identity of UC2, who has given $500 to Massachusetts State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson in an official capacity, plus tens of thousands of dollars in cash bribes, according to court documents and campaign records.

On the same date as a $500 donation that Michael King made to Wilkerson, a federal agent known as UC2 wrote a check for that amount at a fundraiser. The same $500 contribution was from a man — likely King — posing as an Atlanta-based real estate developer with real estate interests in Boston, according to court documents from the Massachusetts case.

UCE 4773 has been described in court documents as posing as a real estate developer from Atlanta with interests in the Bay Area. UCE 4733 met with elected officials in Oakland and San Francisco. The agent also introduced another undercover FBI agent, William Joseph, according to a San Francisco Chronicle report. Joseph met with supervisors London Breed and Malia Cohen on several occasions.

Getting back to King and the link to the Massachusetts corruption trial: The address King used to donate in the Boston case matches the one printed in corporate filings by two companies controlled by Michael King — M.A. King and Associates, and the King Funding Group.

M.A. King and Associates is listed as King’s employer in the San Francisco campaign contribution database, and shares the same address — a UPS store in Buford — as the King donation in the Massachusetts corruption trial. Also, the King Funding Group donated $500 from the Georgia UPS store to Sen. Leland Yee in 2011.

UCE 4773 has come under fire from Keith Jackson, a former school board president and political consultant to Sen. Yee and other San Francisco politicians, as of late. Court filings from Jackson's attorney, James Brosnahan, allege that UCE 4773 was booted from the investigation due to “financial misconduct.” Brosnahan has argued that it’s the government’s duty to produce all materials regarding the agent’s service record, including alleged investigation into the agent’s activity, as well as the FBI agent’s true identity.

Sen. Yee, Shrimp Boy, and Jackson have been indicted on 228 counts in the far-reaching federal investigation that alleges political corruption, gun running, extortion, money laundering, and assassination for cash among other crimes. Thus far the feds have captured 27 of the 29 defendants named in the investigation. One of those was Wilson Lim who has died since the feds made their case public in March.

Last week, Shrimp Boy’s lawyers launched a civil lawsuit alleging Mayor Ed Lee of conspiring to accept bribes in the form of campaign contributions from an undercover agent, who they say is Michael Anthony King, aka UCE 4773. Cory Briggs, Shrimp Boy’s lawyer, claims that the mayor failed to comply with a records request for campaign documents that Briggs filed several months ago.

In response, the government accused Jackson of attempting to “deflect responsibility” from his involvement in the alleged racketeering, corruption, and smuggling probe. And, court filings state that agent 4773 — allegedly King — was pulled from the investigation because he wasn’t able to achieve what the feds were aiming to find.

In the Boston case involving the undercover agent that matches UCE 4773‘s description, the government ultimately convicted Wilkerson of public corruption in 2010, and sentenced her to three-and-a-half years in federal prison. Wilkerson has since been released.



Mar 27, 2011
"The FBI FRUHMENSCHEN program is one of the least known of the many illegal FBI black ops programs. FRUHMENSCHEN is a german word that means ape man. This program was created by FBI agents during the 1940's to target black elected officials in sting operations without cause because the FBI feels blacks are incapable of governing. The National Council of Churches of Christ issued a resolution condeming this program during the late 1980's. Dr Mary Sawyer , professor of Religious studies at Iowa State University wrote two books about this program including HARRASSMENT OF BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS TEN YEARS LATER 1987. Former FBI agent Dr Tyronne Powers documents this program in his book EYES TO MY SOUL. Massachusetts filmaker Curtis Henderson of Jamaica Plain documented this program in his 1987 film ALABAMA SUMMER. FBI informant attorney Hirsch Freidman blew the whistle on this program. One offshoot of this program was the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King by FBI agents as documented in two books by King family attorney William Pepper. The books are ACT OF STATE and his earlier book called ORDERS TO KILL. Anyone analyzing the Ford trial must first look at the history of the FBI FRUHMENSCHEN program funded with American tax dollars Eyes to My Soul: The Rise or Decline of A Black FBI Agent by Tyrone Powers " One of the most readable and important of [recent African American autobiographies]....Powers is a compelling writer." William Jelani Cobb - Washington City Paper " The significance of this literary masterpiece has compelled me to violate my most sacred rule: never expose your battle plan to the enemy...with this work of art by Mr. Powers, my collection is now complete." James Wm. Morrison, Esq., Civil Rights Attorney About Eyes to My Soul Former FBI Special Agent Tyrone Powers, a veteran of the Maryland State Police, spent nine years as an FBI agent, with posting in Cincinnati and Detroit. He resigned in August 1994. The picture of the country's top law enforcement agency that emerges from Powers' eloquent prose reveals an organization beset by the same problems of racism that plague the rest of American society. Powers describes sheet -clad students at the FBI Academy impersonating Ku Klux Klansmen. He reports on FBI agents in Detroit raising funds for white Detroit policemen charged with (and later convicted of ) second degree murder in the death of Black motorist Malice Green. White agents according to Powers' narrative, urinated on photographs of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore. Powers provides eyewitness evidence of the agency's extra- legal harassment of African American Mayors Coleman Young (Detroit), Marion Berry ( Washington, DC) and Harold Washington


Turner remains defiant ahead of sentencing
Judge to unveil decision today

Chuck Turner appealed for leniency in a recent court filing, but he has never expressed contrition.
January 25, 2011


A federal judge who recently chided corrupt politicians in Massachusetts for operating with impunity will decide the fate of Chuck Turner this afternoon.

US District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock will sentence the former Boston city councilor nearly three months after his conviction for accepting a $1,000 bribe and lying about it to FBI agents. Prosecutors have urged the judge to impose a minimum prison sentence of two years and nine months, saying Turner perjured himself on the witness stand and has amplified his crimes by grandstanding at rallies.

Turner appealed for leniency in a recent court filing, but remained unrepentant even as he asked to be spared prison. The 12-page sentencing memorandum described Turner’s decades of public service and the financial hardship wrought by his conviction, but he maintained his innocence.

Turner’s lawyer suggested in the memorandum that his client was the victim of a government conspiracy against people of color, writing that his case has the appearance of “selective prosecution’’ because the only two public officials charged in the case were “both of African-American descent.’’

“The circumstances of the case have the appearance of an agenda, and leaves open the debate on the existence of what is known as the FBI’s ‘Fruhmenschen’ project,’ ’’ the lawyer, Barry P. Wilson, wrote in the sentencing memorandum filed Friday. “The Fruhmenschen objective, as research suggests, is to target and eliminate black elected officials.’’

Wilson referred to the “Fruhmenschen project’’ in a footnote supporting his contention that the judge should deviate from federal sentencing guidelines and give Turner probation. Wilson could not be reached yesterday for comment.

Fruhmenschen is a German word meaning early man. It apparently refers to an alleged FBI policy in the late 1970s and early 1980s to investigate prominent black officials, according to a 1988 account in the Washington Post from the trial of a former Maryland state senator.

According to a Globe account, the former Maryland state senator, Clarence M. Mitchell III, spoke in 1991 at Boston College about “an orchestrated conspiracy on the part of the Justice Department in this country to do away with outspoken, strong black leadership.’’

Turner has often framed his prosecution in racial terms, comparing himself to “people in the civil rights movement over years that have been targeted.’’

In the sentencing memorandum, Turner also “venomously denies committing perjury’’ when he testified that he did not recall a videotaped meeting with a paid government witness who handed him $1,000. Turner’s lawyer noted that his client did not deny sitting down with the man, but could not recall their meeting.

Earlier this month, Woodlock delivered a stinging rebuke to Dianne Wilkerson, a former state senator, handing down a 3 1/2-year prison term as he lamented that “sentencing imposed for criminal conduct’’ for politicians “hasn’t been sufficient.’’

Although Turner and Wilkerson were ensnared in the same government sting, there are significant differences in their cases.

Wilkerson had a previous federal conviction in 1997 for failing to file her income taxes for two years.

She was accused of repeatedly accepting bribes totaling $23,500 and ultimately pleaded guilty without a trial.

Turner will be sentenced today for accepting a single payment. He has never expressed contrition, even after a jury convicted him of four felonies.

“There is no support that his office w
Quote 0 0
two stories


Why I Can’t Watch Homeland Anymore … and the Glorification of the CIA

see link for full story

http://www.citywatchla.com/lead-stories ... of-the-cia

10 Oct 2014
OBSERVING MEDIA-The fourth season of Claire Danes’ hit show Homeland premiered Sunday night, but I wasn’t watching. Its glorification of the CIA has crossed a line, and I can no longer view the show as pure entertainment.

Homeland uses a hip, anti-establishment tone to promote even the worst abuses of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is today’s equivalent of the 1960’s show Mod Squad. Mod Squad featured “the hippest and first young undercover cops on television.” It used figures from youth culture to promote the reactionary and racist Los Angeles Police Department. Mod Squad villains were drawn from the same counterculture elements that the LAPD was beating up on city streets.

Homeland uses a similar strategy. Its star, Claire Danes, has the blonde look of Mod Squad star Peggy Lipton. Danes’ Carrie Mathison’s character, like Lipton’s, is a woman in a man’s game. Carrie acts like she’s battling the establishment while promoting the CIA’s core agenda at every turn.

Who Turned Iran? Carrie’s role in glorifying the CIA became crystal clear in the show’s reinvention of Iranian politics in Season 3.

Homeland’s message in Season 3 was that the CIA had the ability to change Iranian politics by getting someone it controlled in power in Iran. The end result—Iran’s agreement to nuclear talks—was portrayed on the show as 100% a product of the CIA’s wiles.

But in the real world, internal forces within Iran, not the CIA, led Iran to become more accommodating on nuclear policy. The difference is quite significant.

Since its founding, the CIA has routinely assassinated world leaders and key political figures under the guise that such acts were necessary to bring “democracy.” The CIA did this in Iran in 1954, replacing a democratically elected leader with a dictator. A dictator who murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of Iranians until he was overthrown in 1979.

Homeland doesn’t offer this history lesson. Nor does it ever reveal the many other nations where the CIA used assassination and violence to replace democratic leaders with dictators.

Because to tell viewers the truth would cause many to wonder why they are rooting for Carrie and her CIA colleagues in carrying out their missions. In its essence, Homeland is reclaiming and reviving the same dangerous myth of the “CIA knows best” that has caused misery to millions across the globe.

Danes’ Carrie Mathison is the chief vehicle for getting anti-establishment types to buy into this message.

The other vehicle is Mandy Patinkin’s character, Saul. Saul plays the tormented Jewish CIA chief straight out of a Malamud novel. Nobody could possibly believe that a gentle, thoughtful soul like Saul would wrongly kill people—so when that’s what he does, it has to be that the CIA is following the moral course.

Homeland places Carrie and Saul—and by implication the CIA—are on the right side of history. The CIA’s actual history notwithstanding.

In the last episode of Season 3 there was an exchange between Carrie and Brody in which the latter questions what all of the CIA killing really accomplishes. But Carrie does not even give pause to consider whether the man she loves and admires most in the world may be on to something.

It’s Only Entertainment!-Yes, Homeland is not the real world. Yet as Alex Gansa, the show’s creator admitted “viewers will again find in “Homeland” parallels to real events in the Mideast.”

That’s the problem. Homeland creates close parallels to real life events via a fictional CIA whose real world operations are very different. The real world CIA failed to foresee the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. It also failed to anticipate Mubarak’s problems in Egypt. It missed the rise of ISIS entirely.

The real CIA is not controlled by principled and thoughtful analysts like Saul and Claire. The real CIA is driven by people like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, for whom ideology and politics always come first.

Does Homeland’s deviation from reality matter? The LAPD certainly thought television shows about its work shaped public perceptions. That’s why it closely cooperated with Dragnet, Adam 12 and other LA cop shows to create an image of a caring, non-racist LAPD entirely at odd with the fa


ACLU accuses Boston police of racial profiling
Stop and frisk: Racial profiling in Boston

see link for full story

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinio ... _profiling

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Blacks are more likely to be stopped and frisked by Hub cops in a “problematic pattern” that stops short of “widespread” racial profiling, according to the researcher whose findings the ACLU cited in an explosive report on Boston police tactics.

“I can’t explain why these racial patterns exist ... but it’s clear there are problematic patterns,” said Anthony Braga, the Rutgers criminologist and Harvard fellow whose analysis of more than 204,000 so-called “civilian-police encounters” in Boston between 2007 and 2010 was the basis of yesterday’s American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts report that accused the Boston Police Department of “racially biased policing.”

Braga noted that blacks were 8 percent more likely to be involved in a police encounter multiple times and 12 percent more likely to be stopped and frisked. But he said the stat heavily cited by the ACLU — that blacks make up 63 percent of the encounters, but only 24 percent of the population — is a “misrepresentation” of whether there really is a racial bias.

“The context of policing is not what’s going on with New York with stop and frisk,” Braga, a former BPD policy adviser, said, noting that of the 204,739 reports analyzed, only 40 percent include instances of stop-and-frisk. “There is a problem, and the problem needs to be understood. It’s a mixed bag. But the ACLU portrayal of the report ... doesn’t represent the spirit of what we’ve done.”

The ACLU report sparked an immediate firestorm yesterday, with police brass saying it was outdated and ignored recent reforms in training. The police department said the findings show that cops are targeting gang members in “high-crime areas.”

Cops are also repeatedly stopping those with criminal records or “gang membership,” according to police, who say just 5 percent of the individuals stopped accounted for 40 percent of the total reports.

Police Commissioner William B. Evans said that the use of the type of police report the ACLU studied has dropped 42 percent between 2008 and last year, though officials said they did not have a racial breakdown of who was stopped during that period.

“We aren’t out there stopping every African-American child for no reason at all,” Evans said. “We put most of our officers, like we did this summer ... into the areas where we see the gun violence. And unfortunately that is where most of that is populated by African-American young males. It’s only reasonable to believe that we’re going to stop and talk to more black males than any other part of the city.”

In making recommended changes, including adding body cameras to police, the ACLU said that in 75 percent of reports, Boston police described the reason for the encounter as simply “investigate person” — a description it assailed as “because I said so.”

“The findings confirm what many people from communities of color have long suspected: Boston police officers targeted people of color at far greater rates than white people,” the ACLU report states.

While Mayor Martin J. Walsh noted the findings precede his administration, he also said he wasn’t challenging them.

“I’m trying to build a city here. My theme in the campaign was ‘One city.’ And having certain neighborhoods targeted or certain individuals targeted inappropriately isn’t the way I want to do it,” he told the Herald.

“If I’m a young black male and I see this report, certainly I see this as targeting me. I see the sensitivity and the concern in the black community and the communities of color. The numbers speak for themselves
Quote 0 0


Twitter Feed Highlights the Shocking Number of Black People Killed by Police

October 14, 2014

Illustration by Tyler Hoehne
Protesters have converged on Ferguson, Missouri, this week for Ferguson October, a three-day event to protest police violence in communities of color. The neighborhood has been a site of protest and unrest since August, when Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed unarmed black teen Michael Brown. Brown’s name joins a distressingly long list of black people who have lost their lives to police brutality, including Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Sean Bell, and Oscar Grant.

The deaths of these men have sparked demonstrations across the country, and their names have become part of a national conversation on race and police violence. But many other victims remain relatively unknown—FBI figures reveal that in a seven-year period ending in 2012, white police officers killed a black person at least twice a week. Killed By Cops, a Twitter project that went live this week, attempts to memorialize these people online. At least once an hour, the account sends out a tweet bearing the name, age, and city of a black person who has been killed by law enforcement officers. At press time, nearly 100 tweets had been published.

Killed By Cops is a project by Color of Change, a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of black voters and specifically supports greater police accountability and more comprehensive reporting of police brutality.

“Over and over again, we’re seeing instances of black people getting hurt and killed by the police," says Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change. “We deserve systemic change.”

The data that the group uses comes from Fatal Encounters, a searchable, crowd-sourced national database of fatal police interactions maintained by D. Brian Burghart, the publisher of the Reno News & Review. Burghart began collecting data on officer-involved shootings when he realized, a few years ago, that no such database existed. Information on police killings is difficult to acquire because details from local law enforcement are often incomplete and unreliable. There’s also no credible federal government database that tracks it. There are laws that require the U.S. Justice Department to collect the information, says Burghart, but the law is “poorly written” and doesn’t enforce reporting by law enforcement agencies.

“Through 2012, there were about 750 state and local law enforcement agencies that were giving (the Justice Department) this data and there are 17,985 state and local law enforcement agencies (in the country),” says Burghart. “The data that they were presenting as ‘real’ was just a big lie.”

The lack of data makes it difficult to pinpoint weaknesses in law enforcement policy. Worse, it absolves law enforcement agencies of accountability, says Robinson.

“The police departments are allowed to police themselves,” he says.

From what statistics do exist, it’s stunningly clear that black communities are disproportionately affected by police violence. According to ProPublica, which used FBI-provided data, young black people are 21 times more likely than whites to be killed by police. Statistics like these reveal how deeply social inequality is embedded within state institutions, from arrests, to criminal convictions, to incarcerations, to “justifiable” homicides. Killed By Cops’ Twitter feed throws these realities into sharp relief.

twitter activism justice police brutality
Quote 0 0

Set Weather
Search Search
Account Sign In

Leaders of Bloods drug dynasty partied after cop killer Ronell Wilson had death penalty overturned in 2010, informant testifies

October 16, 2014 at 11:56 PM

Quote 0 0
attorney Waltar Prince was African American

DiMura v. FBI, 823 F. Supp. 45 (1993)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - 823 F. Supp. 45 (1993)
June 2, 1993

823 F. Supp. 45 (1993)

Paul M. DiMURA, Plaintiff,

Civ. A. No. 92-12084-T.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 2, 1993.

*46 Ernest C. Hadley, Wareham, MA, for plaintiff.

Suzanne E. Durrell, U.S. Attys. Office, Boston, MA, Elizabeth A. Pugh, Kenneth L. Doroshow, U.S. Dept. of Justice Civ. Div., Washington, DC, for defendants.


TAURO, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, Paul M. DiMura, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), brings this action against the FBI, the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that defendants violated the Privacy Act of 1974 (the "Act"), 5 U.S.C. § 552a, by disclosing to the press certain information concerning an incident between plaintiff and a federal judicial nominee whom plaintiff was assigned to investigate. Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in damages for embarrassment and mental anguish he claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged disclosure.[1] Presently before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.



In April 1992, plaintiff was assigned to conduct the background investigation of Walter Prince, a prominent lawyer in Boston who had recently been nominated for a federal judge position. During the course of this investigation, plaintiff asserts that he had great difficulty arranging a personal interview with Mr. Prince. According to plaintiff, Mr. Prince failed to return several phone calls placed to his office and missed numerous scheduled interviews. Eventually, Mr. Prince did meet with plaintiff for an interview, but plaintiff alleges that even in person he found Mr. Prince to be uncooperative.

Following the interview, and as a routine part of the investigation, plaintiff took Mr. Prince's fingerprints. While plaintiff was processing the fingerprints, Mr. Prince inquired if anything else was required of him. Plaintiff, who claims he intended his response to be only facetious, replied that a footprint from Mr. Prince was also necessary. Mr. Prince then removed his shoe and sock and plaintiff proceeded to take an inked impression of Mr. Prince's foot. Plaintiff now alleges that once Mr. Prince had removed his shoe and sock, plaintiff did not know what else to do, and that his taking of Mr. Prince's footprint was intended merely as a practical joke.

Upon learning of the footprinting incident, the FBI commenced an internal administrative inquiry into plaintiff's conduct. At the close of its inquiry on June 3, 1992, the FBI disciplined and reprimanded plaintiff for his "abominable lack of judgment, maturity, professionalism, and sensitivity ..." in subjecting a federal judicial nominee to such an unauthorized and demeaning procedure.

By July 18, 1992, reports of the footprinting incident began to appear in Boston newspapers. Although the initial newspaper reports did not identify plaintiff by name, on July 21, 1992, the Boston Herald identified plaintiff as the FBI agent responsible for taking the footprint. This and subsequent articles in both the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe also outlined the terms of the disciplinary action taken by the FBI against plaintiff.

*47 Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he suffered emotional injuries as a result of defendants' disclosure of his identity and involvement in the footprinting incident. Plaintiff contends that the press obtained the information about him from records within defendants' files, and that this information was improperly made available by defendants' employees.



Section 552a(b) of the Act generally prohibits the government from disclosing personal information about citizens without their consent. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b); Federal Labor Relations Auth. v. Department of Navy, 941 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1991). When a government agency violates this prohibition, the Act authorizes citizens to file civil suits against the agency, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g) (1) (D), limiting the available remedies to "actual damages."[2]

In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants contend that damages for emotional injuries stemming from a claim of unlawful disclosure do not constitute "actual damages" under the Act and, therefore, that this suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A. "Actual Damages" under the Privacy Act

The issue of the scope of damages available under the Act is one of first impression in this Circuit. Two contrasting interpretations of "actual damages" exist. In Johnson v. Department of Treasury, IRS, 700 F.2d 971, 972 (5th Cir.1983), the Fifth Circuit held that "actual damages" included damages for mental injuries. By contrast, in Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cir.1982), the Eleventh Circuit held that "actual damages" permitted recovery only for pecuniary loss. For reasons different from those set forth by the Eleventh Circuit in Fitzpatrick, this court finds that "actual damages" does not encompass emotional damages.

Ordinarily, the first step in construing a statute is to interpret the statutory language in accordance with its plain meaning. E.g., Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979); Wilcox v. Ives, 864 F.2d 915, 917 (1st Cir.1988). Unfortunately, the phrase "actual damages" in the Act is ambiguous. Accord Johnson, 700 F.2d at 974, 983 n. 33; Fitzpatrick, 665 F.2d at 329. Faced with this ambiguity, the Fitzpatrick court turned to the Act's legislative history to discern Congress' intent as to the scope of the phrase "actual damages."[3]

Since Fitzpatrick was decided, however, the Supreme Court has determined that courts are not to consider legislative history when resolving ambiguities in the text of statutes that waive the government's sovereign immunity. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1016, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) ("The unequivocal expression of elimination of sovereign *48 immunity that we insist upon is an expression in statutory text. If clarity does not exist there, it cannot be supplied by a committee report."); Maine v. Department of Navy, 973 F.2d 1007, 1011 (1st Cir.1992). Courts, therefore, must limit their inquiry to the language of the statute itself.

The general rule of construction applicable to statutes which surrender federal sovereign immunity is to construe the statutory language strictly in favor of the sovereign. See Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318, 106 S.Ct. 2957, 2963, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986) (courts "must construe waivers strictly in favor of the sovereign ... and not enlarge the waiver `beyond what the language requires'") (citation omitted); McMahon v. United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27, 72 S.Ct. 17, 19, 96 L.Ed. 26 (1951); In Re Perry, 882 F.2d 534, 544 (1st Cir.1989). To say that a court must construe a statute in favor of the sovereign is not to say that the court must always adopt the construction offered by the sovereign. The sovereign's construction will be adopted only if it is plausible. See Nordic Village, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1016.

Here, defendants ask that the court construe the phrase "actual damages" to refer only to pecuniary damages. Satisfied that this construction is a plausible one, this court adopts the defendants' view that "actual damages" does not include emotional damages. Accordingly, plaintiff's allegations of only emotional injuries are legally insufficient under the Act.

B. Statutory Damages

Plaintiff argues in the alternative that he is at least entitled to recover the $1,000 statutory minimum damages. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g) (4). The Fitzpatrick court permitted recovery of this sum, along with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, even though it declined to award damages for emotional injuries. See Fitzpatrick, 665 F.2d at 331. The opinion, however, is devoid of any explanation as to how the court reached its result. Upon examination, this court finds that the better rule is to preclude recovery where, as here, only emotional injuries are alleged. This court bases its decision on language in the Act specifying that the $1,000 statutory minimum damages are to be made available only to "a person entitled to recovery." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g) (4). To be entitled to recovery under the Act, however, a plaintiff must prove that he or she has suffered "actual damages." See, e.g., Pope v. Bond, 641 F.Supp. 489, 501 (D.D.C.1986); Houston v. Department of Treasury, 494 F.Supp. 24, 30 (D.D.C.1979); Mobley v. Doyle, No. JH-87-3300, slip op. at 6 (D.Md. Nov. 8, 1988). This court has determined that plaintiff's claim for emotional damages is not one entitling him to recovery under the Act. Given that plaintiff is not "a person entitled to recovery," he is not entitled to the $1,000 statutory minimum damages.



For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby ALLOWED.

[1] Plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs.

[2] Specifically, the Act requires that:

In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g) (1) (C) or (D) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of

(A) actual damages sustained by the individual ..., but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000; and

(B) the cost of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.

5 U.S.C. § 552a(g) (4) (emphasis added).

[3] The Johnson court also looked to legislative history. In addition, however, it was heavily influenced by cases that awarded damages for emotional injuries resulting from violations of constitutionally protected privacy interests. Johnson, 700 F.2d at 976-77. The court reasoned that, by analogy, privacy interests protected by the Act should similarly give rise to claims for emotional injury. Id. This Circuit has concluded, however, that the constitutional right of privacy is not implicated by government disclosures of personal information. See Borucki v. Ryan, 827 F.2d 836, 842-43 (1st Cir.1987) ("[A]n allegation that government dissemination of information or government defamation has caused damage to reputation, even with all attendant emotional anguish and social stigma, does not in itself state a cause of action for violation of a constitutional right; infringement of more `tangible interests' must be alleged as well.") (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160-61, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976)). The analogy on which the Johnson court relied, therefore, is inapposite here.
Quote 0 0

Canadian Fear Campaign: “Islamic Extremists” and the Dubious Role of Intelligence AgenciesFollow Global Research on TwitterAccidents in Germ Labs and the Ebola PandemicCanadian Terror Wave: a Modern-Day GladioThe Ottawa Shootings and “Canada’s War on Terror”? Media Points to “Homegrown Terror Threat”Follow Global Research on Pinterest
U.S. is Responsible for the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Liberian Scientist

By Timothy Alexander Guzman
Global Research, October 17, 2014

A History of Guatemala’s Syphilis Experiment: How a U.S. Led Team Performed Human Experimentations in Central America

Dr. Cyril Broderick, A Liberian scientist and a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry says the West, particularly the U.S. is responsible for the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Dr. Broderick claims the following in an exclusive article published in the Daily Observer based in Monrovia, Liberia. He wrote the following:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus. Hence, the DoD is listed as a collaborator in a “First in Human” Ebola clinical trial (NCT02041715, which started in January 2014 shortly before an Ebola epidemic was declared in West Africa in March.

Is it possible that the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and other Western countries are directly responsible for infecting Africans with the Ebola virus? Dr. Broderick claims that the U.S. government has a research laboratory located in a town called Kenema in Sierra Leone that studies what he calls “viral fever bioterrorism”, It is also the town where he acknowledges that is the “epicentre of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.” Is it a fact? Is Dr. Broderick a conspiracy theorist? He says that “there is urgent need for affirmative action in protecting the less affluent of poorer countries, especially African citizens, whose countries are not as scientifically and industrially endowed as the United States and most Western countries, sources of most viral or bacterial GMOs that are strategically designed as biological weapons.” He also asks an important question when he says “It is most disturbing that the U. S. Government has been operating a viral hemorrhagic fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Sierra Leone. Are there others?”

Well, Mr. Broderick’s claims seem to be true. After all, the U.S. government has been experimenting with deadly diseases on human beings for a long time, history tells us so. One example is Guatemala. Between 1946 and 1948, the United States government under President Harry S. Truman in collaboration with Guatemalan President Juan José Arévalo and his health officials deliberately infected more than 1500 soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners and even mental patients with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea and chancroid (a bacterial sexual infection) out of more than 5500 Guatemalan people who participated in the experiments. The worst part of it is that none of the test subjects infected with the diseases ever gave informed consent. The Boston Globe published the discovery made by Medical historian and professor at Wellesley College, Susan M. Reverby in 2010 called ‘Wellesley professor unearths a horror: Syphilis experiments in Guatemala.’ It stated how she came across her discovery:

Picking through musty files in a Pennsylvania archive, a Wellesley College professor made a heart-stopping discovery: US government scientists in the 1940s deliberately infected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in experiments conducted without the subjects’ permission. Medical historian Susan M. Reverby happened upon the documents four or five years ago while researching the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study and later shared her findings with US government officials.

The unethical research was not publicly disclosed until yesterday, when President Obama and two Cabinet secretaries apologized to Guatemala’s government and people and pledged to never repeat the mistakes of the past — an era when it was not uncommon for doctors to experiment on patients without their consent.

After Reverby’s discovery, the Obama administration apparently gave an apology to then-President Alvaro Colom according to the Boston Globe:

Yesterday, Obama called President Álvaro Colom Caballeros of Guatemala to apologize, and Obama’s spokesman told reporters the experiment was “tragic, and the United States by all means apologizes to all those who were impacted by this.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had called Colom Thursday night to break the news to him. In her conversation with the Guatemalan president, Clinton expressed “her personal outrage and deep regret that such reprehensible research could occur,’’ said Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.

The study in Guatemala was led by John Cutler, a US health service physician who also took part in the controversial Tuskegee Syphilis experiments which began in the 1930’s. Researchers wanted to study the effects of a group of antibiotics called penicillin on affected individuals. The prevention and treatment of syphilis and other venereal diseases were also included in the experimentation. Although they were treated with antibiotics, more than 83 people had died according to BBC news in 2011 following a statement issued by Dr Amy Gutmann, head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues:

The Commission said some 5,500 Guatemalans were involved in all the research that took place between 1946 and 1948. Of these, some 1,300 were deliberately infected with syphilis, gonorrhoea or another sexually transmitted disease, chancroid. And of that group only about 700 received some sort of treatment. According to documents the commission had studied, at least 83 of the 5,500 subjects had died by the end of 1953.

Washington’s reaction to the report is a farce. The apology made to Guatemala’s government was for the sake of public relations. Washington knows about its human experimentations in the past with deadly diseases conducted by government-funded laboratories that are known to be harmful to the public. The U.S. government is guilty in conducting numerous medical experiments on people not only in Guatemala but in other countries and on its own territory. As the Boston Globe report mentioned, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study occurred between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the “natural progression” of untreated syphilis in the African American population. The U.S. Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute collaborated in 1932 and enrolled 600 poor sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama to study the syphilis infection. However, it was documented that at least 400 of those had the disease (they were never informed that they actually had syphilis) while the remaining 200 did not. They received free medical care, food and even free burial insurance for participating in the study. Documents revealed that they were told that they had “bad blood” which meant that they had various medical conditions besides syphilis. The Tuskegee scientists continued to study the participants without treating their illnesses and they also withheld much-needed information from the participants about penicillin, which proved to be effective in treating Syphilis and other venereal diseases. The test subjects were under the impression that they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government while they were deliberately being lied to by the same administrators who were conducting the tests. Washington is fully aware of its human experimentations with deadly diseases. The government of Guatemala also knew about the Syphilis experiments according to the Boston Globe:

A representative of the Guatemalan government said his nation will investigate, too — looking in part at the culpability of officials in that country. The records of the experiment suggest that Guatemalan government officials were fully aware of the tests, sanctioned them, and may have done so in exchange for stockpiles of penicillin.

However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the study ‘Fact Sheet on the 1946-1948 U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study’ and was forced to admit what happened in Guatemala during the syphilis experiments:

While conducting historical research on the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis, Professor Susan Reverby of Wellesley College recently discovered the archived papers of the late Dr. John Cutler, a U.S. Public Health Service medical officer and a Tuskegee investigator. The papers described another unethical study supported by the U.S. government in which highly vulnerable populations in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The study, conducted between 1946 and 1948, was done with the knowledge of Dr. Cutler’s superiors and was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau (which became the Pan American Health Organization) to several Guatemalan government ministries. The study had never been published.

The U.S. government admitted to its wrongdoing, 62 years too late. What Dr. Broderick wrote is not conspiratorial in any sense. The U.S. government has been involved in bioterrorism; Guatemala is a case in point. Dr. Broderick summarized what average people can do to prevent governments, especially those from the West from creating and exposing populations from diseases they experiment with in laboratories:

The challenge is global, and we request assistance from everywhere, including China, Japan, Australia, India, Germany, Italy, and even kind-hearted people in the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else whose desire is to help. The situation is bleaker than we on the outside can imagine, and we must provide assistance however we can. To ensure a future that has less of this kind of drama, it is important that we now demand that our leaders and governments be honest, transparent, fair, and productively engaged. They must answer to the people. Please stand up to stop Ebola testing and the spread of this dastardly disease.

After Guatemala’s ordeal with the U.S. government who deliberately infected people with syphilis, West African nations should be extremely skeptical about the U.S. government’s actions combating Ebola. Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, College of Law questions the Obama administration’s actions in West Africa. RIA Novosti recently interviewed Boyle and he said the following:

US government agencies have a long history of carrying out allegedly defensive biological warfare research at labs in Liberia and Sierra Leone. This includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is now the point agency for managing the Ebola spill-over into the US,” Prof. Francis Boyle said.

Why has the Obama administration dispatched troops to Liberia when they have no training to provide medical treatment to dying Africans? How did Zaire/Ebola get to West Africa from about 3,500km away from where it was first identified in 1976?”

That’s a good question for Washington, but would the public get any answers? Not anytime soon, since it took more than 62 years for the Guatemala syphilis experiments to be exposed to the public, not by the US government, by a medical historian.
Quote 0 0

see link for full story


Racism as Government Policy
A Short History of “Black Paranoia”


The fury among American blacks sparked by Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series was powerful enough to cause serious concern to the U.S. government, urban mayors, and major newspapers, and even prompted CIA Director John Deutch to make an extraordinary appearance at a town meeting in South Central Los Angeles, where Rep. Maxine Waters was accused of fanning the flames of “black paranoia.” We will now briefly outline why this “paranoia” is amply justified and why Webb’s series very reasonably struck a chord in the black community.

In all discussions of “black paranoia” during the Webb affair, white commentators invariably conceded—as indeed they had to—that the one instance where such fears were entirely justified was the infamous Tuskegee experiments. Yet in the press coverage no more than a sentence or two was devoted to any account of what actually happened at Tuskegee.

The facts are terrible. In 1932, 600 poor black men from rural Macon County, Alabama, were recruited for a study by the United States Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute. The researchers found 400 out of the 600 infected with syphilis, and the 200 uninfected men were monitored as the control group. The other 400 men were told they were being treated for “bad blood” and were given a treatment the doctors called “pink medicine,” which was actually nothing more than aspirin and an iron supplement. No effective medical treatment was ever given to the Tuskegee victims because the researchers wanted to study the natural progress of venereal disease. When other physicians diagnosed syphilis in some of the men, the Public Health Service researchers intervened to prevent any treatment. When penicillin was developed as a cure for syphilis in 1943, it was not provided to the patients. Indeed, the development of a cure only seemed to spur on the Tuskegee researchers, who, in the words of historian James Jones, author of Bad Blood, saw Tuskegee as a “never-again-to-be-repeated opportunity.”

As an inducement to continue in the program over several decades the men were given hot meals, a certificate signed by the surgeon general, the promise of free medical care, and a $50 burial stipend. This stipend was far from altruistic because it allowed the Health Service researchers to perform their own autopsies on the men after they died. The experiments continued until 1972, and were canceled only after information about them had leaked to the press. Over the course of the experiments more than 100 of the men died of causes related to syphilis, but even after exposure, the lead researchers remained unapologetic. “For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their job,” said Dr. John Heller, who had headed the U.S. Public Health Services Division of Venereal Diseases. “Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science.”

In 1996, President Clinton issued a public apology to the Tuskegee victims. Nor was this an entirely disinterested act of governmental contrition. Earlier in the year, Clinton had been approached by Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala regarding the scarcity of blacks willing to volunteer as research subjects. Shalala attributed this reluctance to “unnatural fears” arising from the Tuskegee experiments. George Annas, who runs the Law, Ethics and Medicine program at Boston University, notes that the apology was skewed and that Clinton and Shalala should have been finding ways of recruiting more blacks as medical students rather than research subjects. “If you were to look at the historical record, you will see that blacks’ distrust predated Tuskegee,” according to Dr. Vanessa Gamble, an associate professor of the history of medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “There were experiments dating back to more than a hundred years that were more often done by whites on slaves and free blacks than on poor whites.”

Another oft-cited explanation for the readiness of blacks to believe the worst about the white man’s intentions is briskly referred to as “the FBI’s snooping on Martin Luther King Jr.,” as Tim Golden put it amid his reflections on black paranoia in the New York Times. The government’s interest in Dr. King went considerably beyond “snooping,” however, to constitute one of the most prolonged surveillances of any family in American history. In the early years of the 20th century, Ralph Van Deman created an Army Intelligence network targeting four prime foes: the Industrial Workers of the World, opponents of the draft, Socialists, and “Negro unrest.” Fear that the Germans would take advantage of black grievances was great, and Van Deman was much preoccupied with the role of black churches as possible centers of sedition.

By the end of 1917, the War Department’s Military Intelligence Division had opened a file on Martin Luther King Jr.’s maternal grandfather, the Rev. A. D. Williams, pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church and first president of the Atlanta NAACP. King’s father, Martin Sr., Williams’ successor at Ebenezer Baptist, also entered the army files. Martin Jr. first shows up in these files (kept by the 111th Military Intelligence Group at Fort McPherson in Atlanta) in 1947, when he attended Dorothy Lilley’s Intercollegiate School; the army suspected Lilley of having ties to the Communist Party.

Army Intelligence officers became convinced of Martin Luther King Jr.’s own Communist ties when he spoke in 1950 at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the integrated Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. Ten years earlier, an Army Intelligence officer had reported to his superiors that the Highlander school was teaching a course of instruction to develop Negro organizers in the southern cotton states.

By 1963, as Tennessee journalist Stephen Tompkins reported in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, U-2 planes were photographing disturbances in Birmingham, Alabama, capping a multilayered spy system that by 1968 included 304 intelligence offices across the country, “subversive national security dossiers” on 80,731 Americans, plus 19 million personnel dossiers lodged at the Defense Department’s Central Index of Investigations.

A more sinister thread derives from the anger and fear with which the Army’s high command greeted King’s denunciation of the Vietnam War at Riverside Church in 1967. Army spies recorded Stokely Carmichael telling King, “The Man don’t care you call ghettos concentration camps, but when you tell him his war machine is nothing but hired killers you got trouble.”

After the 1967 Detroit riots, 496 black men under arrest were interviewed by agents of the Army’s Psychological Operations group, dressed as civilians. It turned out King was by far the most popular black leader. That same year Maj. Gen. William Yarborough, assistant chief of staff for intelligence, observing the great antiwar march on Washington from the roof of the Pentagon, concluded that the Empire was coming apart at the seams. There were, Yarborough reckoned, too few reliable troops to fight in Vietnam and hold the line at home.

In response, the army increased its surveillance of King. Green Berets and other Special Forces veterans from Vietnam began making street maps and identifying landing zones and potential sniper sites in major U.S. cities. The Ku Klux Klan was recruited by the 20th Special Forces Group, headquartered in Alabama as a subsidiary intelligence network. The Army began offering 30-06 sniper rifles to police departments, including that of Memphis.

In his fine investigation, Tompkins detailed the increasing hysteria of Army Intelligence chiefs over the threat they considered King to pose to national stability. The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover was similarly obsessed with this threat, and King was dogged by spy units through early 1967. A Green Beret special unit was operating in Memphis on the day he was shot. He died from a bullet from a 30-06 rifle purchased in a Memphis store, a murder for which James Earl Ray was given a 99-year sentence in a Tennessee prison. A court-ordered test of James Earl Ray’s rifle raised questions as to whether it in fact had fired the bullet that killed King.

Notable black Americans, from the boxing champion Jack Johnson to Paul Robeson to W. E. B. Du Bois, were all the object of relentless harassment by the FBI. Johnson, the first black superstar, was framed by the FBI’s predecessor under the Mann Act. Johnson ultimately served a year for crossing state lines with his white girlfriend (who later became his wife). Du Bois, founder of the NAACP, was himself under surveillance for nearly seventy years and was arrested and shackled for urging peace talks with North Korea.

Still fresh in the minds of many blacks is the FBI’s COINTEL-PRO program, started in 1956 and conceived as a domestic counterinsurgency program. Though its ambit extended to the New Left, Puerto Rican revolutionaries and Native Americans, the most vigorous persecutions under COINTELPRO were those of black leaders. A memo from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described the program as it stood in August 1967: the purpose of COINTELPRO was to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize” black organizations the FBI didn’t care for. And if any black leader emerged, Hoover’s order was that the Bureau should “pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercised their potential for violence.”

“Neutralize” has long been a euphemism for assassination. At least six or seven Black Panther leaders were killed at the instigation of the FBI, the most infamous episode being the assassination of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in Chicago. These two Panther leaders were shot in their beds, while asleep, by Chicago police who had been given a detailed floor plan of the house by an FBI informant who had also drugged Hampton and Clark.

During the mid-1970s hearings chaired by Idaho Senator Frank Church, the FBI was found to have undertaken more than 200 so-called “black bag” jobs, in which FBI agents broke into offices, homes and apartments to destroy equipment, steal and copy files, take money, and plant drugs. The FBI was also linked to the arson fire that destroyed the Watts Writers’ Workshop in Los Angeles.

In all the stories about “black paranoia” trolled forth by Webb’s assailants, one topic was conspicuously ignored: the long history of the racist application of U.S. drug laws. The first racist application of drug laws in the United States was against Chinese laborers. After the U.S. Civil War, opium addiction was a major problem: wounded soldiers used it to dull pain and then became habituated. One study estimates that by 1880, one in every 400 adults in the United States had such an addiction to opium. Chinese laborers had been brought into the United States in the wake of the Civil War to build the transcontinental railroad and, in California, to haul rock in the gold mines in the Sierras. Thousands of Chinese were also brought into the South to replace slave labor on the cotton and rice plantations. The Chinese brought opium smoking with them, their addiction having actively fostered in the Opium Wars by the British, who had successfully beaten down efforts by the Chinese government to curb the habit.

Then came the recession of the 1870s. The Chinese were now viewed as competitors for the dwindling number of jobs available. In 1875, San Francisco became the first city to outlaw opium smoking with legislation clearly aimed at the Chinese, who smoked the narcotic, as opposed to the main group of users, white men and women, who took opium in liquid form. This was the era when the use of opium-based patent medicines was pervasive. Women used them in “tonics” to alleviate pain in childbirth, and also to “soothe” their nerves. Unlike the “yellow dope fiends,” however, the white users were politely termed “habitués.” In 1887, the U.S. Congress weighed in with the Chinese Exclusion Act, which among other things) allowed Chinese opium addicts to be arrested and deported.

Similarly, racist attitudes accompanied the rise of cocaine use. Cocaine had been mass marketed in the United States in the late 1880s by the Parke-Davis Company (which many decades later had contracts to provide the CIA with drugs in the MK-ULTRA program). The company also sold a precursor to crack, marketing cocaine-laden cigarettes in the 1890s. In that same decade the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, which was distributed to millions of homes, offered a syringe and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50. But by the turn of the century the attitude of the medical and legal establishment to cocaine was beginning to change. In 1900 the Journal of the American Medical Association printed an editorial alerting its readers to a new peril: “Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice—that of ‘cocaine sniffing’ or the ‘coke habit.’ ”

President Theodore Roosevelt responded to the new scare by creating the nation’s first drug czar, Dr. Hamilton Wright. Wright was a fanatic racist, announcing that “it is been authoritatively stated that cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the Negroes of the South and other regions.” One of Wright’s favored authorities was Dr. Christopher Koch of the State Pharmacy Board of Pennsylvania. Koch testified before Congress in 1914 in support of the Harrison Bill, shortly to pass into law as the first criminalization of drug use. Said Koch: “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.”

At the same hearing, Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable, gave them superhuman powers, and prompted them to rebel against white authority. These hysterical charges were trumpeted by the press, in particular the New York Times, which on February 8, 1914, ran an article by Edward Hunting Williams reporting how Southern sheriffs had upped the caliber of their weapons from.32 to.38 in order to bring down black men under the influence of cocaine. The Times’ headline for the article read: “Negro Cocaine ‘Fiends’ are New Southern Menace: Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower-Class Blacks.” Amid these salvoes, the Harrison Act passed into law.

In 1930, a new department of the federal government, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, was formed under the leadership of Harry Anslinger to carry on the war against drug users. Anslinger, another racist, was an adroit publicist and became the prime shaper of American attitudes to drug addiction, hammering home his view that this was not a treatable dependency but one that could only be suppressed by harsh criminal sanctions. Anslinger’s first major campaign was to criminalize the drug commonly known at the time as hemp. But Anslinger renamed it “marijuana” to associate it with Mexican laborers who, like the Chinese before them, were unwelcome competitors for scarce jobs in the Depression. Anslinger claimed that marijuana “can arouse in blacks and Hispanics a state of menacing fury or homicidal attack. During this period, addicts have perpetrated some of the most bizarre and fantastic offenses and sex crimes known to police annals.”

Anslinger linked marijuana with jazz and persecuted many black musicians, including Thelonius Monk, Dizzy Gillespie, and Duke Ellington. Louis Armstrong was also arrested on drug charges, and Anslinger made sure his name was smeared in the press. In Congress he testified that “[c]oloreds with big lips lure white women with jazz and marijuana.”

By the 1950s, amid the full blast of the Cold War, Anslinger was working with the CIA to charge that the newborn People’s Republic of China was attempting to undermine America by selling opium to U.S. crime syndicates. (This took a good deal of chutzpa on the part of the CIA, whose planes were then flying opium from Chiang Kai-shek’s bases in Burma to Thailand and the Philippines for processing and export to the U.S.A.) Anslinger convinced the U.S. Senate to approve a resolution stating that “subversion through drug addiction is an established aim of Communist China.”

In 1951, Anslinger worked with Democrat Hale Boggs to marshal through Congress the first minimum mandatory sentences for drug possession: two years for the first conviction of possession of a Schedule 1 drug (marijuana, cocaine), five to ten years for a second offense, and ten to twenty years for a third conviction. In 1956, Anslinger once again enlisted the help of Boggs to pass a law allowing the death penalty to be imposed on anyone selling heroin to a minor, the first linking of drugs with Death Row.

This was Anslinger’s last hurrah. Across John Kennedy’s New Frontier charged sociologists attacking Anslinger’s punitive philosophy. The tempo of the times changed, and federal money began to target treatment and prevention as much as enforcement and prison. But the interim did not last long. With the waning of the war in Southeast Asia, millions of addicted GIs came home to meet the fury of Nixon’s War on Drugs program. Nixon picked up Anslinger’s techniques of threat inflation, declaring in Los Angeles: “As I look over the problems of this country I see that one stands out particularly: the problem of narcotics.”

Nixon pledged to launch a war on drugs, to return to the punitive approach, and not let any quaint notions of civil liberties and constitutional rights stand in the way. After a Nixon briefing in 1969, his top aide, H. R. Haldeman, noted in his diary: “Nixon emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”

But for all his bluster, Nixon was a mere prelude to the full fury of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years, when the War on Drugs became explicitly a war on blacks. The first move of the Reagan administration was to expand the forfeiture laws passed during the Carter administration. In 1981, Reagan’s drug policy advisers outlined a plan they thought would be little more than good PR, a public display of the required toughness. They proposed allowing the Justice Department to seize real
property and so-called “substitute property” (that is, legally acquired assets equal in value to illegal monetary gains). They also proposed that the federal government seize attorneys’ fees that they suspected might have been funded by drug proceeds. They even proposed to allow attorneys to be summoned by federal prosecutors before grand juries to testify about the source of their clients’ money. The Reagan plan was to permit forfeitures on the basis of a “probable cause showing” before a federal judge. This meant that seizures could be made against people neither charged nor convicted, but only suspected, of drug crimes.

Contrary to the administration’s expectations, this plan sailed through Congress, eagerly supported by two Democratic Party liberals, Senators Hubert H. Humphrey and Joe Biden, the latter being the artificer, in the Carter era, of a revision to the RICO act, a huge extension of the federal conspiracy laws. Over the next few years, the press would occasionally report on some exceptionally bizarre applications of the new forfeiture laws, such as the confiscation of a $2.5 million yacht in a drug bust that netted only a handful of marijuana stems and seeds. But typically the press ignored the essential pattern of humdrum seizures, which more often focused on such ordinary assets as houses and cars. In Orange County, California, fifty-seven cars were seized in drug-related cases in 1989: “Even if only a small amount of drugs is found inside,” an Orange County narcotics detective explained, “the law permits seized vehicles to be sold by law enforcement agencies to finance anti-drug law enforcement programs.”

In fact, the forfeiture program became a tremendous revenue stream for the police. From 1982 to 1991, the U.S. Department of Justice seized more than $2.5 billion in assets. The Justice Department confiscated $500 million in property in 1991 alone, and 80 per cent of these seizures were from people who were never charged with a crime.

On June 17, 1986, University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died, reportedly from an overdose of cocaine. As Dan Baum put it in his excellent Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, “In life, Len Bias was a terrific basketball player. In death, he became the Archduke Ferdinand of the Total War on Drugs.” It was falsely reported that Bias had smoked crack cocaine the night before his death. (He had in fact used powder cocaine and, according to the coroner, there was no clear link between this use and the failure of his heart.)

Bias had just signed with the Boston Celtics and amid Boston’s rage and grief, Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, a representative from Massachusetts, rushed into action. In early July he convened a meeting of the Democratic Party leadership. “Write me some goddam legislation,” he ordered. “All anybody in Boston is talking about is Len Bias. They want blood. If we move fast enough we can get out in front of the White House.” The White House was itself moving fast. Among other things, the DEA had been instructed to allow ABC News to accompany it on raids against crack houses. “Crack is the hottest combat-reporting story to come along since the end of the Vietnam War,” the head of the New York office of the DEA exulted.

All this fed into congressional frenzy to write tougher laws. House Majority Leader Jim Wright called drug abuse “a menace draining away our economy of some $230 billion this year, slowly rotting away the fabric of our society and seducing and killing our young.” Not to be outdone, South Carolina Republican Thomas Arnett proclaimed that “drugs are a threat worse than nuclear warfare or any chemical warfare waged on any battlefield.” The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was duly passed. It contained twenty-nine new minimum mandatory sentences. Up until that time in the history of the Republic there had been only 56 mandatory minimum sentences in the whole penal code.

The new law had a death penalty provision for drug “kingpins” and prohibited parole for even minor possession offenses. But the chief target of the bill was crack cocaine. Congress established a 100-to-1 sentencing ratio between possession of crack and powder cocaine. Under this provision, possession of 5 grams of crack carries a minimum five-year federal prison sentence. The same mandatory minimum is not reached for any amount of powder cocaine less than 500 grams. This sentencing disproportion was based on faulty testimony that crack was fifty times as addictive as powder cocaine. Congress then doubled this ratio as a so-called “violence penalty.” There is no inherent difference in the drugs, as Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffery conceded. The federal Sentencing Commission, established by Congress to review sentencing guidelines, found that so-called “crack violence” is attributable to the drug trade and has more to do with the setting in which crack is sold: crack is sold on the street, while powder cocaine is vended by house calls. As Nixon and Haldeman would have approvingly noted about the new drug law, it was transparently aimed at blacks, reminiscent of the early targeting of Chinese smoking opium rather than white ladies sipping their laudanum-laced tonics.

In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reviewed eight years of application of this provision and found it to be undeniably racist in practice: 84 per cent of those arrested for crack possession were black, while only 10 per cent were white and 5 per cent Hispanic. The disparity for crack-trafficking prosecutions was even wider: 88 per cent blacks, 7 per cent Hispanics, 4 per cent whites. By comparison, defendants arrested for powder cocaine possession were 58 per cent white, 26 per cent black, and 15 per cent Hispanic.

In Los Angeles, all twenty-four federal defendants in crack cases in 1991 were black. The Sentencing Commission recommended to Congress and the Clinton administration that the ratio should be one-to-one between sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine, arguing that federal law allows for other factors to be considered by judges in lengthening sentences (such as whether violence was associated with the offense). But for the first time in its history the Congress rejected the Sentencing Commission’s recommendation and retained the 100-to-1 ratio. Clinton likewise declined the advice of his drug czar and his attorney general, and signed the bill.

One need only look at the racial makeup of federal prisons to appreciate the consequences of the 1986 drug law. In 1983, the total number of prisoners in federal, state and local prisons and jails was 660,800. Of those, 57,975—8.8 per cent—were incarcerated for drug-related offenses. In 1993, the total prison population was 1,408,000, of whom 353,564—25.1 per cent—were inside for drug offenses. The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.–based watchdog group, found that the increase was far from racially balanced. Between 1986 and 1991, the incarceration rate for white males convicted on drug crimes increased by 106 per cent. But the number of black males in prison for kindred offenses soared by a factor of 429 per cent, and the rate for black women went up by an incredible 828 per cent.

The queen of the drug war, Nancy Reagan, said amid one of her innumerable sermons on the issue: “If you’re a casual drug user, you’re an accomplice to murder.” In tune with this line of thinking, Congress moved in 1988 to expand the crimes for which the federal death penalty could be imposed. These included drug-related murders, and murders committed by drug gangs, which would allow any gang member to face the death penalty if one member of the gang was linked to a drug killing. The new penalties were inscribed in an update of the Continuing Criminal Enterprises Act. The figures arising from implementation of the act suggest that “black paranoia” has in fact a sound basis in reality.

Convictions under the act between 1989 and 1996 were 70 per cent white and 24 per cent black—but 90 per cent of the times the federal prosecutors sought the death penalty it was against non-whites: of these, 78 per cent were black and the rest Hispanic. From 1930 to 1972 (when the U.S. Supreme Court found the federal death penalty unconstitutional), 85 per cent of those given death sentences were white. When it was reapplied in 1984, with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the numbers for black death penalty convictions soared. Whether the offense is drug-related or not, a black is far more likely to end up on Death Row. Of those on Death Row, both federal and state, 50 per cent are black. Blacks constitute 16 per cent of the population. Since 1976, 40 per cent of the nation’s homicide victims have been black, but 90 per cent of death sentences handed down for homicide involved white victims.

In the drug war, Los Angeles was Ground Zero. On the streets of Los Angeles, gang-related killings were a constant presence to the residents of the mostly poor areas in which they occurred, as gangs fought out turf battles for distribution rights to the crack supplied by Ricky Ross and his associates in an operation connived at by the CIA. As long as it was confined to black areas of Los Angeles, little official attention was paid to this slaughter—an average of one murder per day from 1988 through 1990. However, in December 1987 a gang mistakenly killed 27-year-old Karen Toshima outside a cinema complex in Westwood, near the UCLA campus, prompting outrage from the city’s government: “The continued protection of gang activity under the guise of upholding our Constitution is causing a deadly blight on our city,” cried Los Angeles City Attorney Kenneth Hahn.

LAPD Chief Darryl Gates promptly rolled out his campaign to pacify inner-city Los Angeles, Operation Hammer. Even before this campaign, the LAPD was not known for its sensitivity to black people. In the 1970s, there had been more than 300 killings of non-whites by the LAPD, and Gate’s own racism was notorious. Responding to complaints about a string of choke-hold deaths, Gates blamed them on the physiology of blacks: “We may be finding that in some blacks, when [the choke-hold] is applied, the veins or arteries do not open as fast as they do on normal people.”

Operation Hammer was a counterinsurgency program that sometimes resembled the Phoenix program in Vietnam. There were hundreds of commando-style raids on “gang houses.” More than 50,000 suspected gang members were swept up for interrogation based on factors such as style of dress and whether the suspect was a young black male on the street past curfew. Of those caught up in such Hammer sweeps, 90 per cent were later released without charge, but their names were held in a computer database of gang members that was later shown to have included twice as many names as there were black youths in Los Angeles. Gates sealed off large areas of South Central as “narcotics enforcement zones.” There was a strict curfew, constant police presence, and on-the-spot strip searches for those caught outside after curfew.

In this war there were many innocent casualties. In 1989, the LAPD shotgunned to death an 81-year-old man they wrongly believed to be a crack dealer. Witnesses claimed that the old man had his hands up when he was blown away. In 1989, 75 per cent of all cases in the Los Angeles criminal courts were drug-related.

It would be difficult to find any documentary evidence that this War on Drugs had anything other than a deleterious effect. By 1990, black youth unemployment in the greater Los Angeles area was 45 per cent. Nearly half of all black males under the age of twenty-five had been in the criminal justice system. Life expectancy for blacks was falling for the first time in this century, and infant mortality in the city was rising. Some 40 per cent of black children were born into poverty.

Among those white people concerned by the awful conditions of life in the inner cities was government psychiatrist Fred Goodwin. In 1992, he was director of the umbrella agency ADAMHA, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Goodwin was an eager crusader for a national biomedical program to control violence, the core notion being the search for a “violence” gene. In the quest for this supposed biological basis for social crisis in the poverty-stricken and crime-ridden ghettoes, Goodwin was replicating all the Malthusian obsessions of late nineteenth and early twentieth century white American intellectuals and politicians. Many of supposedly enlightened people like Woodrow Wilson believed that sterilization was the best way to maintain the cleanliness in the national gene pool. It was too late to stop the arrival of Africans, but these Malthusians inspired the race exclusion laws of 1923, designed to keep out genetically dubious Slavs, Jews, Italians and other rabble—legislation admired by the Nazis.

On February 11, 1992, Goodwin gave a speech to the National Mental Health Advisory Council on the future of federal mental health policy, calling for an approach that would focus on presumed genetic and biomedical factors. Among Goodwin’s observations in his address:

There are discussions of “biological correlates” and “biological markers.” The individuals have defective brains with detectable prefrontal changes that may well be predictive of later violence. T
Quote 0 0
see link for full story


Huntsville schools paid $157,000 to former FBI agent, social media monitoring led to 14 expulsions

November 01, 2014

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- Huntsville City Schools paid a former FBI agent $157,000 last year to oversee security improvements, including the investigation of social media activity of public school students.

That online snooping effort, according to records provided on Thursday, led to the expulsion of just 14 students last school year. Of those students, 12 were African-American.

Madison County Commissioner Bob Harrison said the numbers suggest the system is targeting social media activities of black children. "That is effectively targeting or profiling black children in terms of behavior and behavioral issues," said Harrison.

But board member Laurie McCaulley, the only African-American member of the city school board, said expulsions are caused by serious offenses, involving weapons, drugs or sex.

"These numbers tell me that I have kids with some major issues," said McCaulley. "What I think the board is doing is trying to provide a safe environment for all children."

AL.com on Oct. 1 requested public records listing expulsions by race and expenses related to the security consultants involved in the online investigations known as the SAFe program. On Oct. 30, Huntsville City Schools provided records showing the system expelled 305 students last year. Of those, 238 were black.

That means 78 percent of all expulsions involved black children in a system where 40 percent of students are black. Expulsions related to social media investigations through the SAFe program were a small part of that total. Of those 14 expulsions related to SAFe, 86 percent involved black students.

The system also provided paperwork stating the system paid former FBI agent Chris McRae $157,190 in the last fiscal year. McRae runs the SAFe program. (Although the system took weeks to respond, this figure had been shared online by board candidate Elisa Ferrell a month ago.)

The SAFe program came to light through internal documents provided to AL.com. In subsequent interviews, Superintendent Casey Wardynski said the system security personnel investigated the social media accounts of 600 out of 24,000 city students since January.

Wardysnki has said the program operates on tips from teachers or students. Security personnel look for images of guns or gang signs on social media sites like Facebook

Keith Ward, spokesman for city schools, said McRae oversees the SAFe program, but also handles other consulting work related to security.

The system this week provided a 2012 proposal showing a list of salaries to be paid through T&W Operations, the consulting firm that employs McRae. Huntsville provided records showing $586,000 to be paid for salaries of T&W employees. That includes money for McRae, but also money for at least four other individuals in data
Quote 0 0

Chicago Black Panther members Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were assassinated in 1969 by the Chicago police following a conspiracy between the FBI and the police to kill everyone in the building that night. Fortunately for the Panthers only Hampton and Clark were in the building.

The FBI covered up this event until FBI agent Swearingen came forward and was prepared to testify in court about what he knew of the planned assassination.

When the FBI heard that FBI agent Swearingen would take the witness stand, the FBI settled out of court claiming it would be a great expense for the taxpayers to go on with a court trial.

To Kill A President is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle format.
M. Wesley Swearingen - To Kill A President

Quote 0 0
note article makes no mention
that in 1999 a Memphis jury concluded
FBI Director Hoover had Dr King assassinated.

couple of reads

1st read


The Martin Luther King Conspiracy Exposed in Memphis
By Jim Douglass
April 5, 2010

According to a Memphis jury’s verdict on December 8, 1999, in the wrongful death lawsuit of the King family versus Loyd Jowers "and other unknown co-conspirators," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government. Almost 32 years after King’s murder at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968, a court extended the circle of responsibility for the assassination beyond the late scapegoat James Earl Ray to the United States government.

I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, "Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?"

What I experienced in that courtroom ranged from inspiration at the courage of the Kings, their lawyer-investigator William F. Pepper, and the witnesses, to amazement at the government’s carefully interwoven plot to kill Dr. King. The seriousness with which U.S. intelligence agencies planned the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. speaks eloquently of the threat Kingian nonviolence represented to the powers that be in the spring of 1968.

In the complaint filed by the King family, "King versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators," the only named defendant, Loyd Jowers, was never their primary concern. As soon became evident in court, the real defendants were the anonymous co-conspirators who stood in the shadows behind Jowers, the former owner of a Memphis bar and grill. The Kings and Pepper were in effect charging U.S. intelligence agencies – particularly the FBI and Army intelligence – with organizing, subcontracting, and covering up the assassination. Such a charge guarantees almost insuperable obstacles to its being argued in a court within the United States. Judicially it is an unwelcome beast.

Many qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.) Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.

But these observations are not entirely to the point. Because of the government’s "sovereign immunity," it is not possible to put a U.S. intelligence agency in the dock of a U.S. criminal court. Such a step would require authorization by the federal government, which is not likely to indict itself. Thanks to the conjunction of a civil court, an independent judge with a sense of history, and a courageous family and lawyer, a spiritual breakthrough to an unspeakable truth occurred in Memphis. It allowed at least a few people (and hopefully many more through them) to see the forces behind King’s martyrdom and to feel the responsibility we all share for it through our government. In the end, twelve jurors, six black and six white, said to everyone willing to hear: guilty as charged.

We can also thank the unlikely figure of Loyd Jowers for providing a way into that truth.

Loyd Jowers: When the frail, 73-year-old Jowers became ill after three days in court, Judge Swearengen excused him. Jowers did not testify and said through his attorney, Lewis Garrison, that he would plead the Fifth Amendment if subpoenaed. His discretion was too late. In 1993 against the advice of Garrison, Jowers had gone public. Prompted by William Pepper’s progress as James Earl Ray’s attorney in uncovering Jowers’s role in the assassination, Jowers told his story to Sam Donaldson on Prime Time Live. He said he had been asked to help in the murder of King and was told there would be a decoy (Ray) in the plot. He was also told that the police "wouldn’t be there that night."

In that interview, the transcript of which was read to the jury in the Memphis courtroom, Jowers said the man who asked him to help in the murder was a Mafia-connected produce dealer named Frank Liberto. Liberto, now deceased, had a courier deliver $100,000 for Jowers to hold at his restaurant, Jim’s Grill, the back door of which opened onto the dense bushes across from the Lorraine Motel. Jowers said he was visited the day before the murder by a man named Raul, who brought a rifle in a box.

As Mike Vinson reported in the March–April Probe, other witnesses testified to their knowledge of Liberto’s involvement in King’s slaying. Store-owner John McFerren said he arrived around 5:15 pm, April 4, 1968, for a produce pick-up at Frank Liberto’s warehouse in Memphis. (King would be shot at 6:01 pm.) When he approached the warehouse office, McFerren overheard Liberto on the phone inside saying, "Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the balcony."

Café-owner Lavada Addison, a friend of Liberto’s in the late 1970’s, testified that Liberto had told her he "had Martin Luther King killed." Addison’s son, Nathan Whitlock, said when he learned of this conversation he asked Liberto point-blank if he had killed King.

"[Liberto] said, ‘I didn’t kill the nigger but I had it done.’ I said, ‘What about that other son-of-a-bitch taking credit for it?’ He says, ‘Ahh, he wasn’t nothing but a troublemaker from Missouri. He was a front man…a setup man.’"

Read the rest of the article

April 5, 2010

2nd read

see link for full story


What an Uncensored Letter to M.L.K. Reveals

NOVEMBER 11, 2014
The note is just a single sheet gone yellow with age, typewritten and tightly spaced. It’s rife with typos and misspellings and sprinkled with attempts at emending them. Clearly, some effort went into perfecting the tone, that of a disappointed admirer, appalled by the discovery of “hidious [sic] abnormalities” in someone he once viewed as “a man of character.”

The word “evil” makes six appearances in the text, beginning with an accusation: “You are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that.” In the paragraphs that follow, the recipient’s alleged lovers get the worst of it. They are described as “filthy dirty evil companions” and “evil playmates,” all engaged in “dirt, filth, evil and moronic talk.” The effect is at once grotesque and hypnotic, an obsessive’s account of carnal rage and personal betrayal. “What incredible evilness,” the letter proclaims, listing off “sexual orgies,” “adulterous acts” and “immoral conduct.” Near the end, it circles back to its initial target, denouncing him as an “evil, abnormal beast.”

The unnamed author suggests intimate knowledge of his correspondent’s sex life, identifying one possible lover by name and claiming to have specific evidence about others. Another passage hints of an audiotape accompanying the letter, apparently a recording of “immoral conduct” in action. “Lend your sexually psychotic ear to the enclosure,” the letter demands. It concludes with a deadline of 34 days “before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.”

“There is only one thing left for you to do,” the author warns vaguely in the final paragraph. “You know what it is.”

‘You Are Done’: The letter sent to King by the F.B.I. (One person’s name has been obscured because The Times could not verify or disprove the claims about her.)
When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received this letter, nearly 50 years ago, he quietly informed friends that someone wanted him to kill himself — and he thought he knew who that someone was. Despite its half-baked prose, self-conscious amateurism and other attempts at misdirection, King was certain the letter had come from the F.B.I. Its infamous director, J. Edgar Hoover, made no secret of his desire to see King discredited. A little more than a decade later, the Senate’s Church Committee on intelligence overreach confirmed King’s suspicion.
Quote 0 0

J. Edgar Hoover had black ancestors
Seán Mac Mathúna
Best site: The COINTELPRO Papers
COINTELPRO: FBI Activities in Hollywood

Cointelpro Revisited - Spying & Disruption



Armies of Repression: The FBI, COINTELPRO and Far Right Vigilante Networks

COINTELPRO: The Sabotage Of Legitimate Dissent

J. Edgar Hoover - who covered up his black ancestry


"Not all slave masters abused their slaves - Some actually treated them like family and bore children by them, like the Mississippi plantation owner, William Hoover. He had eight children by my Great Grandmother, Elizabeth Allen. One of those children was my Grandfather William Allen, and one was his brother, Ivery Hoover, who later had one son; J. Edgar." Millie McGhee, author of Secrets Uncovered, J Edgar Hoover - Passing For White?
A new book entitled Secrets Uncovered, J Edgar Hoover - Passing For White? has been published revealing that J Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI for most of its early history from 1924 until his death in 1972, had black ancestors. The author, Millie McGhee is an African-American who says she was told as a little girl in McComb, Mississippi, USA, of her familles links with Hoover, described by the author Edward Spannaus, his article The Mysterious Origins of J. Edgar Hoover as "one of the most virulent racists to hold a top government position" in the USA in the 20th century.

She says that her grandfather told of her of a "very powerful" man in Washington who was related to the family but did not want the links to be known and passed himself off as white. She reveals in her book that this man was Hoover, who was born in 1895, was apparently anxious that no one should know of his black origins.

McGhee, a former teacher in Los Angeles, contacted a genealogist in Salt Lake City, Utah, for help in tracing her family's history back over 200 years. Her research shows that Hoover's grandfather and great-grandfather lived in a segregated black area of Washington and were once classified in a census as "coloured". In the search of census records into the family of his father, Dickerson Naylor Hoover (who died in 1921 after a long illness) both the Hoover and Naylor families were living in areas of Washington D.C. - then itself a mostly segregated city - where blacks and whites were listed as living in close proximity. Some of the white Hoover families had blacks living with them, not as servants, but blacks being of the same occupation, such as "butcher'' or "clerk.'' There are also alterations and other oddities in a number of the Hoover family census records, and also in the racial listings which were then included in census records.

According to McGhee, her relatives were warned of "dire consequences" if they spoke publicly of his background. She said that as a little girl she believed that they would be killed if they mentioned the secret.

"Is this man so ashamed of his race that he would spend his whole life passing for white? . . . How has our race offended him ?"
She says that his obsession with the assassinated Civil Rights leaders Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, stemmed in part from a repressed anger about his secret life. Apparently, although members of the Hoover family have contacted her and said that they are not angry about the disclosures, McGhee's own family were unhappy with her decision to go public, as, understandably, they never wanted to be associated with him.

According to Spannaus, apparently it was well-known both ins
Quote 0 0

see link for full story

The New Black Panther Party, explained


November 16, 2014, 12:10 p.m. ET

When New Black Panther Party members turned up in Ferguson, Missouri, during the protests that followed the Michael Brown shooting, the FBI issued an alert. When the group was accused of voter intimidation at Philadelphia polling places during the 2009 election, Fox News breathlessly covered the allegations no fewer than 95 times.

Just recently, the very suggestion that a man responsible for an axe attack on New York City police officers was sympathetic to the organization — not even a member, but just sympathetic — made news.


There's a consensus that it's a hate group that spews anti-white and especially anti-Semitic rhetoric. But from one perspective, top among its offenses is the way it has hijacked the name of a legitimate organization — the original Black Panther Party — and scrambled its message, taking all of the justified anger and none of the disciplined, constructive work to improve life in America for black people.

Here are the answers to all of your questions about how that happened:

1) What is the New Black Panther Party all about?

Members of the New Black Panther Party rally in New York City after the death of Eric Garner, who was killed in a confrontation with police officers 2014. (Shutterstock)

The first thing to understand is that there's a huge difference between how the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) describes itself and how non-members understand it.

The group portrays itself as a modern day expression of the black power movement and a force standing up for the rights of African Americans. Indeed, members do tend to show up when black people are wronged, and they're mostly known for their armed demonstrations against alleged racial injustice — especially police brutality.

"If there's a Klan rally or someone doing something [racially] egregious they're the first to respond," said Jakobi Williams, associate professor of history and African-American studies at Indiana University and author of From the Bullet to the Ballot: The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and Racial Coalition Politics in Chicago.

But the idea that the NBPP is modern version of the Black Panther Party of the 1960s and 1970s, which was a militant but primarily service-focused organization, is summarily dismissed by everyone from civil rights groups, to scholars like Williams, to former Black Panther Party members. Instead, there's a broad consensus that its extreme anti-white views and anti-Semitic rhetoric (more on that later) make it a hate group.

The group has a "ten-point platform." It's
Quote 0 0

see link for full story


Steve McQueen to make film about Paul Robeson
The Oscar-winning director of 12 Years a Slave reveals that his next project will take as its subject the American civil rights activist, singer and actor

Tuesday 18 November 2014 17.52 EST

The artist and director Steve McQueen has revealed that his next film will be about the black American actor, singer and activist Paul Robeson.

McQueen, whose last film 12 Years a Slave won an Oscar for best picture, described the movie as his dream project.

“His life and legacy was the film I wanted to make the second after Hunger,” McQueen said, referring to his debut movie, about the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. “But I didn’t have the power, I didn’t have the juice.”

McQueen was speaking on stage in New York at the Hidden Heroes awards, organised by the Andrew Goodman Foundation, named in honour of one of three young civil rights activists murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi in 1964.


The director told the audience that he first discovered Robeson at the age of 14. A neighbour called Mr Milton used to give McQueen books and articles he thought might be of interest, and one day put a cutting about Robeson through his parents’ letterbox.

“It was about this black guy who was in Wales and was singing with these miners,” remembered McQueen. “I was about 14 years old, and not knowing who Paul Robeson was, this black American in Wales, it seemed strange. So then, of course, I just found out that this man was an incredible human being.”

The son of an escaped slave, the young Robeson excelled at virtually everything he turned his hand to. Abandoning a legal career after experiencing severe racism at work, Robeson embarked on an acting and singing career that earned him worldwide fame.

At the same time, he campaigned against racism and social injustice, performing for loyalist soldiers in the Spanish civil war, at anti-Nazi demonstrations – and frequently in south Wales, after a delegation of unemployed miners walked to London to meet Robeson, who was appearing in Show Boat in the West End.

During the McCarthy era in the US, Robeson was denounced as a communist, blacklisted from film studios and concert venues, and refused a passport to travel abroad. Though it was reinstated in 1958, his career – along with his mental health – had been brutally curtailed.


McQueen has made Robeson the subject of a previous artwork, End Credits. The camera scrolls through documents detailing the FBI’s persecution of the actor, while a voiceover reads out excerpts. The Guardian’s art critic Adrian Searle described it as “a chilling record of the exercise of power, and Robeson’s equally concerted effort to fight against it.”

Robeson’s friend and peer Harry Belafonte is involved in McQueen’s forthcoming film. The pair met at the New York Film Critics awards. “We get on like a house on fire,” McQueen told the Guardian. “I never thought I’d make a new friend, and a man who is 87 years old but I’m very happy, he’s a beautiful man.”

In New York on Monday night Belafonte awarded McQueen the Andrew Goodman Foundation’s Media Hero award, saying: “I am soon to be 88 years of age, and in the face of that raw and disturbing truth, I am so honoured and so rewarded that I should have lived long enough to see the emergence of a young man in the world of culture who delivered to us one of the quintessential works of art in film.”

12 Years a Slave, he said, “is absolutely without any equivocation the finest picture dealing with a deeper and more profound look at black life, black people, black struggle and black power.”
Quote 0 0

Dr Tyronne Powers is a African American and a former FBI agent.
He spoke at our 11th Annual Conference Investigating Crimes Committed by FBI agents.
His book Eyes to My Soul details the racism
within the FBI


Behind closed doors, Rawlings-Blake, Young clashed over body cameras, Tyrone Powers

Talks on Baltimore body camera task force fell apart over former FBI agent's inclusion
By now, everyone who follows Baltimore news has probably heard that two proponents of police body cameras — Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young — are at loggerheads over the details of how to implement the program.

lRelated Body camera wars [Poll]
Body camera wars [Poll]
Related story: Council passes body camera bill, plastic bag ban, but veto looms
Related story: Council passes body camera bill, plastic bag ban, but veto looms
Luke Broadwater
Young has championed legislation to require all of the city's nearly 3,000 police officers to wear body cameras as part of an effort to cut down on police brutality. Rawlings-Blake has vowed to veto that bill, opting for a mayoral task force to study privacy issues and cost before purchasing body cameras.

Behind closed doors, the two have clashed over whether the council has the legal authority to require police to wear the cameras and whether Young's bill wastes taxpayer money by requiring the city to buy too many cameras for officers who don't interact with the public. Each side has accused the other of being unwilling to compromise.

But there was another seemingly small dispute that helped fuel the larger fire. This one centered over whether former FBI agent Tyrone Powers, who is a director at Anne Arundel Community College, would be named to the city's body camera task force. Powers is well-known as the former host of "The Powers Report" on WOLB 1010 AM. He filed an unsuccessful suit against the state of Maryland in 2008, alleging he was pulled off WEAA radio for making comments critical of Gov. Martin O'Malley. The governor's office denied those claims.

In discussions with Young, Rawlings-Blake asked for the council president to participate in her task force, and change the council bill to non-binding resolution.

Body camera wars [Poll]
Body camera wars [Poll]
She offered to give Young choice of two seats on her 12-member task force, according to both sides. Young asked that City Councilman Warren Branch and Powers be appointed to the panel. She agreed to Branch, but balked at Powers.

"In putting the group together, we wanted to have people from as varied a background as possible," said Kevin Harris, a spokesman for Rawlings-Blake. "There were already folks on the task force that had that level of experience. It had nothing to do with Mr. Powers himself."

Harris said the mayor asked Young, "Are there other names that we could add? [Young] was very adamant that Mr. Powers be his person. Unfortunately we weren’t able to reach an agreement."

Harris said Young walked out of a meeting with the mayor the day of the council's first vote on the legislation.

"I named Tyrone Powers," Young recalled. "She didn’t want him for whatever reason. ... If you want to work with the council, work with me. It was either my way or the highway. It can’t be that way all the time."

Lester Davis, a spokesman for Young, said the dispute over Powers played little role in the lack of compromise on the legislation.

"He's comfortable with him. He’s worked with him in the past," Davis said of Young and Powers. "Yes, the Council President was upset, but he was open to amending the legislation. This deal falling apart had nothing to do with Tyrone Powers."
Quote 0 0

see link for full story


FBI notorious for assassinating blacks: US activist
Randy Short says that the FBI is assassinating those people who are seeking to protect the rights of blacks.
Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:17AM
An African-American activist says that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is notorious for assassinating those who are seeking to protect the rights of blacks in the United States.

“The FBI is far from being an agency that has protected the rights of African-Americans or others,” Dr. Randy Short from Black Autonomy Network Community Organization told Press TV on Saturday.

“They have been notorious in having black men and women, in particular who’ve been fighting for the freedom of African-Americans, murdered, killed, framed or assassinated,” he added.

The activist made the remarks after the FBI arrested two black people suspected of buying explosives for possible protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after a grand jury decides the Michael Brown case.

On August 9, police officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old Brown, claiming it was an act of self defense.

The grand jury is expected to make a decision in the next few days. The jury will either indict Wilson or will decide that he should not be tried on criminal charges.

Ferguson has been the scene of public demonstrations since the fatal shooting.

“I’m quite curious that no one has been able to bring charges against this white police officer who executed Michael Brown,” Dr. Short said.

“This is all the pretext for repression and violence against the African-Americans who stood up in the wake of the murder of Michael Brown,” he noted.

Meanwhile, the FBI has sent some 100 agents to the St. Louis area to prepare for the grand jury decision and the unrest it might provoke.

“The FBI has never been fair. It ha
Quote 0 0

as a good criminal justice consumer,
you know the voter and taxpayer who
funds the electronic cesspools called
prisons that have a 75% failure rate
and the police who are nothing more than
returning serial killers with PTSD
from Iraq the consumer would ask
were FBI agents involved in murdering
the 3 civil rights workers?
Was Sheriff Rainey who was charged with their murders but acquitted
by an all white jury, a graduate of the FBI Academy?

Later in the 1990's FBI Director Louis Freeh
claimed New York FBI agent Lyndley DeVecchio
sent his informant Mafia psychopath Greg Scarpa Sr
to find out what happened to the civil rights workers.

FBI agent DeVecchio was under investigation for collaborating
with Scarpa in several murders.
Scarpa had murdered over 100 women and men
while working as a FBI informant and was known as the Grim Reaper.
A book called The Killing Machine was based on his life.so you can now safely guess FBI Director Louis Freeh was
fibbing about Scarpa and Devecchio hoping to
divert attention from the FBI public relations nightmare that was
also happening in Boston as well.


Were FBI agents involved murdering the three civil rights

World News | November 24, 2014


Honour for civil rights workers

The FBI poster of the civil rights workers who were shot by Klansmen.
The FBI poster of the civil rights workers who were shot by Klansmen.

Three US civil rights workers who were killed by Ku Klux Klansmen in 1964 are going to be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The murders and subsequent FBI investigation was the subject of the Academy Award nominated film Mississippi Burning in 1998.

The workers were in Neshoba County, Mississippi, to look into a church burning when they were shot by Klansmen.

The FBI launched a massive investigation that it dubbed ‘Mississippi Burning’ and the three bodies were found 44 days later, buried in an earthen dam.
Quote 0 0

Add a Website Forum to your website.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.