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

Material posted here will deal with solutions for problems posted in this forum.

Because taxpayer funded FBI  agents are allowed to commit their crimes in the dark by the corporate controlled media how can the voter and taxpayer raise public consciousness about the tax payer funded crime family called the FBI?
Example: Should we let the public forget FBI  agents helped assassinate President Kennedy?

As always the more ideas the better eh? You do know what to do?
Quote 0 0

Police Family Violence Fact Sheet

Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general. A police department that has domestic violence offenders among its ranks will not effectively serve and protect victims in the community.5, 6, 7, 8 Moreover, when officers know of domestic violence committed by their colleagues and seek to protect them by covering it up, they expose the department to civil liability.7

Unique Vulnerability | Failure of Departmental Policies | "Exceedingly Light Discipline" | Performance Evaluations Not Affected | The LAPD Investigation | Legislative Response | Lack of Enforcement Undermines Law's Effectiveness | Resources | Footnotes

Unique Vulnerability

Domestic violence is always a terrible crime, but victims of a police officer are particularly vulnerable because the officer who is abusing them:

  • has a gun,
  • knows the location of battered women's shelters, and
  • knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim.5, 6

Victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.5, 7

Failure of Departmental Policies

These suspicions are well founded, as most departments across the country typically handle cases of police family violence informally, often without an official report, investigation, or even check of the victim's safety.5, 8, 9 This "informal" method is often in direct contradiction to legislative mandates and departmental policies regarding the appropriate response to domestic violence crimes. Moreover, a 1994 nationwide survey of 123 police departments documented that almost half (45%) had no specific policy for dealing with officer-involved domestic violence. In that same study:

  • The most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling.
  • Only 19% of the departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence.9
  • A recent study of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department found inconsistent policies and practices for officers accused of domestic violence, regarding arrests, seizure of firearms, and Employee Assistance treatment.10 There is no reason to believe that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is unique in this; rather, this inconsistency is typical for police agencies responding to domestic violence committed by its own members.

Although the International Association of Chiefs of Police have prepared a model policy on police officer-involved domestic violence, there is no evidence that police departments across the country are doing anything other than simply including the policy in their manuals.

Violent Police Officers Receive "Exceedingly Light Discipline"

The reality is that even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution, raising concern that those who are tasked with enforcing the law cannot effectively police themselves.5, 6, 7 For example:

  • In 1998-1999, 23 domestic violence complaints were filed against Boston police employees, but none resulted in criminal prosecution.6
  • The San Diego City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of the domestic violence cases that are referred, but only 42% of the cases involving a police officer as the perpetrator are prosecuted.11
  • Between 1990 and 1997, the Los Angles Police Department investigated 227 cases of alleged domestic violence by officers, of which 91 were sustained. Of these 91 allegations that were sustained by the department, only 4 resulted in a criminal conviction. That means that the LAPD itself determined in 91 cases that an officer had committed domestic violence, but only 4 were convicted on a criminal charge. Moreover, of these 4 officers who were convicted on a criminal charge of domestic violence, one was suspended for only 15 days and another had his conviction expunged.12

In fact, an in-depth investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department conducted by the Office of the Inspector General concluded that the discipline imposed on officers found guilty of domestic violence "was exceedingly light when the facts of each incident were examined" (p. i).12

Performance Evaluations Not Affected; Violent Officers Often Promoted

The study of the Los Angeles Police Department further examined the 91 cases in which an allegation of domestic violence was sustained against an officer.


  • Over three-fourths of the time, this sustained allegation was not mentioned in the officer's performance evaluation.
  • Twenty-six of these officers (29%) were promoted, including six who were promoted within two years of the incident.

The report concluded that "employees with sustained allegations were neither barred from moving to desired positions nor transferred out of assignments that were inconsistent with the sustained allegation" (p. iii).12

The LAPD Investigation

In 1997, the Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of the LAPD after a legal consultant named Bob Mullally leaked shocking LAPD personnel files to the press. These files documented scores of violent domestic crimes committed by LAPD officers. Mullally was so shocked by the LAPD's mishandling of this police family violence that he decided to violate the civil protective order in the case he was working on and turn the files over to the media, in the hopes of creating change in the LAPD.

  • Rather than reviewing the problem or recommending improvements, the LAPD sued Mullally for leaking the information.
  • In 2002, after multiple appeals, Mullally was sentenced to 45 days in federal prison. None of the police officers he exposed were ever prosecuted for their crimes, and many continue to serve as gun-carrying LAPD officers.
    Even the prosecutor in the case stated on record that this sentence was "extreme" for a violation of a civil protective order.
  • Mullally is the first person in United States history to ever serve a jail term for this type of violation. He served his time in 2003, 6 years after he exposed the files.

The National Center for Women & Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundation have been actively involved in this case, which was featured in 2000 in a 60 Minutes segment with Mike Wallace. For more information on the case or to obtain documents including the amicus brief submitted by the National Center for Women & Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundation, please contact our office at (310)556-2526.

Legislative Response

In 1996, an important federal law was passed, which prohibits individuals -- including police officers -- from owning or using a firearm if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense (18 U.S.C. § 925).13


  • This bill was designed to expand the federal law which only barred gun ownership from those convicted of a felony offense.14
  • A section of the 1994 Crime Bill also prohibits individuals from possessing a firearm while a protective order, restraining order, or harassment order is in effect.15There is an “official use” exemption, however, that allows police and military personnel who are subject to protective orders to possess their government-issued firearms while on duty. This exemption is in effect unless the protective order specifically states the officer can not carry a weapon at any time (18 U.S.C. § 925).

    Lack of Enforcement Undermines Effectiveness of the Law

    Unfortunately, an early analysis of the Domestic Violence Gun Ban on police officers shows that law enforcement officers have been able to circumvent the ban and retain their weapons. A 1999 survey of the nation's largest 100 police departments revealed that only six cities acted against officers because of the Domestic Violence Gun Ban and only eleven officers were affected. Part of the reason for the lack of enforcement is that police officers plead to a charge other than domestic violence.16 However, there are also other problems.


    • First, there is typically no procedure in place to ensure that the courts notify police departments that a court order is in effect against an officer. Most police departments rely on the police officer to personally inform the department of the order, thereby limiting its effectiveness.15
    • The threat of losing their gun and job can also motivate police officers to work harder to insure that their victims tell no one about the abuse. This can make victims of police family violence even more reluctant to report the crime. 5, 17

    Finally, there is evidence that some officers convicted of domestic violence have their records expunged and remain on the department.12, 16, 18, 19, 20

Quote 0 0

see link for full story




FCIR’s Trevor Aaronson Talks About ‘The Terror Factory’ on CBS This Morning

Florida Center for Investigative Reporting Associate Director Trevor Aaronson was a guest Jan. 11 on CBS This Morning. In a conversation with Charlie Rose, Gayle King and John Miller, Aaronson discussed the findings of his new book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, which questions the efficacy of FBI terrorism sting operations. Miller, a CBS News senior correspondent who was formerly assistant director of the FBI, called Aaronson’s book “an amazing piece of reporting.”

In The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism (Ig Publishing, January 2013), which grew out of an award-winning Mother Jones cover story, Aaronson analyzed more than 500 federal terrorism prosecutions from 2001 to 2012 and questioned whether U.S. law enforcement is creating the very enemy the nation fears.

Aaronson found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has, “under the guise of engaging in counterterrorism since 9/11, built a network of more than 15,000 informants to infiltrate Muslim communities and ferret out would-be terrorists. The Bureau then provides the means necessary for these would-be terrorists to move forward with a terrorist plot — in some cases even planting specific ideas for attacks.”

Few Americans, Aaronson says, realize that since 9/11 the FBI has been responsible for hatching and financing more terrorist plots in the United States than any other group.

“In the ten years following 9/11, the FBI and the Justice Department indicted and convicted more than 150 people following sting operations involving alleged connections to international terrorism,” Aaronson writes. “Few of these defendants had any connection to terrorists, evidence showed, and those who did have connections, however tangential, never had the capacity to launch attacks on their own. In fact, of the more than 150 terrorism sting operation defendants, an FBI informant not only led one of every three terrorist plots, but also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.”

Aaronson reports that through these elaborate and expensive sting operations involving informants and undercover agents posing as terrorists, the FBI has arrested — and the U.S. Justice Department has prosecuted — dozens of men who government officials say posed terrorist threats. He says evidence suggests, however, that some of those under FBI scrutiny did not have the capacity for terrorism and that  FBI undercover agents provided the means, including weapons and logistical support.

Aaronson’s other findings in The Terror Factory include:

  • In the 10 years following 9/11, the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department indicted more than 150 people following sting operations involving alleged connections to international terrorism. Few of these defendants had any connection to terrorists, publicly available evidence shows, and those who did have connections, however tangential, did not have the capacity to launch attacks on their own.
  • Of these defendants caught up in FBI terrorism sting operations, an FBI informant was the person who led one of every three terrorist plots, and the FBI also provided all of the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.
  • Following a post-9/11 presidential mandate to increase human intelligence gathering, the number of FBI informants swelled to 15,000. The increase in the number of informants was so dramatic that the FBI created a new software package to help track and manage its army of snitches.
  • Some of the FBI’s informants have strong financial incentives to find alleged terrorists, with the FBI rewarding them with $100,000 or more per case. Other informants are coerced into cooperating with the FBI for fear of deportation or criminal prosecution, records show.

Aaronson’s book has received praise from reviewers, journalists and former government officials. In a starred review, Publishers Weekly described The Terror Factory as “compelling, shocking, and gritty with intrigue.” Lowell Bergman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who founded the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkeley, called The Terror Factory “investigative reporting at its best,” and James J. Wedick, a former FBI agent who supervised undercover work, said the author “explains just how misguided and often deceptive FBI terrorism sting operations have become.”

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting will excerpt The Terror Factory in the coming weeks and highlight some of Aaronson’s reporting about Florida terrorism sting cases.

Aaronson will talk about the book at events nationwide in January and February. Upcoming events include:

January 21, 2013, 7:30 p.m.
Powell’s City of Books
1005 West Burnside Street
Portland, OR

January 23, 2013, 7 p.m.
City Lights Books
261 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94133
A conversation with Monika Bauerlein, co-editor of Mother Jones magazine. C-SPAN’s Book TV will film this event.

January 30, 2013, 7 p.m.
Politics and Prose
5015 Connecticut Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20008

January 31, 2013, 6:15 p.m.
Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute
435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
Book launch event hosted by Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, Council on American-Islamic Relations-New York, and National Lawyers Guild-New York.

February 4, 2013, 7 p.m.
The Half King
505 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10011

February 6, 2013, 6:30 p.m.
St. Joseph’s College
245 Clinton Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11205
A conversation with Betsy Reed, executive editor of The Nation magazine.

Quote 0 0

see link for full story


Anti-war, international solidarity activists tell Chicago Law School: “Don’t honor bullies like U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald"

By Staff |
January 18, 2013
Read more articles in FBI Repression

Chicago, IL - Anti-war and international solidarity activists, who have been the target of a massive and continuing two year Department of Justice investigation into their First Amendment protected activities, are calling on John Marshall Law School not to honor former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald will be the commencement speaker at the law school's graduation Sunday, Jan. 20, and will receive an honorary degree.

The activists are organizing a national call-in day Jan.18, to John Marshall’s Dean, John Corkery, asking him to rescind the honorary degree.

The groups are also planning to protest outside the law school commencement on Sunday, Jan. 20, at 3:00 pm at the Hyatt Regency, 151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago.

The call-in day and protest is sponsored by the Chicago Committee Against Political Repression, Coalition to Protect People’s Rights, Palestine Solidarity Group - Chicago and the U.S. Palestinian Community Network. The effort is backed by the Committee to Stop FBI Repression

U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald had a record of bullying anti-war and Palestine activists, including:

Prosecuting Palestinians Abdelhaleem Ashqar and Muhammad Salah, using a confession forced under torture in an Israeli prison. After Ashqar and Salah were acquitted of the major "terrorism"-related charges, Ashqar was indicted and convicted for invoking his constitutional right not to testify to a grand jury--clearly a punitive response by Fitzgerald after his very public loss in the case; and

Prosecuting whistle blower CIA employee, John Kiriakou, the only person going to prison for the CIA’s torture scandals of the past decade. Kiriakou didn’t torture anyone – he’s going to prison for blowing the whistle on torture.

Holy Land Five: also in Fitzgerald’s office, Special Prosecutor Barry Jonas played the major role in the case of the Holy Land Five, in which leaders of a Palestinian Muslim charity were convicted of providing material aid to terrorism. They were sentenced to many decades in prison, based on alleged donations to the same Gaza-based charities that the U.S. government donated to, and based on the secret testimony of an agent of the Israeli state. Jonas has taken over the current investigation into the 23 anti-war activists.

Hatem Abudayyeh, a Palestinian community activist in Chicago whose home was raided by the FBI in 2010, is still waiting for his belongings to be returned by the U.S. Attorney’s office. Abudayyeh said, “The U.S. Attorney’s office has continued this witch hunt for over two years. It’s time to publicly exonerate us and admit that they found absolutely no ‘material support for terrorists,’ as they allege, but only constitutionally-protected opposition to U.S. foreign policy and support for oppressed people in Palestine, Colombia and beyond.”

Joe Iosbaker, another one of the Chicago activists whose home was subjected to a dawn raid by 25 FBI agents in 2010, said, “With the case of Aaron Swartz, the net activist who committed suicide last week under intimidation by Boston’s U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, there is growing awareness of this bullying by prosecutors.”

The Committee to Stop FBI Repression is urges people to call John Marshall Law School Dean John Corkery at 312-987-2352 and tell him that Patrick Fitzgerald should not be honored in any way.

Quote 0 0

annotated bibliography

Aaronson, Trevor. The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism 
Ig Publishing Brooklyn New York 2013
Exposes how the FBI has, under the guise of engaging in counterterrorism since 9/11, built a network of more than 15,000 informants whose primary purpose is to infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots so that the Bureau can then claim it is winning the war on terror.

Bari, Judi. TIMBER WARS. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994.
The F.B.I. attempted to stop the political activity of Judi Bari and Daryl Cherney by exploding a
bomb under their car. Daryl Cherney and Judi Bari filed a Civil lawsuit
against the FBI and Oakland police. A jury awarded them $4.4 million
dollars in 2003. see http://www.judibari.org

Bowen Roger. INNOCENCE IS NOT ENOUGH: The Life and Death of Herbert Norman
New York USA M.E. Sharpe Inc 1988
Looks at FBI assassination of Herbert Norman, Canadian Ambassador to Egypt.

Buitrago, Ann Mari. F.B.I. FILES. Grove Press, 1981.
Covers the procedures for obtaining and interpreting your F.B.I. file.

Burnham, David. ABOVE THE LAW. Scribner, 1996.
Looks at secret deals and fixing of cases by the Justice Department for corporations.
Burnham was the New York Times reporter who broke the story about New York City cop Serpico and Police corruption.
He was the reporter on route to meet Karen Silkwood when she was found murdered. Read his other book A LAW UNTO ITSELF.
It details how FBI agents collaborate with the IRS to target political activists.
see his important website about the FBI
here http://trac.syr.edu/

Burnham, David A LAW UNTO ITSELF Vintage January 30, 1991 ISBN-10: 0679732837
Exposes FBI agents using the IRS to cripple political activists.

Buttino, Frank. A SPECIAL AGENT. William Morrow, 1993.
Investigates F.B.I. attacks on gay FBI agents .
This book is written by a FBI agent who is gay. It details how other FBI
agents tormented him .

Carson, Clayborne. MALCOLM X: THE F.B.I. FILE. Carroll & Graf, 1991.
Looks at the evidence for the F.B.I. assassination of Malcolm X.

Cashill,Jack, Sanders,James. FIRST STRIKE Thomas Nelson Press, 2003
Overwhelming evidence presented by Dr. Cashill on the downing of TWA
Flight 800 by a missle over Long Island and the ensuing cover-up by FBI
agents.One of my favorite books. see their documentary about the same
subject called SILENCED here

Charns, Alexander. CLOAK AND GAVEL. University of Illinois Press. 1992.
After reviewing thousands of pages of FBI documents the attorney author
exposes the FBI illegal phone tapping of the Supreme Court and how the
FBI fix court cases and work behind the scenes to get "their man"
appointed to the Supreme Court. Written by a lawyer active in Human

Churchill, Ward. AGENTS OF REPRESSION. South End Press, 1988.
Professor Churchill gives first hand accounts of F.B.I. death squad
activities. This book is a classic and is a must read along with THE

Churchill, Ward. THE COINTELPRO PAPERS. South End Press, 1990.
Explores how the F.B.I. disrupts legitimate political activities and engage in Death Squad activities.

Criley, Richard. THE F.B.I. VS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT. First Amendment Foundation, 1990.
Looks at the destruction of the First Amendment by the F.B.I.

KENNEDY. McGraw-Hill, 1989.
A must read book in understanding how the FBI has used the Mafia to carry out the assassination of President Kennedy.

De Camp, John. THE FRANKLIN COVERUP. AWT Publishers, 1992.
A former Republican state senator from Nebraska writes about a
pedophile ring involved in the kidnaping, sexual torture and murder of
children that went all the way to the Bush White House.
Attorney DeCamp discusses the FBI role in the coverup of this case and
the murder of a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the
pedophile ring.This book will keep you awake at night and is an active
barometer for evil indexing how the FBI crime family operates.

Foundation, 1999. Examines FBI campaign of terror to undermine civil
liberties. Attorney Dempsey worked for Congressman Don Edwards who was
a former FBI agent.

Diamond, Sigmund. COMPROMISED CAMPUS. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Professor Diamond attempts to get F.B.I. files showing collaboration
between F.B.I. agents and professors at universities from 1945-1955.
The FBI created the Patriot Act , in part, because of this book.

Donner, Frank. PROTECTORS OF PRIVILEGE. University of California Press, 1990.
Looks at the death squad collaboration between local police and F.B.I. agents to stifle the Bill of Rights.

Dwyer, James. TWO SECONDS UNDER THE WORLD. Diane publishers 1997.
The most important book you will read on understanding FBI agents Floyd
and Anticev creating the 1993 terrorist act at the World Trade Center.
This book lays out in detail how the FBI engineered
the 1993 World Trade Center explosion.

Edmonds, Sibel D   Classified Woman-The Sibel Edmonds Story: A Memoir
2012  Sibel D Edmonds publisher
In this startling new memoir, former FBI  agent/analyst Sibel Edmonds—the most classified woman in U.S. history—takes us on a surreal journey that begins with the secretive FBI and down the dark halls of a feckless Congress to a stonewalling judiciary and finally, to the national security whistleblowers movement she spearheaded.

Emerson, Steven and Brian Duffy. THE FALL OF PAN AM 103. G.B. Putnam's Sons, 1990.
Oliver Revell was the number 2 man at the F.B.I. until he was demoted
by F.B.I. Director William Sessions to the Dallas Field Office. His son
Chris Revell had tickets for Pan Am 103, but he changed his flight two days before the plane
exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. See Ross Gelbspan's book, BREAK-INS,
DEATH THREATS AND THE FBI to get a fuller picture of Oliver Revell.

Flannery, Greg .  REACH OUT AND TAPE SOMEONE  . In These Times Magazine
March 1989 issue
This article appeared in the March issue of the national publication  IN THESE TIMES.
It details the massive illegal FBI  wiretap program
placed on US Presidents, members of Congress, Judges, people of color, local politicians during the 1970's thru the 1980's. This was before the Patriot Act.
More important it details how FBI  agents working with local police were committing voter fraud and arson.
see   https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=

Foerstel, Herbert. SURVEILLANCE IN THE STACKS. Greenwood Press, 1991.
Looks at attempts by the F.B.I. to get librarians to spy on the American public .The FBI created the Library Clauses in the Patriot Act because of this book.

Gallagher, Dorothy. ALL THE RIGHT ENEMIES. Penguin Books, 1988.
The F.B.I. utilized the Mafia to carry out its executions against Presidents and political activists from 1930 through 2000.
Carlos Tresca was one of their victims.

Gelbspan, Ross. BREAK- INS, DEATH THREATS, AND THE F.B.I. South End Press, 1991.
This Pulitzer Prize winning reporter formerly with the Boston Globe,
details the F.B.I. death squad collaboration with the death squads in
El Salvador and their attacks upon American groups opposed to those
death squads.

Glick, Brian. WAR AT HOME. South End Press, 1989.
Attorney Glick details the F.B.I.’s covert war against political activists.

Goulet, Donald  Chesuncook Author House 2008
Autobiography of a FBI agent plagued by mental illness.

House, 1998.
Contains detailed evidence about the FBI alliance with the terrorist
underworld, and how FBI agent provocateurs are behind many of the
current bombings that have plagued the United States since the fall of
the Berlin Wall. Some current thinking has FBI agents creating these
acts to fill the void caused by the downfall of communism and replacing
communism with the new boogeyman Islam.

Holland, Max . Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat
Deep Throat FBI  Supervisor Mark Felt, the number two guy in the FBI during Watergate, was leaking, not out of concern for public good but rather because he was angry he was not getting the top spot in the bureau
University Press Kansas  2012

Hougan, Jim. SPOOKS. William Morrow, 1978.
Important book detailing the life of former F.B.I. agent Robert Maheux
and his relationship with the Mafia. Groundbreaking book in
understanding FBI collaboration with the Mafia, using it to carry out
assassinations on President Kennedy, Martin Luther King and others.
Maheux was the liason between the Mafia and the FBI when the FBI assassinated President Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Kaiser, Marty . Odyssey of an Eavesdropper( My Life in electronic
countermeasures and my battle against the FBI) W Carroll & Graf 2005
Author exposes wiretapping crimes committed by FBI agents as well as
Business Fraud. He built the wiretapping devices for FBI agents that
were later used in crimes committed against people like Martin Luther
King and public officials.After exposing FBI agents kickback schemes to
Congress the author became a target of retaliation by tax payer funded
FBI agents. see http://www.martykaiser.com/odyssey2.htm

Keith, Jim. OK BOMB. Illuminate, 1996.
Explores FBI coverup in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation.

Kelly, John F. TAINTING EVIDENCE. The Free Press 1998. The book is
based on testimony of FBI lab Whistleblower Dr. Frederick Whitehurst ,
an employee of the FBI for 17 years. Shows how bad the FBI Lab is run.
Dr. Whitehurst was the chemist who analyzed Timothy McVeigh's clothes
for traces of ammonium nitrate and was removed from the case when he
did not find any bomb residue.

Lehr, Dick & O'Neill, Gerard. BLACK MASS. Public Affairs, 2000.
Looks at the FBI's collaboration in Boston with the Mafia and Irish Mob
between 1960 and 2001 in which they collaborated in the murder of 21
women,children and men. Important book showing how the FBI uses the
Mafia to commit political and other assassinations .see

Lindauer, Susan Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq  2010 Susan Lindauer publisher
More evidence showing the FBI, CIA  and other government agencies created 911.
What if the government decided to invent a great lie to justify a disastrous war and a questionable anti-terrorism policy? What would happen to the people who know the truth? EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers an explosive, high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA's advance warnings of 9/11 and an insider's look at Pre-War Intelligence, told by one of the very few U.S. Assets covering Iraq before the War.

McGhee , Millie WHAT'S DONE IN THE DARK  Allen Morris 2005
The author is a afro american relative of FBI  Director J Edgar Hoover
who is successful in presenting evidence that FBI  Director Hoover is part African-American
and related to her.
The book details the research conducted by Ms McGhee  and how FBI  agents tried to stop her from writing the book. Photographs show reunion of white and black relatives united by the research in this book. FBI Director  J Edgar Hoover was the descendant of Mississippi slaves.

Melanson, Phillip. THE MURKIN CONSPIRACY. Praeger, 1989.
Professor Melanson looks at the F.B.I.’s role in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Melanson, Phillip. THE ROBERT KENNEDY ASSASSINATION. Shapolsky, 1991.
Professor Melanson was in charge of the Robert Kennedy archives at the University of Massachusetts.
He detailed the F.B.I.’s role as one of the principal architects in the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Messerschmidt, Jim. THE TRIAL OF LEONARD PELTIER. South End Press, 1983.
Looks at the miscarriage of justice in the F.B.I.’s handling of the Leonard Peltier case.

Morrow, Robert  First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992)

Oklahoma City Bombing Investigative Committee. THE FINAL REPORT.2001.
The book providing evidence of FBI involvement in the Oklahoma City
Bombing .

Navasky, Victor. INVESTIGATING THE F.B.I. Doubleday, 1973.
Contains material presented at a major conference at Princeton University in 1971 investigating
crimes committed by the FBI.

Neff, James. MOBBED UP. Dell Publishers 1988.
Important book in understanding FBI collaboration with the Mafia
especially how the Bureau uses the Mafia to carry out its political

Nelson, Jack. THE F.B.I. AND THE BERRIGANS. Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1972.
Looks at F.B.I. death squad directed against Nobel Peace Prize nominee Phil Berrigan and his
brother, Jesuit priest Daniel Berrigan.

Doubleday, 2000.
Provides supporting evidence for the idea of the F.B.I. as a death
squad. Examines the F.B.I. acts of genocide against Afro-Americans .
Looks at how FBI agents framed Geronimo Pratt, a Afro American Viet-nam
vet who spent over 25 years in prison before a judge released him
saying he was innocent and framed by FBI agents.
Vermont filmaker has issued a 4 DVD collection of her films
about the Black Panthers. She interviews retired FBI agent
Wesley Swearingen who was part of the FBI Racial Squad in San Fransisco that put Pratt in prison see http://www.newsreel.us/

O’Reilly, Kenneth. RACIAL MATTERS. Free Press, 1989.
Professor O’Reilly looks at a file called Racial Matters that the F.B.I. is keeping on Black America.

Parenti, Michael. DIRTY TRUTHS. City Lights Books, 1996.
Dr. Parenti looks at the evidence for F.B.I. involvement in the
assassination of labor leader Walter Reuther while he was organizing
protests against the Vietnam War. It includes the essay “Why the Left
is Afraid to look at the Assassination of JFK” .

Pepper, William. ORDERS TO KILL. Carroll and Graf, 1995.
Attorney Pepper represented James Earl Ray in his bid for a new trial
and won a landmark case in civil court in December 1999 for the Martin
Luther King Jr. family. The jury in the case concluded hat the F.B.I.
was involved in the assassination of King. His book details our
government’s involvement and provides photographic evidence of the
F.B.I.’s role in this assassination.

The evidence from the 1999 Civil Trial in Memphis brought by the King
family in which the jury concluded FBI agents were principal architects
in the assassination of Martin Luther King. Written by the trial
attorney William Pepper.

Powers, Richard Gid. SECRECY AND POWER. Free Press, 1987.
A biography of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his quest for power.

Powers, Tyrone. EYES TO MY SOUL. Majority Press, 1996.
Professor Powers an afro-american, talks about his 9 years working as
an F.B.I. agent, and the racism in the FBI . Powers discusses the FBI
FRUHMENSCHEN program set up in the 1920's thru 2010 to target black
politicians in sting operations without cause because the FBI feels
blacks are incpable of governing. White agents tried to kill him when
he was writing this book by blowing up his FBI issued car with him in

Ranalli, Ralph. DEADLY ALLIANCE. Harper Torch, 2001
Boston Globe reporter Ralph Rannali exposes FBI collaboration with the
Boston Mafia from 1930-2009 where they ran a Murder Inc. President Bush
asserted Executive Privilege in 2002 preventing
Congress from seeing the Federal Prosecutor’s Investigative files on this case.

Robbins, Natalie. ALIEN INK. William Morrow, 1992.
Ms. Robbins acquired the F.B.I. files on the major writers and artists of the 20th century, and examines F.B.I. agents neutralizing them and their freedom of expression.

Rosenfeld, Seth, The FBI's War on Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise to (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Hardcover August 21, 2012

Schultz, Bud and Ruth. IT DID HAPPEN HERE. University of California Press, 1989.
Contains interviews with human rights activists who survived F.B.I. assassination attempts.

Schultz, Bud and Ruth. THE PRICE OF DISSENT. University of California Press , 2001
The sequel to IT DID HAPPEN HERE with more interviews with civil rights activists , union organizers and anti-war protestors who survived FBI assassination attempts and with family members of people who were murdered.

Seymour, Sheri. COMMITTEE OF THE STATES. Self-published, 1989.
The F.B.I. infiltrated the California Militia 10 years before the Oklahoma City bombing. The book illustrates how easy it was for the F.B.I. to infiltrate the group and get it to make bombs.
Shows how easy it was for FBI agent provocteur to get Timothy McVeigh to make bomb and drive the truck. The exact same scenario
occured in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. google floyd
anticev salem

Sharkey, Joe. ABOVE SUSPICION. Simon & Schuster, 1993.
Looks at the F.B.I. coverup involving one of its own agents Mark Putnam, who murdered his informant after he got her pregnant.
FBI agent Putnam was eventually sentenced to prison for their murder thanks to the dogged work of the Kentucky State Police.
click link and scroll down to obituary of his wife. http://betrayedbylovemovie.blogspot.com/

Sherill, Robert First Amendment Felon Nation Books, 10/2005
The Story of Frank Wilkinson, His 132,000 Page FBI File and His Epic Fight for Civil Rights and Liberties

Suarez, Manuel. REQUIEM ON CERRO MARAVILLA. Waterfront Press, 1987.
Looks at F.B.I. collaboration with local police in the arrest, handcuffing, and death squad execution of two teenagers in Puerto Rico.

Summers, Anthony. OFFICIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. G.B. Putnam and Sons, 1993.
This is the book on which the PBS Frontline documentary on J. Edgar Hoover and his friendship with the Mafia is based. In my eyes, this PBS program was the turning point in the good fortune the FBI has enjoyed for over 80 years.

Swearingen, Wesley. F.B.I. Secrets: An Agents Expose South End Press  1994
Swearingen is a retired FBI  agent currently living in the San Diego area who was a member
of the FBI  San Fransisco Office racial Squad.
The FBI  has Racial Squads in every major American City. The function of the FBI  Racial Squad is to assassinate or neutralize
black politicians and black activists who do not reflect the philosophy of American Corporations. Vermont filmaker Roz Payne has
interviewed Swearingen and he is on her recently released 4 DVD about the Black Panthers see  http://www.newsreel.us/

Swearingen,Wesley, To Kill a President: Finally – an Ex-FBI Agent Rips Aside the Veil of Secrecy that Killed JFK   2006
 According to Swearingen, Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in assassinating Kennedy as was claimed by the FBI, the Warren Commission and other investigating bodies. Instead, he argues that rogue CIA agents acting in concert with the mafia and certain Cuban exiles plotted to kill Kennedy. Swearingen contends that the conspiracy was covered up by the FBI, an effort that continues to this day through the agency's unwillingness to disclose key details about the events surrounding Kennedy's death.  see  http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/new-book-fbi-cia-jfk-killing.html

Theoharis, Athan. THE F.B.I. Garland Publishers, 1994.
Professor Theoharis has compiled a comprehensive listing of books and articles about the F.B.I. up to 1994.

Thomas, Kenn. THE OCTOPUS. Feral House, 1996.
Investigates the F.B.I.’s role in the killing of investigative reporter Danny Casolero while he was investigating the October Surprise.

Turner, William. THE ASSASSINATION OF ROBERT KENNEDY. Thunder Mouth Press, 1993.
Written by a former F.B.I. agent, it looks at the F.B.I.’s involvement in the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Turner, William. REARVIEW MIRROR foreword by Oliver Stone. Penmarin Books CA 2001.
More updated information on FBI involvement in President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Assassination written by a former FBI agent.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. WHO IS GUARDING THE GUARDIANS? A Report on Police
Death Squad activities. 1981.

Williams,  Dennis O. Fidelity Bravery Integrity No Way!  Dorrance Publishing Company 2009

In 1979 FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dennis O. Williams moved across the country when he was promoted from the FBI’s Los Angeles Division to a supervisory position at FBI Headquarters. Soon after his arrival, Williams discovered that the mover had defrauded the FBI by billing for a higher weight of his household goods than actually existed. As Williams pursued the matter, he discovered a cover-up at FBI HQ; his attempts to expose this conspiracy resulted in his receiving threats and becoming the subject of retaliation. Though an investigation by the FBI Washington Field Office demonstrated that Williams was correct in his suspicions, the cover-ups continued for decades, eventually leading to a conspiracy to deceive the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding an inquiry into the involvement of Thomas J. Pickard.

Pickard was the acting director of the FBI when 9/11 occurred, despite Williams’ repeated warnings to the White House that Pickard did not have the integrity for such a position. The 9/11 Commission report reflects that the Phoenix Division of the FBI produced a memorandum dated July 10, 2001, advising FBI HQ that an inordinate number of supporters of Osama Bin Laden had attended civil aviation universities and colleges and would be in a position to conduct terror activity against civil aviation targets. Williams believes that Pickard’s testimony that no managers at FBI headquarters saw the Phoenix memo before September 11 constitutes a red flag indicating a conspiracy to defraud the 9/11 Commission.

Williams , Kristian
Our Enemies in Blue Police and Power in America (Revised Edition)
South End Press  2007

Wiener, Jon. GIMME SOME TRUTH. University of California Press, 1999.
Professor Wiener looks at the 14 year battle with the F.B.I. to get them to release their files on John Lennon.How many rock stars
has the FBI assassinated?

Wise, David   TIGER TRAP America’s Secret Spy War With China
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.2011
Looks at how FBI  agents were manipulated by Chinese spies after FBI  agents started having sex with their Chinese informants




Conspiracy of Silence: The Franklin Cover UpConspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3 1994. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Canada.

Incontrovertible evidence showing FBI  coverup of LOCKERBIE TWA Flight 800
explosion coverup.

One of the best documentaries ever made, period.

A NOBLE LIE   2012 Convicts the FBI of creating the
Oklahoma City bombing

SILENCED Jack Cashill
Convicts the FBI of the coverup of TWA downing over Long Island by a missile

also see

Convicts the US Government of creating 911
In 6 parts see all six

TRUTH&LIES 911 Mike Ruppert
best evidence linking US Government to creating 911


then watch

FBI LIED in their JFK Assassination Reports

WHAT WE WANT WHAT WE BELIEVE  a 4 DVD set about the Black Panthers
with an interview with FBI  agent
Wesley Swearingen discussing the FBI Racial Squad and
their policy to assassinate black leaders   

911 PRESS FOR TRUTH details the evidence for the FBI  creating 911

also see 2012 film INFORMANT

Quote 0 0
see link for full story

CAIR-MN Welcomes FBI Probe of Alleged Abuses by Agents   

Agents reportedly used intimidation tactics on Somali Muslim

MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 30, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) today welcomed an FBI investigation into alleged intimidation tactics used on a Somali Muslim by two agents.

Last week, CAIR-MN sent a letter to Special Agent in Charge J. Chris Warrener about allegations of improper behavior by the two agents and asked that an investigation be launched into the matter.

The complainant told CAIR-MN that two FBI agents approached him at his home and sought to pressure him to work for the agency reportedly as an informant. The man said he asserted his right to an attorney three times, but the agents continued to intimidate and coerce him.

According to the complainant, the agents threatened to withhold the man's asylum application, defame him in the Muslim community so others would fear speaking to him and influence his current employment by visiting his job site if he did not agree to work with their office.

Two days after the FBI visit, the man was followed by an SUV in which the driver took photographs of him while he was working for a transportation company. A few weeks after his interaction with the FBI, the alleged victim was fired from his job.

Last week, a local FBI official contacted CAIR-MN to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to state that the agency is looking into the matter.

The FBI is "prohibited from using threats or coercion" to blackmail individuals. Minnesota law also prohibits such conduct.

Quote 0 0


The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher

by John Taylor Gatto, New York State Teacher of the Year, 1991




Call me Mr. Gatto, please. Twenty-six years ago, having nothing better to do, I tried my hand at schoolteaching. My license certifies me as an instructor of English language and literature, but that isn't what I do at all. What I teach is school, and I win awards doing it.

Teaching means many different things, but six lessons are common to schoolteaching from Harlem to Hollywood. You pay for these lessons in more ways than you can imagine, so you might as well know what they are:

The first lesson I teach is: "Stay in the class where you belong." I don't know who decides that my kids belong there but that's not my business. The children are numbered so that if any get away they can be returned to the right class. Over the years the variety of ways children are numbered has increased dramatically, until it is hard to see the human being under the burden of the numbers each carries. Numbering children is a big and very profitable business, though what the business is designed to accomplish is elusive.

In any case, again, that's not my business. My job is to make the kids like it -- being locked in together, I mean -- or at the minimum, endure it. If things go well, the kids can't imagine themselves anywhere else; they envy and fear the better classes and have contempt for the dumber classes. So the class mostly keeps itself in good marching order. That's the real lesson of any rigged competition like school. You come to know your place.

Nevertheless, in spite of the overall blueprint, I make an effort to urge children to higher levels of test success, promising eventual transfer from the lower-level class as a reward. I insinuate that the day will come when an employer will hire them on the basis of test scores, even though my own experience is that employers are (rightly) indifferent to such things. I never lie outright, but I've come to see that truth and [school]teaching are incompatible.

The lesson of numbered classes is that there is no way out of your class except by magic. Until that happens you must stay where you are put.

The second lesson I teach kids is to turn on and off like a light switch. I demand that they become totally involved in my lessons, jumping up and down in their seats with anticipation, competing vigorously with each other for my favor. But when the bell rings I insist that they drop the work at once and proceed quickly to the next work station. Nothing important is ever finished in my class, nor in any other class I know of.

The lesson of bells is that no work is worth finishing, so why care too deeply about anything? Bells are the secret logic of schooltime; their argument is inexorable; bells destroy past and future, converting every interval into a sameness, as an abstract map makes every living mountain and river the same even though they are not. Bells inoculate each undertaking with indifference.

The third lesson I teach you is to surrender your will to a predestined chain of command. Rights may be granted or withheld, by authority, without appeal. As a schoolteacher I intervene in many personal decisions, issuing a Pass for those I deem legitimate, or initiating a disciplinary confrontation for behavior that threatens my control. My judgments come thick and fast, because individuality is trying constantly to assert itself in my classroom. Individuality is a curse to all systems of classification, a contradiction of class theory.

Here are some common ways it shows up: children sneak away for a private moment in the toilet on the pretext of moving their bowels; they trick me out of a private instant in the hallway on the grounds that they need water. Sometimes free will appears right in front of me in children angry, depressed or exhilarated by things outside my ken. Rights in such things cannot exist for schoolteachers; only privileges, which can be withdrawn, exist.

The fourth lesson I teach is that only I determine what curriculum you will study. (Rather, I enforce decisions transmitted by the people who pay me). This power lets me separate good kids from bad kids instantly. Good kids do the tasks I appoint with a minimum of conflict and a decent show of enthusiasm. Of the millions of things of value to learn, I decide what few we have time for. The choices are mine. Curiosity has no important place in my work, only conformity.

Bad kids fight against this, of course, trying openly or covertly to make decisions for themselves about what they will learn. How can we allow that and survive as schoolteachers? Fortunately there are procedures to break the will of those who resist.

This is another way I teach the lesson of dependency. Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. This is the most important lesson of all, that we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives. It is no exaggeration to say that our entire economy depends upon this lesson being learned. Think of what would fall apart if kids weren't trained in the dependency lesson: The social-service businesses could hardly survive, including the fast-growing counseling industry; commercial entertainment of all sorts, along with television, would wither if people remembered how to make their own fun; the food services, restaurants and prepared-food warehouses would shrink if people returned to making their own meals rather than depending on strangers to cook for them. Much of modern law, medicine, and engineering would go too -- the clothing business as well -- unless a guaranteed supply of helpless people poured out of our schools each year. We've built a way of life that depends on people doing what they are told because they don't know any other way. For God's sake, let's not rock that boat!

In lesson five I teach that your self-respect should depend on an observer's measure of your worth. My kids are constantly evaluated and judged. A monthly report, impressive in its precision, is sent into students' homes to spread approval or to mark exactly -- down to a single percentage point -- how dissatisfied with their children parents should be. Although some people might be surprised how little time or reflection goes into making up these records, the cumulative weight of the objective- seeming documents establishes a profile of defect which compels a child to arrive at a certain decisions about himself and his future based on the casual judgment of strangers.

Self-evaluation -- the staple of every major philosophical system that ever appeared on the planet -- is never a factor in these things. The lesson of report cards, grades, and tests is that children should not trust themselves or their parents, but must rely on the evaluation of certified officials. People need to be told what they are worth.

In lesson six I teach children that they are being watched. I keep each student under constant surveillance and so do my colleagues. There are no private spaces for children; there is no private time. Class change lasts 300 seconds to keep promiscuous fraternization at low levels. Students are encouraged to tattle on each other, even to tattle on their parents. Of course I encourage parents to file their own child's waywardness, too.

I assign "homework" so that this surveillance extends into the household, where students might otherwise use the time to learn something unauthorized, perhaps from a father or mother, or by apprenticing to some wiser person in the neighborhood.

The lesson of constant surveillance is that no one can be trusted, that privacy is not legitimate. Surveillance is an ancient urgency among certain influential thinkers; it was a central prescription set down by Calvin in the Institutes, by Plato in the Republic, by Hobbes, by Comte, by Francis Bacon. All these childless men discovered the same thing: Children must be closely watched if you want to keep a society under central control.

It is the great triumph of schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best parents, there is only a small number who can imagine a different way to do things. Yet only a very few lifetimes ago things were different in the United States: originality and variety were common currency; our freedom from regimentation made us the miracle of the world; social class boundaries were relatively easy to cross; our citizenry was marvelously confident, inventive, and able to do many things independently, to think for themselves. We were something, all by ourselves, as individuals.

It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then on. The cry for "basic skills" practice is a smokescreen behind which schools pre-empt the time of children for twelve years and teach them the six lessons I've just taught you.

We've had a society increasingly under central control in the United States since just before the Civil War: the lives we lead, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the green highway signs we drive by from coast to coast are the products of this central control. So, too, I think, are the epidemics of drugs, suicide, divorce, violence, cruelty, and the hardening of class into caste in the U.S., products of the dehumanization of our lives, the lessening of individual and family importance that central control imposes.

Without a fully active role in community life you cannot develop into a complete human being. Aristotle taught that. Surely he was right; look around you or look in the mirror: that is the demonstration.

"School" is an essential support system for a vision of social engineering that condemns most people to be subordinate stones in a pyramid that narrows to a control point as it ascends. "School" is an artifice which makes such a pyramidal social order seem inevitable (although such a premise is a fundamental betrayal of the American Revolution). In colonial days and through the period of the early Republic we had no schools to speak of. And yet the promise of democracy was beginning to be realized. We turned our backs on this promise by bringing to life the ancient dream of Egypt: compulsory training in subordination for everybody. Compulsory schooling was the secret Plato reluctantly transmitted in the Republic when he laid down the plans for total state control of human life.

The current debate about whether we should have a national curriculum is phony; we already have one, locked up in the six lessons I've told you about and a few more I've spared you. This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis, and no curriculum of content will be sufficient to reverse its bad effects. What is under discussion is a great irrelevancy.

None of this is inevitable, you know. None of it is impregnable to change. We do have a choice in how we bring up young people; there is no right way. There is no "international competition" that compels our existence, difficult as it is to even think about in the face of a constant media barrage of myth to the contrary. In every important material respect our nation is self-sufficient. If we gained a non-material philosophy that found meaning where it is genuinely located -- in families, friends, the passage of seasons, in nature, in simple ceremonies and rituals, in curiosity, generosity, compassion, and service to others, in a decent independence and privacy -- then we would be truly self-sufficient.

How did these awful places, these "schools", come about? As we know them, they are a product of the two "Red Scares" of 1848 and 1919, when powerful interests feared a revolution among our industrial poor, and partly they are the result of the revulsion with which old-line families regarded the waves of Celtic, Slavic, and Latin immigration -- and the Catholic religion -- after 1845. And certainly a third contributing cause can be found in the revulsion with which these same families regarded the free movement of Africans through the society after the Civil War.

Look again at the six lessons of school. This is training for permanent underclasses, people who are to be deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius. And it is training shaken loose from its original logic: to regulate the poor. Since the 1920s the growth of the well-articulated school bureaucracy, and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling exactly as it is, have enlarged schooling's original grasp to seize the sons and daughters of the middle class.

Is it any wonder Socrates was outraged at the accusation that he took money to teach? Even then, philosophers saw clearly the inevitable direction the professionalization of teaching would take, pre-empting the teaching function that belongs to all in a healthy community; belongs, indeed, most clearly to yourself, since nobody else cares as much about your destiny. Professional teaching tends to another serious error. It makes things that are inherently easy to learn, like reading, writing, and arithmetic, difficult -- by insisting they be taught by pedagogical procedures.

With lessons like the ones I teach day after day, is it any wonder we have the national crisis we face today? Young people indifferent to the adult world and to the future; indifferent to almost everything except the diversion of toys and violence? Rich or poor, schoolchildren cannot concentrate on anything for very long. They have a poor sense of time past and to come; they are mistrustful of intimacy (like the children of divorce they really are); they hate solitude, are cruel, materialistic, dependent, passive, violent, timid in the face of the unexpected, addicted to distraction.

All the peripheral tendencies of childhood are magnified to a grotesque extent by schooling, whose hidden curriculum prevents effective personality development. Indeed, without exploiting the fearfulness, selfishness, and inexperience of children our schools could not survive at all, nor could I as a certified schoolteacher.

"Critical thinking" is a term we hear frequently these days as a form of training which will herald a new day in mass schooling. It certainly will, if it ever happens. No common school that actually dared teach the use of dialectic, heuristic, and other tools of free minds could last a year without being torn to pieces.

Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational. No tinkering will fix it. In one of the great ironies of human affairs, the massive rethinking that schools require would cost so much less than we are spending now that it is not likely to happen. First and foremost, the business I am in is a jobs project and a contract-letting agency. We cannot afford to save money, not even to help children.

At the pass we've come to historically, and after 26 years of teaching, I must conclude that one of the only alternatives on the horizon for most families is to teach their own children at home. Small, de- institutionalized schools are another. Some form of free-market system for public schooling is the likeliest place to look for answers. But the near impossibility of these things for the shattered families of the poor, and for too many on the fringes of the economic middle class, foretell that the disaster of Six-Lesson Schools is likely to continue.

After an adult lifetime spent in teaching school I believe the method of schooling is the only real content it has. Don't be fooled into thinking that good curricula or good equipment or good teachers are the critical determinants of your son and daughter's schooltime. All the pathologies we've considered come about in large measure because the lessons of school prevent children from keeping important appointments with themselves and their families, to learn lessons in self-motivation, perseverance, self-reliance, courage, dignity and love -- and, of course, lessons in service to others, which are among the key lessons of home life.

Thirty years ago these things could still be learned in the time left after school. But television has eaten most of that time, and a combination of television and the stresses peculiar to two-income or single-parent families have swallowed up most of what used to be family time. Our kids have no time left to grow up fully human, and only thin-soil wastelands to do it in.

A future is rushing down upon our culture which will insist that all of us learn the wisdom of non-material experience; this future will demand, as the price of survival, that we follow a pace of natural life economical in material cost. These lessons cannot be learned in schools as they are. School is like starting life with a 12-year jail sentence in which bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned. I teach school and win awards doing it. I should know.




A 1997 interview on We The People radio has been transcribed here.

[The following is from a letter by Grace Llewellyn (author of the Teenage Liberation Handbook), printed in the Spring 1992 issue of the Whole Earth Review:]

.. Gatto has a new job. Having resigned, he continues to implement his unique "guerilla curriculum" at the Albany Free School, and also lectures nationwide. In his lectures and his writing Gatto not only adeptly denounces the public schools, but also makes radical suggestions for improving them. These suggestions are grounded not in hypothetical clouds but rather on his own innovative methods of teaching which involve community service projects, independent study, apprenticeships, and solitude. ... More of Gatto's writing can be found in a new collection of his essays entitled "Dumbing Us Down" (New Society Publishers, 1992) [excerpted in WER issue #81].

"Dumbing Us Down" is available from New Society Publishers (POB 189, Gabriola Island, BC, V0R 1X0 CANADA), or via Gatto's own online bookstore, or from your friendly neighborhood bookstore (ISBN 0-86571-448-7).

A more comprehensive book, newly available on-line as well as in print is "The Underground History of American Education", and may be found at John Taylor Gatto's own web site, johntaylorgatto.com. You can buy a copy via his online bookstore, or from your friendly neighborhood bookstore (ISBN 0-945-70004-0). (Note: I have no financial relationship with him or the publisher.)

Harper's September 2003 issue had an essay, "Against School".

If you maintain a web page, you are encouraged to add a link to this one, as a short introduction to the problem of school. This page will be stable forever.

Quote 0 0


Communities police themselves with all volunteers patrols, using organizational model of restorative justice
hire third party forensic investigators when the community cannot solve the crime, eh?
Some suggestions:

1. create volunteer patrols to replace police and enforce the laws based on Restorative Justice.

2. learn the difference between patrolling your own community and crime solving.

3. 3rd party forensic investigators would be hired to solve crimes the community was unable to.

4. Understand the psychological consequences to humans when they hire bodyguards called police to protect them.

5. Introduce a law curriculum in grades 1-12 so when someone graduates from high school they can pass the State Bar Exam for lawyers.

6. Create a separate school for judges with it's own degree.

for the uneducated and the uneducable

high school dropout can't find work so he joins the Marines to Semper Fi
and collect some money.
High school dropout is sent to Paris Island to be all he can be. He is trained to kill women and children and a occasional freedom fighter trying to protect his wife from being raped by Mr Semper Fi.
High school dropout ships out to invade Iraq for USEmpire and US oil companies.
American oil companies are struggling with the problem of Peak Oil.
Peak oil means we no longer have a infinite supply of oil.Maybe you saw the documentary film END OF SUBURBIA see

high school drop out didn't because his high school teachers were too busy DUMBING him down

High School dropout manages to kill a couple hundred women and children while throwing in a occasional rape. Mr Sempi Fi has now been transformed into Mr serial killer.
Mr high school dropout/serial killer now begins to experience extreme depression from his actions. Mental Wealth workers call it Post Traumatic
Stress Syndrome. But the only people who experience traumatic stress in Iraq are the Iraqi women being raped by Semper Fi's before they shot and killed them.
Good thing serial killer/high school dropout has never read the research
of Ian Stevenson MD whose groundbreaking study of 3,000 children who remember previous lives provides the science for the existence of reincarnation. see

What this means for high school dropout is that he will be coming back
again for another life . Of course so will the people he murdered , so for practical purposes he has another couple hundred lives he has to live getting "wacked" by the life forms he semper fi'd.

The difference this time is the raped and murdered have had some time to ponder while they wait for him to pass over, how they will "do" Mr Semper Fi- the high school drop out serial killer.

Mr high school dropout comes back from Iraq out of work unless he re-enlists. There are not to many job openings for serial killers until he lands a job working with his be all you can be buddies at the Salt Lake City Police Department police , Sheriff , State Police or the FBI.

Quote 0 0

The IRS is on the verge of crippling its whistleblower program! Take Action!


Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0

Transcending Tribal Mentality

By Caroline Myss

All of us are born into a "tribal mentality" of various forms. These include our family unit, religious background, country of origin, ethnicity, etc. The tribal mentality effectively indoctrinates an individual into the tribe's beliefs, ensuring that all believe the same. The structure of reality – what is and is not possible for the members of the group – is thus agreed upon and maintained by the tribe.

While the tribal mentality has definite benefits in terms of establishing common ground and ensuring group survival, it is not a conscious agreement. We are born into it. Yet at a certain stage, both personally and collectively, the tribal mentality must be challenged. People can then begin to recognize the need for a personal honor code independent of the tribe. If humanity is to progress, we need to learn how to treat everyone – regardless of tribal affiliation – with honor and respect.

Every one of us is plugged into the tribal mind. We support tribal belief patterns by directing a percentage of our life force into maintaining our affiliation with the tribe. This involves an implicit agreement to think like the tribe thinks, to evaluate situations and people the way the tribe does, and to believe in right and wrong according to tribal values and ambitions. As long as the tribal mentality within us remains unexamined, we unwittingly subject others to our tribal laws.

When we are plugged into tribal thought forms, we can easily believe in nonsensical prejudices held by the tribe. Tribal mentality allows us to hold harsh, judgmental positions or attitudes about an entire group of people: "All fat people are lazy," or "all Irish are drunks," or "all Muslims are terrorists" for example.

A rigid tribal thought form may have little truth to it, but individuals hold to such beliefs because that perspective is what the tribe has agreed to believe. Innocent children, born into the hatred and prejudice of their parents and ancestors, grow up inside a tribal mentality that sponsors an endless march toward war against the tribe's perceived enemies. People grow up hating other people – people they have never seen – based on group affiliation. This is the shadow side of the tribe.

Inevitably, some among us come to a point where we want to break out of the inflexible tribal mentality. At some point, these individuals want to explore, develop, and manage their own consciousness without the judgments and limitations of the tribal mind.

It is easy to spot these mavericks when they start to question and unplug from tribal mentality – they hang out on the periphery looking bored and restless, or whimsical and dreamy. Others may act out the agitated hot-head as they challenge tribal ways.  

The unspoken assumption of the tribal mind is that everybody loves being part of the tribe. And in many ways, we do. Knowing where and to whom we "belong" is crucial to our self-concept and sense of safety in the world. Yet when we begin the real deep journey of questioning, "What do I believe?" and start to individuate from the tribe, we often enter a dark night of the soul. It is, by necessity, a passage we take alone.

It's one thing to reject what we don't want to believe anymore. It's quite another to begin to explore what we do believe. All we know as we enter the dark night is that we can't go back – even when the tribe is the only world we've ever known.

At this critical point in our development, the tribe doesn't feel right anymore. It no longer offers us comfort. Previous feelings of security and familiarity begin to feel like a trap constraining our individuality and hampering our efforts to discover deeper levels of who we really are.

This dark night passage pushes us to look at our false gods – the tribal belief patterns in which we've become invested and to which we've given our allegiance.

The Language of Wounds

For a large segment of the population, the language of wounds has become the new tribal language of intimacy. Prior to the current age of personal therapy – which only really took off in the 1960s and 70s – the tribal language of intimacy largely involved the sharing of only superficial personal and family data. Deeper matters such as family secrets like sexual abuse or a mad aunt or uncle were shared with exceedingly few, if any.

Divorce and financial information were also considered very intimate. People would almost never talk about such matters, or about their inner life and emotions. They talked only about the details of what was going on in their external lives. The tribal mentality at the time kept people from revealing intimate matters or deep wounds or traumas even with their family and close friends.

The current age of personal therapy has brought about a very different situation. Now, the tribal mentality has shifted such that we not only share our intimate feelings more openly and willingly, many have even begun to define themselves by their wounds. Let me give an example of how this phenomenon plays itself out.

I was in an Indian restaurant in Scotland talking with two men friends when the woman friend I was to meet for dinner walked up and greeted the three of us. After I had introduced her, another man walked over and asked if she was free on June 8th, as he thought she might like to attend a lecture on that date. The question required little more than a ‘yes' or a ‘no' answer.

Instead of a simple answer, she began an elaborate discussion about June 8th. "Did you say June 8th? No, no. Any other day would be fine, but not June 8th. That's the day my incest survivor group meets and I have to be there because we never let each other down." She went on and on for at least a full minute with this.

Later, I asked her, "Do you realize that in that brief introduction, you told two men whom you have never met before that 1) you had experienced incest, 2) you were still in therapy about it, 3) you were angry about it, 4) you were angry at men, and 5) you needed to determine the course of the conversation – all in one minute?"

She replied, "Well, I am a victim of incest."

To which I replied, "I know that. Why did you have to let them know that?"

She was operating from a tribal mentality. The group mind within the incest survivor community has a belief about how this particular wound should be healed. The tribe says, "You need a group." The tribe says, "You have a right to be angry."

People now get together in support group tribes that function within many of the same rigid frameworks of ethnic, national, or family tribes. Some feel that the comfort and security of belonging to a group or tribe is more important than venturing alone in the direction of real healing.

Tribalism in Relationships

The tendency toward tribalism can keep us stuck in repeating negative cycles in our intimate relationships, and can wreak havoc when a relationship is ripe for transition. Tribal mentality often teaches a righteous stance in relationships: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. When we feel violated, the first thought is vengeance, rather than forgiveness.

Tribal mentality even has gender-specific undercurrents – women do vengeance differently than men. Yet for both genders, what rules the day is the tribal mentality that holds "breaking up is painful" or "betrayal warrants retaliation."

Healing revolves around this crucial question: "Do you want to make different choices?" Are we willing to let go of old, constricting tribal patterns? Sadly, the answer quite often is "No." Being healthy isn't always the most appealing option. Quite frankly, in many cases, it's not appealing at all. What is most appealing is being out of pain. Old patterns are difficult to relinquish because they do serve to relieve pain, even if it is only in the short run.

Change is terrifying for many precisely because short-term pain relief must be given up. Deep healing requires learning to tolerate the pain that comes with change. Fortunately, the growing pains that come with new behavior – with making the choices that will change your life – are often short-lived.

Thought alone doesn't heal. Nor does action without thought. For deep healing to occur, we need the chemistry of conscious thought and direct action combined. Every thought or attitude we have – whether consciously chosen or unconsciously adopted through the tribal mind – invests a part of our life-force into that thought or attitude. This is true whether the thought is one of betrayal and vengeance, or of understanding and forgiveness.

What matters is that a whole system of consciousness – the old tribal mentality – no longer holds us enthralled. We no longer have faith in those limiting patterns of thought. Through this transformation we learn a whole new level of trust. We break the habit of telling tribal lies which bring short-term comfort but long-term pain. We develop a new sense of self-worth and of trust and honor.

In spite of all the heavy tribal conditioning, we now have hope because tribal mentality the world over is going through a vast transformation. And each one of us can play a vital role in this transformation.

With increasing numbers of individuals changing and transcending limiting tribal beliefs, the codes of the tribe are being affected. As we collectively change and evolve, the tribes around us gradually change and evolve with us. Yet ultimately, the journey upon which we are embarking is an incredible solo flight of transcending the tribe to find our own trust, honor, and new sense of self-worth and meaning in life.

Quote 0 0


CISPA, the Privacy-Invading Cybersecurity Spying Bill, is Back in Congress

It's official: CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, has been reintroduced in the House of Representatives. It's the contentious bill that would provide a poorly-defined "cybersecurity" exception to existing privacy law. CISPA offers broad immunities to companies who choose to share data with government agencies -- including the private communications of users -- in the name of cybersecurity. It also creates avenues for companies to share data with any federal agencies, including military intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency.

EFF is adamantly opposed to CISPA. Join us in calling on Congress to stop this and any other privacy-invasive cybersecurity legislation.

New Bill Helps Expand Public Access to Scientific Knowledge

Internet users around the world got a Valentine's Day present last week in the form of new legislation that requires U.S. government agencies to improve public access to federally funded research. Under the bill's proposal, agencies like the National Science Foundation, which invests millions of taxpayer dollars in scientific research every year, must design and implement a plan to facilitate public access to -- and robust reuse of -- the results of that investment.

Rebooting Computer Crime Law: The Punishment Should Fit the Crime

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's broad language and draconian penalty scheme allows overreaching prosecutors to abuse their discretion. This can turn minor incidents with no real harm into serious criminal prosecutions, with the threat of long prison sentences and the consequences that go along with a felony conviction -- like not being able to vote. Computer crime can be serious and law enforcement should properly investigate and prosecute those who use computers to cause financial harm and violate the privacy of others. But at the same time, punishments should fit crimes.

Quote 0 0

see link for full story

The Truth of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

July 04, 2011

The interpretation of "reasonable doubt" is as unstable (and as potentially explosive) as nitroglycerin in a cocktail shaker.

Despite what the media have led us to believe, the hallowed phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not self-explanatory. Jurors, charged with the responsibility of making life-and-death decisions, are told to apply this legalese-larded "standard." But not only is this "standard" purely adjectival, movies and television have morphed it into a Rashomon-style point-of-view. The interpretation of "reasonable doubt" is as unstable (and as potentially explosive) as nitroglycerin in a cocktail shaker.

History has taught that if we allow interpretations to control reality, truth is the first victim of the chaos to follow. A simple illustration will suffice: we all agree that "evil" is a bad thing. Therefore, whoever has the power to define which acts (or individuals) are "evil" also has the power to control our conduct. When we anoint such an interpreter, we walk a smoother path. But we walk it blindfolded.

If we refuse to grant such god-like power to others, we have to do the work ourselves. To ensure a uniform standard for "reasonable doubt," we must subject the term itself to dispassionate dissection.

Unless we separately analyze "reasonable" and "doubt" in the context of a criminal trial, the term will degenerate to cliché status: endlessly repeated, but devoid of any actual meaning. That is, "reasonable doubt" will mean whatever an individual chooses it to mean, as open to interpretation as the Bible or the Koran. The horrific consequences of allowing those with an agenda to exercise the power of "interpretation" are beyond dispute. See, e.g., Nuremberg.

"[B]eyond any doubt" is as much a logical impossibility as the term "foolproof."
There is always some doubt. "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" ignores the penumbra of that shadow. And "beyond any doubt" is as much a logical impossibility as the term "foolproof."

Confessions may be the product of a disordered mind, or of outright torture. Evidence can be planted. Lab analysis can be fatally flawed, which is why capital punishment is inherently wrong. Sociopaths can make the polygraph needles dance to their tune. Eyewitnesses can make mistakes. Jailhouse snitches can custom-tailor their testimony to serve their own interests. Jurors can be bribed. And all of this has happened.

The Perry Mason TV series resonated so deeply within us because it expressed our collective wish that "the truth always comes out." But anyone who wants to hold on to that dream should stick to Hollywood garbage and avoid reading trial transcripts.

Any jury analyst knows that facts are cut to fit the cloth of beliefs. Who could believe that the Scopes trial "proved" evolution to everyone's satisfaction? Or that Brown v. Board of Education motivated the Klan to burn its robes instead of crosses? Who among us is sufficiently naive enough to believe that all potential jurors answer the voir dire questions honestly?

And there is still another form of belief-based "doubt"—the kind I have had to constantly overcome throughout my career. How could such a wealthy, successful pillar of the community actually be a child molester? How could a nice, polite, soft-spoken individual have raped his own little daughter ... especially when "experts" testified that "he didn't fit the profile"? How could a PTA-officer, charity-volunteer mother shake her infant son into permanent brain damage?

Even when such "doubts" are eviscerated with overwhelming proof, still another belief system then emerges: if the perpetrator really did such horrible, sadistic, brutal things to innocent little children, doesn't that prove he's "sick"? Doesn't that mean he needs "treatment," not prison?

All these—and too many more to list in anything short of a textbook—are life-threatening clots in the arteries of justice.

Such clots can be dissolved ... and must be, if we want to save the patient.

A trial is a war. As in all wars, there are both combatants and collaborators. If fighting is what you do, and you train hard enough to be good at it, you'll learn some advanced techniques.

Focus is one of those techniques. In the type of cases I handle, what you focus on is the stakes. While death-penalty cases grab the headlines, how many know the closed-to-the-public arena of the Family Court? How many know that court actually holds trials in which, if the wrong result is reached, the perpetrator gets to take the victim home as a prize?

Doubt? I don't have room for that in my work. Despite what media morons may tell you, a trial isn't a "search for truth," it's a high-stakes game ... one with winners and losers. But when you're representing a child, only the truth will serve your client's interests. That's why I always conduct my own independent investigations. If a parent is falsely accused of child abuse, and I, representing the child, "win" by obtaining a verdict proving that parent's guilt, the child loses. To do my work effectively and ethically, I have to find the truth ... even if neither the State nor the accused agrees with what I find.

Exposing the heart of truth requires chips-fall-where-they-may dissection. We question potential jurors (in some systems, the lawyers do this; in others, the judge does) on everything, from what magazines they read to whether they could bring themselves to pronounce a sentence of death, even if personally opposed to capital punishment. But we have yet to develop, much less test, a scientifically validated, peer-reviewed questionnaire that would reveal each juror's personal definition of "reasonable."

Even if we could rule out individual prejudices, we will never have the uniformity that true justice demands, because individual definitions of "reasonable" are as varied as ... well, as individuals.

Some wear their beliefs openly. If you want to avoid jury duty in a gay-bashing case, show up wearing a "God Hates Fags!" T-shirt. But cultural pressures usually result in jurors who present themselves as being totally without bias and having formed no prior opinion of the case.

Who among us truly believes that if asked, "Do you think it's reasonable for a husband to slap his wife if she nags him constantly and makes his life miserable," every prospective juror would answer truthfully?

Everybody knows the right thing to say, even if they don't believe (or mean) a word of it.
What about questions such as, "Do you believe some of these young girls today are '13 going on 30'?" Or, "Don't you think a woman who dresses like a slut, has too much to drink, and brings a stranger home with her is really asking for it?"

Not a chance. Instead, we'd get Oprah-certified answers across the board. Everybody knows the right thing to say, even if they don't believe (or mean) a word of it.

Years ago, I tried a case in which an infant had been so viciously beaten that I asked the ER pediatrician to list all the bones in the baby's body which had not been broken. The defense claimed that the child had been gently placed on a coffee table, and rolled off onto a (very expensively handcrafted) hardwood floor.

Their well-paid expert calmly told the court that such a scenario was "possible." On my cross-examination, the expert repeated the statement. I held a pencil in my hand, raised my hand above my head, and asked, "Doctor, if I open my hand, is it 'possible' that this pencil could fall up?"

I got the expected sarcasm. "That would be highly unlikely, counselor."

"But it is 'possible,' under your definition of 'possible,' isn't it, Doctor?"

When he reluctantly agreed that it was, I opened my hand, and the pencil fell to the floor. The trial went on for days, but the jury decided the verdict right at that moment.

What if I hadn't asked that question? If you think the same result would have been reached, you probably think Law and Order is reality TV.

What is "reasonable" when, in the bitterly contested, no-limit poker games we call custody trials, one party produces a long train of mental health experts—psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers—each testifying that "significant personality disorders" make the other party unfit to act as the custodial parent? What is "reasonable" when the experts for the other side virtually replicate that exact same testimony ... only now, amazingly enough, the diagnoses fit the first party?

Every judge knows the likelihood that expert testimony will favor the party who hired the "expert" exceeds all mathematical probability. So my position in such cases is to ask the court to disregard all the expert testimony.

That almost never works. Instead, I get the standard judicial bilge: "The evidence is deemed admissible; the weight of said evidence will be determined by the finder of fact."

I reasonably expect that some experts will, charitably speaking, not be blessed with a lot of expertise. I reasonably expect some experts to be outright whores. That doesn't mean all (or even most) experts fit such a description. I know experts whose findings are not only remarkably insightful, but also would not vary no matter who paid them ... or how much.

So my next application is for the appointment of an independent expert. An expert to be selected by me, in my capacity as the child's lawyer, the cost to be paid for by the parties, apportioned based on their ability to do so.

That application is routinely opposed by both parties ... and routinely granted.

So while I have a "reasonable doubt" about much expert testimony, it is a doubt that can be resolved in many observable ways. It isn't the doubt; it's the reasonableness of that doubt which makes all the difference. To mean anything at all, reasonableness must vary on a case-by-case basis, and must never be driven by any faith-based belief system.

Many could wax philosophical about the deeper meanings of "reasonable doubt." I suspect law professors might differ from trial lawyers on the subject. I'm sure there are even people who actually believe judges are apolitical, that District Attorneys treat all defendants equally, without regard to the name-recognition factor of either defendant or alleged victim. Perhaps some even believe that defense attorneys only take cases when they are personally convinced of their client's innocence.

I can be sure because I know that there are people who believe the earth is flat, that evolution never happened, and that most children abused in this country are victimized by strangers who jump out of vans wearing ski masks. I can be sure because I know people who believe "no child ever lies about being sexually abused." I can be sure because I know people who believe that incest is "consensual." And every one of them can easily find groups of like-minded individuals, solicit funds, and hire lobbyists.

And I am certain beyond any doubt that all those I just described would base their decision as jurors not on the proof presented at trial, but on their own personal belief systems. In such cases, the trial is over as soon as the jury is seated.

As a lawyer who represents children in cases where maltreatment by a parent is the issue, "reasonable doubt" is all about what is "reasonable" to whoever gets to make the final decision in a given case, be it a jury or a judge.

But we all have a stake in the outcome of trials. All trials. So the most reasonable of all doubts is the doubt that judges and juries will not allow their personal belief systems to cloud and even corrupt their decisions.

So long as "reasonable doubt" varies with the interpretation of each individual judge or juror, I have a reasonable doubt that our criminal justice system can deliver on its promise to find the truth.

Every such broken promise is another crack in the foundation of justice. About that, I have nodoubt.



Why You Should Not Go to Law School


At some point in their life, everyone thinks they should go to law school. You may in fact think you want to go to law school now.

You're wrong.

I don't know you, I have no idea what the facts of your life are, but that doesn't matter, you aren't the exception. For the overwhelming majority of people (>99.9 percent), law school is the wrong choice.

How can I know this? Because I've been you -- I went to law school for the same reasons you think you should go -- and I was wrong. I should never have gone to law school, and you shouldn't either.

If you're not thinking about going to law school, you can skip this whole post, or just send it to your friends who are thinking about going and thank your god that you're not them. But if you are one of the many thinking about law school, start by asking yourself one simple question:

"Why do I want to go to law school?"

Yes, it's an obvious question, but almost everyone in your position either overlooks it or avoids it with rationalizations. So answer it, right now, to yourself. You want an easy way to stay in school, you want to be guaranteed a good high-paying job -- whatever reason(s) you think you want to go to law school, spell them out and make them explicit to yourself.

I have heard every single answer to this question there is. These are the 6 wrong reasons I hear most often (see if your answer is in this list):

The 6 Wrong Reasons to Go to Law School

1. "I like arguing and everyone says I'm good at it."

Of all reasons to go to law school, this is the worst by a large margin. Know who else likes arguing? Sports talk radio hosts, cable news talking heads and teenagers -- i.e., idiots. If you like to argue just for the sake of being contentious, you shouldn't pick a job based on this unresolved emotional issue of yours, you should get counseling for it.

If you like arguing for the intellectual challenges it can present, that's an understandable and reasonable position. Everyone likes a healthy, intelligent debate right? Well, understand that being a lawyer has almost nothing to do with arguing in the conventional sense, and very few lawyers ever engage in anything resembling "arguments" in their commonly understood form. You aren't going to be sitting around a fine mahogany desk sipping scotch with your colleagues discussing the finer points of the First Amendment; you're going to be crammed in a lifeless cubicle forced to crank out last-minute memos about the tax implications for a non-profit organization trying to lease office space to a for-profit organization (if this gets your juices flowing, maybe the law is for you after all).

You won't even be having fun discussions in law school. In law school, the people who want to "argue" a lot are called "gunners" and are reviled by everyone, even the professors. Make no mistake about it: Law school is not a bastion of intellectual discourse. It is a fucking TRADE SCHOOL. You are all there to be trained to think and act exactly the same way as everyone else in the profession, so you can then be a drone in the legal system. No one is interested in your opinion. The only one of those that matters is the one expressed, with a capital "O", by the judge(s) in whatever case you are currently reading.

Beyond that, to be genuinely good at legal "arguing," you must be dispassionate, reasonable and smart. I have never met a person who was any of those things who also said they were going to law school because other people told them they were good at arguing. It indicates only the shallowest understanding of the law and pathetically sloppy critical-thinking skills. If arguing is really why you want to go to law school, save your money and start a blog about American politics where you can shout into the echo chamber of imbeciles all you want without bothering anyone smart who has things to do.

2. "I want to be like Jack McCoy from Law & Order [or insert your favorite legal TV show character]."

I have little sympathy for this perspective. It is 2012, if you still allow yourself to be misled by the bullshit on TV, it means you are either very naive or an unrecoverable moron, and you should immediately drown yourself in the nearest toilet to save the world the frustration of having to deal with you and your stupidity. Let me be VERY clear about this for you:

The actual job of being a lawyer is NOTHING AT ALL like what you see on TV.

It is possibly less like the real thing than any other profession depicted on television. Every doctor I've ever talked to scoffs at shows like ER and House, but they all say that at least the diagnoses are connected to the physical symptoms we see and are treated with the proper kinds of drugs. In legal dramas, the exact opposite is the case. Don't think so? The next time you get a DUI (if you're going to law school to be like Jack McCoy this WILL happen), represent yourself and try to give a speech while questioning the arresting officer. You won't make it longer than 30 seconds before you're held in contempt and locked up for wasting everyone's time. Is that a little harsh? Maybe. Welcome to the grown-up world.

There is NO lawyer/law procedural that even remotely shows what it's like to be a lawyer. You know why? Because being a lawyer is not only soul-crushing, it's REALLY BORING, and that doesn't make for good TV. If you want to know what it's like to be a lawyer, go work in a law office for a summer. Or shadow a lawyer for a day or two. There's nothing like a day with a lawyer to disabuse you of the notion that anything in the legal profession is like TV.

3. "It's the only way I can use my humanities degree."

Having a soft major is nowhere near the career death sentence that so many make it out to be. The world is changing, and the U.S. economy with it. Our economy is shifting to a service and information based economy, and soft majors are already becoming more and more valuable.

Why? Because a services and information-based economy needs what the Humanities creates: literate, intelligent, well-read people who can write and communicate ideas effectively. The demand for these people is not going to flutter out. In fact, it will only grow stronger as the economy continues to shift and the supply of qualified candidates remains insufficient. Do not make the mistake of thinking law school is your only option. That is simply not true. In plain English: A humanities major now has many, many options they didn't have in the pre-Internet era.

Beyond that, this reason belies an assumption: That you have to get a job. When you finish school, everyone knows about the two most obvious options: 1. Get a job working for someone else or 2. Get more schooling. But there is a third option: Carve your own path in the world. This can take many different forms, like starting a company [for example see Paul Graham's piece]. Or it could take the form of many other sorts of lifehacking activities [for example, see Tim Ferriss' muse concept, or Chris Guilliebeau's $100 start-up concept].

If you limit yourself to the choices presented to you by people who one did one of those two things -- get a job or go back to school -- then you obviously aren't going to understand that. There are other ways to make a living, and lots of people following those paths, you just have to go look for them.

4. "I want to change the world/help homeless people/rescue stray kittens/do something noble."

Wanting to help others is great, but if you are one of those rosy-eyed dipshits who sign anti-sweatshop petitions while wearing Nikes (made in Vietnam by children) and listening to your iPod (made in China by Foxconn virtual slaves) you know what's going to happen when you finally go out into the world trying to change it equipped with just a law degree and a healthy dose of optimism? Life is going to kick you in the teeth. Repeatedly.

If you go to law school with just some vague notion of public service and no sense of real, directed purpose, you WILL regret your decision. My first day in law school, the entire class was gathered in a lecture hall and they asked everyone who wanted to be in public service to raise their hand. At least 100 people did. Do you know how many ended up in a public service job three years later? Three of them. The other 97+ didn't stop wanting to make the world a better place, they just didn't know what it actually MEANS to help poor people for $30,000 a year when they raised their hands three years earlier. They hadn't tested their moral resolve in the crucible of suffocating debt. A $140,000/year job at Skadden Arps is a hard thing to ignore when you're staring down the barrel of a $150,000+ debt burden and $1,700+ monthly loan payments that start real quick after graduation.

If you want to cultivate a life full of bitterness and resentment a good way to do it is go to law school thinking you're going to be a crusader for change, then end up having to become the very opposite -- a corporate lawyer drone -- to pay off your law school debt. This happens to pretty much everyone in law school. If you want to change the world, that's awesome -- go do it. Don't go to law school, having a law degree doesn't help you.

5. "I don't know what else to do."

If you are coming to the end of your schooling and don't know what to do, or just otherwise feel lost in life, you shouldn't feel bad. It's OK. You're not alone. At least you have an excuse: You're barely old enough to drink, you don't need to know what you're going to do with the rest of your life at this point.

If your parents and guidance counselors say that you should have already "picked a direction" or "figured out a plan for your future" by now, ignore them. The pressure and admonitions they are foisting upon you aren't about your happiness or your success; it's about theirs. It's about validating themselves as good parents and qualified counselors. If they see you go to law school, to them it means you a) got good grades, b) went to college, c) didn't drop out, d) didn't commit (m)any felonies, e) have ambition and f) will make six-figures. By every traditional measure, they have succeeded in their prescribed roles.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether you are happy or fulfilled or even like the law; which are the most important considerations when making a decision like this. So relax. If you need more time to find your calling, that's fine, take it. Try lots of things, see what you like. Try working in a law firm, you'll see REAL fast that you hate it (or you'll love it, and thus validate your law school choice).

6. "I want to make a lot of money."

If there's one thing you can't argue with, it's that lawyers make a lot of money, right? I mean, a corporate lawyer starts at something like $140k a year, that's huge, right?

Wrong. WRONG.

$140k+ to start sounds like a lot of money, until you break it down. Currently, most large corporate firms -- where you will find these six-figure starting salaries -- require somewhere between 1,900-2,000 billable hours from their associates. This is not the total number of hours you have to be in the office, this is the total number of hours of actual work you can bill directly to a client. For a smart attorney with a solid work ethic, it typically takes about 10 hours in the office to accrue 7 billable hours; tracked most often in 6 minute or 1/10th of an hour segments. If we take the lower end of the billable requirement threshold (1,900 hours), that means a typical attorney has to work about ~2,700 real hours in a year to meet their minimum billables. To put that in perspective, 2,700 hours is equal to working 7.5 hours a day EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR.

Using a $140,000 base salary, that's equivalent to making ~$50/hour [FYI -- here's a short list of other careers that pay $50/hour or more and do not require a) 3 years of post-graduate schooling and $150k in debt or b) you to work 365 days a year to get it].

This is what people mean when they talk about something that looks too good to be true. There is a reason so many lawyers leave the legal field: Being a lawyer -- especially a lawyer at the type of big corporate firm that seemingly pays so well -- SUCKS.

The American Bar Association has published several studies about the incredibly low job satisfaction of lawyers and in every survey they publish, most lawyers say they would NOT be a lawyer if they had it all to do over again.

Perhaps the most important thing for you to understand, there are NOT an unlimited number of jobs out there that start at $140,000/year. In fact, there aren't many at all, and pretty much ALL of them go to kids who come from the Top 15 law schools. Beyond that, the overall legal job market has dried up, even the low paying jobs. They aren't going to tell you any of this at law school recruitment receptions; in fact schools continue to tell prospective students the opposite, which is why more and more of them are being sued for fraud.

I cannot be any clearer about this: You are not guaranteed a job out of any law school, much less a job that pays six figures.

Now, ask yourself the question again:

"Why do I want to go Law School?"

If ANY of the 6 above reasons describe why you want to go to law school, stop now. Seriously. No qualifiers on this statement, just stop. DO NOT GO. You will regret it.

If you think you have one of the good reasons to go to law school you're still not out of the woods:

The Problem of Debt

There are many perfectly valid reasons to go to law school. You may very well have one of them. But even if your reason for going to law school is rock solid, you still need to consider one major thing: Debt.

I've mentioned this multiple times above, because it is so crucially important to making the right decision about law school. Debt is the elephant in the room that law schools never tell you about, but ends up dominating your life.

Law school is three years long. If you go to an average law school and don't get any tuition help or scholarships, you are going to spend ~$150,000 all-in, at least. That's three years of tuition, assorted fees, books and living expenses. Unless you are one of the few whose parents set up a tuition fund for BOTH your undergrad AND your grad school, that means you are going to be taking loans. This means you are going to start your law job already 150k in the hole -- and that's not counting any undergrad debt you may be carrying. This means you are going be making a $1,700/month payment for about a decade. On just your grad school debt.

And make no mistake about it: Once you are in debt, they own you. In a straight-forward approximation, a starting salary of $140,000/year would put our intrepid new lawyer in the 28 percent tax bracket. Loan payments will take another 14.57 percent of his per-unit-time income. To a first-degree approximation then, it is accurate to say 42.5 percent of our INL's income dissipates before being touched by him/her. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Even if you started off law school with the best of non-profit save-the-world intentions, when you are staring a $1,700 per MONTH payment in the face, you WILL end up scurrying to work for a white collar sweatshop. And you will hate it, like everyone does, and you WILL want to leave, like everyone does, but you won't be able to -- like everyone else can't -- because you will have too much debt to pay off.

So you're going to spend a decade toiling 12 hours a day for what? To pay off the debt you incurred to get that job!? HOW CRAZY IS THAT!?!


But Don't Just Believe Me

I asked some friends who are lawyers to read a preliminary version of this post and give me their feedback. I'll leave you with their quotes:

I would HIGHLY recommend that anyone who is thinking of law school spend a year as a paralegal or as some sort of staff at a law firm before going to law school. Enough so that you can see 1) what young attorneys have to do 2) hear how much they bitch about hating it and 3) dispel any notions about ANY law firm caring about their associates or being "family friendly". Because that is a damn expensive mistake to make if you find out you don't like the practice of law. I went to a very good, very expensive law school and started out at a big firm. I hated it. I have since moved on to a smaller firm, which I do like more. But in all honesty, if I could do it all over, I would not go at all. And if I wasn't staring 100k in student loans in the face, I would probably quit firm practice altogether.
I have worked as a paralegal in some form of legal (family, bond, litigation) for 14 years now. I have yet to meet an attorney who is satisfied with his lot in life. I am not saying everyone non-esquire is thrilled with theirs, just that on a whole, these are some of the saddest, most down-trodden people I have known in my life. Most of my best friends are attorneys so I hear first hand about the student loans they are STILL paying off at 38; the huge houses and Mercedes' they purchased well beyond their means to "keep up with the Joneses" (a.k.a. every other attorney in the firm); the misery that is their ongoing marriages; the ridiculous hours; ice cold dinners; the utter lack of originality in their conversations; etc., etc., etc. Listening to these woes sucks the energy out of me everytime they come up. The most common nugget I hear: "Why, God WHY did I choose this profession?"
Nobody ever told me that I would be keeping time sheets that require me to divide my days into six-minute increments. Nobody told me I would have to choose between doing it right and doing it on a budget. The words "the client is cost-sensitive" burn my ears. But the marketing shit is the worst. The push to bring in business and schmooze potential clients and "cross-sell" within the firm. It's worse at some firms than others, but it is absolute misery to me no matter how much or how little marketing I may be doing. I've been practicing for 10 years, most of that time in big firms, and I have yet to get used to the business side of things. So I suppose that would be my take on things: even if you are going to law school for all of the "right reasons," odds are you will spend a significant portion of your day as the used-car salesman from Hell whose boss is nickle and diming you to an early grave.
As I write this, it is 85 degrees, sunny, with a slight, cooling breeze coming from the West. The only reason I know this is that I took twenty minutes to run to get a sandwich to eat at my desk. I am sitting in a basement office which houses three of us, putting off research on state law fair debt collection vs. the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the definition of a creditor to write this post. If that paragraph alone doesn't deter someone from law school, then I don't know what will.

And my personal favorite, from a friend of mine who is a partner at a huge multi-national firm:

I am a partner in one of the largest law firms in the world (measured by either revenue or # of lawyers). I had two associates pull all-nighters last night. I doubt either of them has slept more than 3 or 4 hours any night this week. I wonder if they are regretting their decision to go to law school? I'd ask, but I don't really care. Tucker, I'd really prefer if you did not do anything to cut off the supply of drones. Fortunately, the ones who will actually be persuaded by your speech are not the ones we want working here. I actually agree with everything you said in your speech. However, whoever posted the job satisfaction stat about 76 percent being unsatisfied, that means 24 percent are satisfied. You may be in the 24 percent.


Here is the funny thing about this piece: Every bit of knowledge in this piece was conferred to me before I got to law school. Much of it was told to me BY LAWYERS who repeatedly stressed how much they HATED their jobs. At this point, even the ABA is telling college kids not to go to law school.

You know what I did? I ignored it. I mean, sure all of those other assholes may be miserable and may hate the legal profession, but what do they know, they're only lawyers? If you're laughing at my ignorance, you're right to laugh. I was stupid.

Don't be me. Don't go to law school. Go do something with your life that you'll enjoy, is rewarding and productive and makes the world a better place.

Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0


SCAR'd Times: Maine's Prisoners' Rights Movement, 1971-1976

Document Type

Open Access

Degree Program


Degree Type

Master of Arts (M.A.)

Year Degree Awarded


Month Degree Awarded



Prison History, Prisoners' Rights Movement, Maine Social Movements, Maine Prisons, SCAR, Ray Levasseur


In late 1972, prisoners and ex-convicts in Maine formed Statewide Correctional Alliance for Reform (SCAR), a radical prisoners' rights organization that provoked a thoroughgoing public discussion on the function of prisons in Maine and in American society that lasted for about two years. Working for prison reform through legislation, litigation, and community organizing, SCAR influenced a Maine public unusually receptive to new approaches to criminal justice due to the impact of nationwide prison rebellions and the widely publicized massacre of forty-three prisoners and guards in New York’s Attica State Prison on September 13, 1971. As SCAR members, frustrated by the slow pace of change, came to increasingly view crime and prisons as products of an unjust socio-economic system that could be changed only through revolutionary means, a conservative backlash against prison reform also developed in the state, led by police officers, prison guards, and others who felt that Maine’s criminal justice system did not effectively safeguard its citizens from violent crime. When SCAR disbanded in 1976 as a result of internal political divisions and intense police repression, Maine no longer had an organized constituency to push for prison reform, leaving conservatives and the forces of political inertia and public indifference to guide state correctional policy in the years since.

Quote 0 0
see link for full story

Once the 'Face of Eco-Terrorism,' former Portlander Craig Rosebraugh is now lawyer, filmmaker

March 03, 2013

The man once dubbed "The Face of Eco-Terrorism," who cheered tree-hugging arsonists and thwarted FBI efforts to catch them -- stubbornly taking the Fifth before federal grand juries and an extremely annoyed congressional panel -- is now a red-blooded American lawyer.

Craig Rosebraugh, having spent his late 20s in Portland as the official spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front, earned his sheepskin at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University in May 2011.

But instead of taking the bar exam, he has continued his activism by finishing a movie about global warming, set for release this week.

Rosebraugh doesn't see any irony in his dramatic transformation from government antagonist to -- soon, he hopes -- attorney at law.

"I consider it consistent with just my own development as someone that's trying to make a positive difference in the world," he told The Oregonian in one of several recent interviews. "Every single thing I did has been along the lines of trying to fight against the injustices out there, to make the world a better place for all."

Rosebraugh's first feature-length film, a four-year documentary project provocatively titled "Greedy Lying Bastards," is scheduled to open Friday on more than 50 screens from Honolulu to Toronto, including two in Portland.

Directed, co-written and narrated by Rosebraugh, and backed by executive producer (and environmental activist) Daryl Hannah, the movie offers a scorching critique of what Rosebraugh describes as the scoundrels who shill for the petroleum industry by denying the existence of global warming.
Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0
There is a reason this money is not being donated to Law Enforcement.
The largest category of pedophiles and sex offenders by profession is law enforcement.

two reads

1st read


Debbie Weiss just made a major contribution to PROTECT: $1 million to establish the Weiss Center for Child Rescue and Protection Technology. The Weiss Center will focus on advancing technology to protect children. Their first project is the HERO Child-Rescue Corps, which will train wounded veterans to hunt down child predators over the Internet. Thank you, Ms. Weiss! To learn more about her game-changing gift, watch this news clip.
(Updated 03-06-13)

2nd read
see link for full story

Wounded warriors join fight against child porn


A $1 million gift will help a national group with an active base in Knoxville further its mission to protect children.

On Monday morning, Debbie Weiss of California announced the donation to the National Association to Protect Children (NAPC).

The money will help establish a high-tech center at NAPC headquarters in Downtown Knoxville.

The Weiss Center for Child Rescue and Protection Technology will focus on advancing technology to protect children.

For several years, NAPC has partnered with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).

Together, they have been able to improve technology that catches predators.

"They've produced incredible tools for law enforcement. They've got a thumb drive that recognizes child pornography. You stick it in the computer and it downloads the child porn in 15 minutes. It used to take weeks to do manually," said David Keith with NAPC.

But law enforcement needs help, which is how the Weiss Center decided its first mission.

The HERO (Human Exploitation Rescue Operatives) Child-Rescue Corps program will create 200 new jobs for wounded warriors.

Veterans will be trained and placed across the country, using technology created by ORNL.

Quote 0 0


Jerome Miller, Ph.D., Emeritus

National Center on Institutions and Alternative
Ph.D. Psychiatric Social Work

Dr. Jerome G. Miller is co-founder of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, based in Baltimore, Maryland, and Clinical Director of the Augustus Institute in Alexandria, Virginia. Dr. Miller has a doctorate in psychiatric social work and is recognized as one of the nation's leading authorities on corrections, and clinical work with violent juvenile and adult sex offenders. He is prominently known for closing all the state reform schools in Massachusetts and replacing them with community-based programs while serving as Commissioner of Children and Youth for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

While serving as Special Assistant to the Governor in Pennsylvania, Dr. Miller devised strategies and programs that successfully removed 1,000 youthful offenders from the state's adult prisons. From 1989 to 1994, Dr. Miller was the jail and prison monitor for the United States Court in the Middle District of Florida. Additionally, Dr. Miller has served as a Psychiatric Social Work Officer in the United States Air Force in this country and abroad, and was an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Ohio State University. From 1995 to 1997, Dr. Miller was the federal court "receiver" of D.C.'s child welfare system.

Dr. Miller has lectured extensively in the United States, Canada, and Europe. He has been widely published since 1965 and has written extensively for professional journals, magazines and trade publications. His 1990 book, Last One Over the Wall, was winner of the Edward Sagarin Prize of the American Society of Criminology and was positively reviewed in the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and The Boston Globe. (A second edition was released by Ohio State University Press in 1998.) His most recent book, Search & Destroy: African Americans in the Criminal Justice System, was published in 1997 by the Cambridge University Press.

Quote 0 0
see link for full story

LAPD investigating leak of financial records of government officials, celebrities

March 11, 2013 - 8:20 PM

LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles police say they are investigating the online posting of private financial records of several celebrities and the department's police chief.

A site posted what appear to be credit reports, Social Security numbers and other private details on Police Chief Charlie Beck, FBI Director Robert Mueller and stars such as Jay-Z and Oscar-winner Mel Gibson.
Quote 0 0
Published March 14, 2013, 01:05 PM

Citizen Police Academy starts March 26

Participants in the nine-week course will learn about crime scene investigation and evidence gathering, the use of deadly force, drunk driving enforcement, self-defense and have the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a squad car.


The seventh Hudson Police Department Citizen Police Academy will begin on Tuesday, March 26 at the department.

The nine-week course will be held Tuesday nights from 6-9 p.m. and is open to the public, age 18 and over. Participants will learn about crime scene investigation and evidence gathering, the use of deadly force, drunk driving enforcement, self-defense and have the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a squad car. The course also includes a presentation about interrogation techniques by former FBI agent Dan Kraft of North Hudson.

The cost of the course is $25 and a background check of all participants will be conducted. Enrollment is limited to 15 students. For more information go to the HPD link at the City of Hudson website at http://www.ci.hudson.wi.us/police.htm or call Chief Marty Jensen at (715)386-4771, ext. 210.

Quote 0 0
Congratulations to Dr. Joel Dvoskin, a Zero contributor, whose latest release was awarded the American Psychology-Law Society's 2013 Book Award! Click here to read Using Social Science to Reduce Violent Offending: A scientifically informed approach to increasing public safety. And if you want to read Dr. Joel's writings for the Zero, click here.

Quote 0 0

After 25 years on the air, COPS could finally be pushed out of primetime. FOX executives will be meeting shortly to decide whether to renew the controversial show. With its history of dehumanizing and racially inflammatory portrayals of people of color, COPS paints a damaging and distorted portrait of crime and the criminal justice system.

Research shows that these images linger in the subconscious of viewers, creating “unconscious attitudes” and “implicit biases” about both race and class, influencing public support for more punitive approaches to problems. More »

Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0
see Coleen Rowley's portrait here   http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/coleen-rowley

see link for full story

George W. Bush’s Lie-bury
March 28, 2013

As minor African despots are dragged before the International Criminal Court, ex-President George W. Bush remains free, despite having committed major war crimes like torture and aggressive war. With the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands, he will now celebrate his presidential library, Coleen Rowley notes.

By Coleen Rowley

A recent news report asking “Where is Dubya?” found the former president totally unengaged, spending his time painting strange portraits of himself in the bath. In what seems to be a weird personal attempt to emulate Winston Churchill (but more reminiscent of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess in her last days), the former president calmly ignores the sickening truth that slowly but surely emerges about his administration’s crimes as well as recent UN demands that U.S. leaders be charged with war crimes.

Ben Emmerson, the lead special investigator, recently described to gathered UN dignitaries a setting of self-approved legal immunity among U.S. and UK national leaders. He called the two governments’ standing policy, “A policy of de facto immunity for public officials who engaged in acts of torture, rendition and secret detention, and their superiors and political masters who authorized these acts.”

George W. Bush’s nude self-portrait in the shower.

So the hard task will clearly fall to George W. Bush’s soon-to-open Presidential Center to re-fashion history and create the legacy of the great “Decider” who, with neo-con help, so longed to be a “war president” that he decided to illegally and recklessly launch a “war of choice” (otherwise known as the illegal and catastrophic war of aggression upon Iraq based on false premises).

The new Bush Library will undoubtedly also credit their namesake with the idea of initiating the “global war on a tactic (GWOT)” that, despite a recent bipartisan congressional bill to end it, teeters on the verge of being made permanent. Bush’s successor having cleverly re-named it, then stretched and expanded GWOT to so many new countries that it now has come full circle under rhetoric of “keeping us safe” from foreign enemies that it now targets U.S. citizens for what could possibly be indefinite detention and assassination and includes the U.S. as part of its ever-widening global battlefield.

(Though to be fair, Bush already had established those principles with his military detention of alleged terrorist and U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, arrested and imprisoned on U.S. soil as an “enemy combatant.”)

Whoever said we can’t look back must not have reckoned with the fact and force of such a Presidential Lie-Bury! Luckily some Dallasresidents have sprung to the task of putting forward an honest “People’s Response” to the deceptive refashioning of this unethical and illegal history. Here’s an excerpt from their press release:

“When the George W. Bush Library and Policy Institute is dedicated on April 25, 2013, at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, protestors will be there to demand the ex-president be held accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of U.S. and international law. President Barack Obama, formerU.S.presidents and many heads of state are expected to attend the dedication ceremony. “

A coalition of local, state and national peace and justice groups organizing the protest is inviting people from across the country to participate in an event called “The People’s Response.” According to Leslie Harris of CODEPINK Greater Dallas, “The illegal invasion of a sovereign nation was declared a ‘supreme crime’ at theNurembergtrials. That Bush and his advisors walk free today is unconscionable; there must be accountability so history won’t repeat itself.”

Reverend Bill McElvaney, professor emeritus, Perkins School of Theology at SMU, an early opponent of locating the George W. Bush Institute on campus, said, “The invasion of Iraq, and the approval of torture are violations of the United Methodist Social Principles, thus placing Southern Methodist University in contradiction to its own heritage as an institution of The United Methodist Church.”

I plan to participate for a lot of reasons but most fundamentally, from having spent 24 years as an FBI agent working in the criminal justice system always and inherently focused on looking backward to solve the worst crimes, I understand the true purpose of Obama’s ridiculous “only look forward” cover-up was to continue, make worse and even expand upon Bush’s illegal wars, war crimes and war profiteering.

It’s hard to put this into words better than author and researcher, “War Is A Crime” and “Let’s Try Democracy” activist David Swanson as he explains “Why I’m Attending the Dedication of the Bush Lie Bury:”

“On April 25th the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum and General Rehabilitation Project will be dedicated in Dallas, Texas. It takes up 23 acres at Southern Methodist University, 23 acres that neither humanity nor any other species may ever reclaim for anything decent or good. I’ll be there, joining in the people’s response (http://ThePeoplesResponse.org) with those who fear that this library will amount to a Lie Bury.

” ‘The BushCenter’s surrounding native Texaslandscape,’ the center’s PR office says, ‘including trees from the Bush family’s Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas, continues President and Mrs. Bush’s longstanding commitment to land and water conservation and energy efficiency.’ Does it, now? Is that what you recall? Bush the environmentalist?

“Well, maybe you and I remember things differently, but do we have a major educational institution that will effectively repeat our corrections of the Lie Bury’s claims for decades to come? According to the Lie Bury, Bush was and is an education leader, saving our schools by turning them into test-taking factories and getting unqualified military officers to run them. This is something to be proud of, we’re told.

“The Lie Bury’s annual report shows Bush with the Dalai Lama. No blood is anywhere to be seen. The Lie Bury’s website has a photo of a smiling George W. golfing for war. ‘The Warrior Open,’ it explains, ‘is a competitive 36-hole golf tournament that takes place over two days every fall in theDallasarea. The event honorsU.S.service members wounded in the global war on terror.’

“Now, I actually know of some soldiers wounded in what they call by that name who don’t feel honored by Bush’s golfing, just as millions of Iraqis living as refugees within or outside of the nation he destroyed find Bush’s liberty to walk outdoors, much less golf for the glory of war, offensive. But none of them has a quarter-billion dollar ‘center’ from which to spread the gospel of history as it actually happened — as it happened to its losers, to those water-boarded, shot in the face, or otherwise liberated by Bush and his subordinates.

“When Bush lied about excuses to start a war onIraq– as with everything else he did — he did so incompetently. As a result, a majority of Americans in the most recent polls, still say he lied to start the war. But few grasp the lesson as it should be applied to wars launched by more competent liars. And memory of Bush’s lies is fading, buried under forgetfulness, avoidance, misdirection, revisionism, a mythical ‘surge’ success, and a radically inaccurate understanding of what our government did toIraq.

“I won’t be attending the Lie Bury ceremony for vengeance, but in hopes of ridding our culture of the vengeance promoted by Bush. He based a foreign policy and a domestic stripping away of rights on the thirst for vengeance — even if misdirected vengeance. We have a responsibility to establish that we will not support that approach going forward.

“Bush himself is relevant only as his treatment can deter future crimes and abuses. No one should wish Bush or any other human being ill. In fact, we should strive to understand him, as it will help us understand others who behave as he has. Bush, of course, knew what he was doing when he tried to launch a war while pretending a war would be his last resort, suggesting harebrained schemes to get the war going to Tony Blair. Bush knew the basic facts. He knew he was killing a lot of people for no good reason. He was not so much factually clueless as morally clueless.

“For Bush, as for many other people, killing human beings in wars exists outside the realm of morality. Morality is the area of abortions, gay marriage, shoplifting, fornicating, or discriminating. Remember when Bush said that a singer’s suggestion that he didn’t care about black people was the worst moment in his presidency? Racism may be understood by Bush as a question of morality. Mass murder not so much. Bush’s mother remarked that war deaths were not worthy of troubling her beautiful mind. Asked why he’d lied about Iraqi weapons, George W. Bush asked what difference it made. Well, 1.4 million dead bodies, but who’s counting?

“I won’t be attending the Lie Bury because Bush’s successor is an improvement. On the contrary, our failure to hold Bush accountable has predictably led to his successor being significantly worse in matters of abusing presidential power. And not just predictably, but predicted. When we used to demand Bush’s impeachment, people would accuse us of disliking him or his political party. No, we’d say, if he isn’t held accountable, future presidents will be worse, and it won’t matter from which party they come.

“I helped draft about 70 articles of impeachment against Bush, from which Congressman Dennis Kucinich selected 35 and introduced them. I later looked through those 35 and found 27 that applied to President Barack Obama, even though his own innovations in abusive behavior weren’t on the list. Bush’s lying Congress into war (not that Congress wasn’t eager to play along) is actually a standard to aspire to now. When Obama went to war inLibya, against the will of Congress, he avoided even bothering to involve the first branch of our government.

“When Bush locked people up or tortured them to death, he kept it as secret as he could. Obama — despite radically expanding secrecy powers and persecuting whistleblowers — does most of his wrongdoing wide out in the open. Warrantless spying is openly acknowledged policy. Imprisonment without trial is ‘law.’ Torture is a policy choice, and the choice these days is to outsource it. Murder is, however, the new torture. The CIA calls it ‘cleaner.’ I picture Bush’s recent paintings of himself washing off whatever filth his mind is aware he carries.

“Obama runs through a list of men, women, and children to murder on Tuesdays, picks some, and has them murdered. We don’t know this because of a whistleblower or a journalist. We know this because the White House wanted us to know it, and to know it before the election. Think about that. We moved from the pre-insanity state we were in circa 1999 to an age in which presidents want us to know they murder people.

“That was primarily the work of George W. Bush, and every single person who yawned, who looked away, who cheered, who was too busy, who said ‘it’s more important to elect a new president than to keep presidential powers in check,’ or who said ‘impeachment would be traumatic’ — as if this isn’t.

“InGuatemalaa prosecutor has charged a former dictator with genocide, remarking, ‘It’s sending the most important message of the rule of law — that nobody is above the law.’ It’s not so many years ago that theUnited Stateshad the decency at least to hypocritically propose that standard to the world. Now, we advance the standard of lawlessness, of ‘looking forward, not backward.’

“That’s why the people need to respond to the lie bury. Ann Wright is going to be there. And Diane Wilson. Robert Jensen and Ray McGovern are coming. So are Lon Burnam and Bill McElvaney and Debra Sweet. Hadi Jawad and Leah Bolger and Marjorie Cohn and Kathy Kelly are coming. As are Coleen Rowley and Bill Moyer and Jacob David George and Medea Benjamin and Chas Jacquier and Drums Not Guns.

“Also coming will be many familiar faces from the days when we used to protest in Crawford. When we’d go into that one restaurant at the intersection in Crawford, there’d be a cardboard cut-out Dubya standing there. We picked him up and stood him in the corner, facing the corner. We said he needed to stay there until he understood what he’d done wrong. In reality, of course, he was cardboard. The lesson was for everyone else in the restaurant. It’s a lesson that still needs to be taught.”

Please join us in Dallas!
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.