One Year Ago a New DNA Process Cleared the Ramsey Family

One year ago today, on July 9, 2008, a new DNA process cleared the members of the Ramsey family of the December 25-26, 1996 murder of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

The Rocky Mountain News (7-9-08) reported:

Boulder’s District Attorney apologized to the Ramsey family today, saying new DNA evidence convinces her that no member of his family is under suspicion for the 1996 death of John Ramsey’s daughter, 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

In a letter to John [see letter and FOX video], DA Mary Lacy said her office recently got results back on a new “touch DNA” process in which technicians can scrape places where there are no stains or other signs that DNA may be present.The samples from JonBenet’s long-johns — “probably handled by the perpetrator during the course of this crime” — revealed male DNA, but none of it matched anyone in the Ramsey family, she said.

“To the extend that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might nave been involved in the crime, I am deeply sorry,” Lacy wrote.

“No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion.” [Full text]

CBS (7-9-08) explains the new DNA technology:

A new type of DNA test has again cleared the family of JonBenet Ramsey in her death...The new type of DNA testing, not available in previous years, was conducted on DNA recovered from JonBenet's leggings. Previous tests were conducted on DNA collected from her underwear.

Those earlier tests also did not match any of the Ramsey family members.

The new test also ruled out anyone in a large criminal DNA database. The results do point to an unknown man, authorities said...

As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet's blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank...

In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as "touch DNA." One method for sampling for touch DNA is the "scraping method." In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.

In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide. [Full text]

Judge Naves Rules Against Ward Churchill

Judge Larry Naves ruled [duplicate copy] today, July 7, 2009, that the dishonest ex-professor Ward Churchill does not get his job back at the University of Colorado. Churchill was fired for research misconduct. Churchill does not get any money from CU or even the dollar the jury awarded him. [Here's a little poem for the occasion.]

You can follow today's reactions at the Denver Post (7-7-09), Drunkablog, and PirateBallerina:
Awwwwwww Part IV
Awwwwwww Part III
Awwwwwww Part II
Awwwwwww

Judge Naves May Rule Today on Ward Churchill's Case

According to Patricia Calhoun at Westword Magazine (7-6-09):

As early as today, Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves could be handing down his decision on whether Ward Churchill gets his job back at the University of Colorado.

Judge Naves may order the University of Colorado to rehire Churchill, to award him a financial payment, or to give him nothing.

Remembering FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams

Thirty-four years ago today, on June 26, 1975, two young FBI Special Agents, Jack R. Coler (left) and Ronald A. Williams (right), were shot to death execution-style at close range after they were already injured and on the ground. I have written about this murder here, but there is an overiew of these murders at the No Parole Peltier Association, and at AIM Myth Busters. The official FBI summary of the RESMURS (Reservation murders) is posted on the Minneapolis FBI site.

A career criminal named Leonard Peltier was convicted of aiding and abetting the murders.

The anniversary of this day is remembered here by John Trimbach, the son of FBI Special Agent Joseph Trimbach [See Trimbachs' Press Room Page]:

Atlanta
Friday, June 26, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: James Simon at jamessimon500@comcast.net

News Alert: 10 Reasons Why Leonard Peltier Should Never Be Freed

June 26, 2009 - Every year in June, Leonard Peltier supporters and ranters unite in calling for his release from the confines of the federal penitentiary. Even those who say he may be guilty argue that Peltier should be freed for "humanitarian" reasons because he'll soon be 65-years-old. For the record, Peltier objects to serving two consecutive life sentences for the execution-style murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams on June 26, 1975. Peltier has always claimed the truth of his innocence has never had a chance to blossom. While truth, no doubt, plays a reassuring role in the quest for justice, it is not something that has been a friend to the infamous Native American cause célèbre. The truth is particularly harmful to Peltier this year because he comes up for a parole board hearing on July 27, his first since 1993. Some say this is his last chance to bamboozle the board.

Though Peltier is loath to admit it, the truth has never failed to surface; first during his trial, and ever since, through old secrets revealed. And the evidence has always beaten a path to Peltier's cell door, most often by way of his own flawed thinking. Peltier thought the Agents were there to arrest him (they weren't), that he was justified in shooting two men in the face at point-blank range (he wasn't), and that he can now lie his way to freedom before a parole board (he can't.) But because Peltier says he didn't do it, his followers simply believe him. Not only do they believe him, they issue astounding proclamations in support of his innocence, his make-belief persona as "political prisoner," and his "human rights activist" nonsense. As one blogger recently swore, "Leonard Peltier is not in prison for killing the two Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Agents as is alleged, he has been incarcerated for 33 years because he belonged to a group (American Indian Movement) that dared to challenge the federal government and their lies. When one has the audacity to challenge the fedgov, he/she becomes a target for malicious prosecution, fabricated evidence, witness tampering and illegal imprisonment. Leonard Peltier has experienced all of these in the extreme. "

"Extreme" is certainly a word Peltier pushers are familiar with. "Extreme," as in not allowing the facts to get in the way of regurgitating fables and falsehoods. "Extreme," as in ignoring the Federal Register, the Federal Record, and the court testimony, all of which place Peltier at the scene of the crime, at the moment the killing shots were fired. And so in the spirit of Coler and Williams, here are ten truthful reasons why Peltier should never see the light of day as a free man:

1. Peltier was fairly tried and fairly convicted. This is the conclusion of every federal judge who has reviewed the case. Since his conviction in 1977, the evidence against Peltier has been repeatedly confirmed, expanded, and corroborated. [See: (Note FN 15: "The two witnesses testified outside the presence of the jury that after their testimony at trial, they had been threatened by Peltier himself that if they did not return to court and testify that their earlier testimony had been induced by F.B.I. threats, their lives would be in danger")]

2. Facts of the case prove that Peltier opened fire on the Agents from a distance of over 200 yards. Armed with only their side arms, both young men were soon wounded. After the initial shooting ended, Peltier, along with two other men, walked down to the wounded Agents and finished them off, shooting them both in the face at point-blank range.

3. A few months after the murders, Peltier bragged about killing Agent Ron Williams, as recalled by a witness in a separate murder trial in 2004. Under oath, the witness recalled Peltier's exact words: "The motherfu—er was begging for his life but I shot him anyway." (See here.)

4. Peltier has parlayed his Native American ancestry into a successful defense fund, bilking millions of people out of their time and money. He has fooled Amnesty International, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Dali Lama, and people all over the world. Peltier is supported by Hollywood heavyweights Robert Redford, David Geffen, and Oliver Stone, all of whom have fallen prey to his propaganda machine. Redford produced and narrated a documentary that uses Peltier's own concoctions to explain away his guilt, such as the Mr. X alibi, later exposed as another Peltier ruse.

5. Freeing an unrepentant murderer like Peltier is contrary to all principles of parole and rehabilitation. It would undermine law enforcement efforts, subvert the rule of law, and compound the anguish of the victims' families. Freeing a killer like Peltier would be particularly devastating to FBI Agents who risk their lives every day in pursuit of criminals. A pardon would also be detrimental to American interests by giving ammunition to our enemies. They will point to our system of justice as one that convicts innocent Native Americans, thus confirming their argument that Peltier was wrongfully convicted and that our court system is unfair. Worldwide media will parrot these conclusions as if they are fact-based.

6. Freeing a guilty killer like Peltier would undermine efforts to investigate crimes on Indian reservations. Many Indians would view his freedom as a sign that the FBI and the Justice Department had always tried to mislead Indian Country about the facts of the case. Many Indians would be more reluctant to cooperate with current investigations.

7. Peltier escaped from prison in July 1979 during which a young Indian was shot and killed. Peltier claimed he was targeted by the FBI for assassination. The truth is that he had planned his escape for several years, and counted on help from outside contacts. Peltier must be held responsible for the needless death he caused and for threatening a man from whom he stole a truck during his escape. Peltier was sentenced to seven additional years for his escape attempt.

8. If Peltier is freed, it will be more difficult to indict him on other murders in which he may have been involved. In one of these cases, Peltier interrogated a young woman, Anna Mae Aquash, by putting a loaded gun in her mouth. Aquash's execution was ordered by leaders of the American Indian Movement (AIM) because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informan (See www.americanindianmafia.com/audio/GunInHerMouthReMix.wmv.)

9. Contrary to his claims, Peltier has always put himself above the welfare of Native Americans. One of his recent newsletters opened with the words, "May Death Be Upon You, FBI" These are not the thoughts of an innocent man, but rather the wish of someone wanting to stir up violence. Peltier would like nothing better than to agitate for criminal acts against Indians who oppose his freedom and who count on the FBI to apprehend evildoers on the reservation. Peltier has nothing but contempt for our system of justice. He has done nothing to earn his freedom.

10. Peltier's 1993 Parole Board recognized that he was convicted of aiding and abetting the murders. But then the Board went on to say: "... the greater probability is that you yourself fired the fatal shots... It would be unjust to treat the slaying of these F.B.I. agents, while they lay wounded and helpless, as if your actions had been part of a gun battle. Neither the state of relations between Native American militants and law enforcement at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation prior to June 26, 1975, nor the exchanges of gunfire between individuals at the Jumping Bull Compound and the law enforcement agents who arrived there during the hours after Agents Coler and Williams were murdered, explains or mitigates the crimes you committed... Your release on parole would promote disrespect for the law in contravention of 18 U.S.C..."

Leonard Peltier is guilty. He has done nothing to show that he accepts responsibility for his crimes. To this day, Peltier remains defiant, manipulative, and completely remorseless. Freeing this ruthless killer would be a terrible travesty of justice.

John M. Trimbach
Trimbach & Associates, Inc.
Atlanta
770-883-5086

Queen Elizabeth Not Invited to D-Day Ceremonies in France

Princess Elisabeth served as a driver and a mechanic during WWII. The future Queen Elizabeth was the first female member of the British Royal Family to serve in the military.

"We are are trying to do all we can to help our gallant sailors, soldiers and airmen, and we are trying, too, to bear our share of the danger and sadness of war. We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well."---The 14-year-old Princess Elizabeth addresses British refugee children from Winsor Castle on "The Children's" hour in 1940.

For some reason, Queen Elizabeth was not invited to France to observe the anniversary of D-Day, which began on June 6, 1944, even though she is "the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II."

In 1940, as a 14-year-old girl, Princess Elizabeth spoke on the BBC radio program called The Children's Hour and gave encouragement to all the British children who had been evacuated from the cities to the countryside and even to different countries of the British Empire. The Princess also remembered to thank all the counties who sheltered these young war refugees.

During WWII, the teenaged Princess served as an Army driver and a mechanic. "She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor. Princess Elizabeth trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck, and rose to the rank of Junior Commander."

The future Queen Elizabeth was the first female member British Royal Family to join the military. What a shame that Queen Elizabeth was not invited to France for the 65th Anniversay of D-Day and thanked for her service.

The Abuse of Psychiatry to Support Abortion

"Maybe if a prospective mom has a mental illness, she should have a psychiatrist, not an abortion."--Snapple

I first wrote about the terrorist murder of the late-term Kansas abortionist Dr. George Tiller here. I consider this murder an act of terrorism. The accused killer Scott Roeder was an anti-government extremist who did not use his political freedoms to fight Dr. Tiller legally. His actions have damaged the pro-life movement.

Now the pro-life Kansas writer Jack Cashill (6-4-09) has commented on the murder of Dr. Tiller:

In 1997, Kansas toughened its laws to close the loopholes that Tiller had forced open. The new law stated that a late-term abortion could be performed only if two doctors found that the mother would otherwise suffer death or “a severe and irreversible impairment to a major bodily function.”

The murdered Kansas abortionist Dr. George Tiller had been tried for flouting this Kansas law that limited late-term abortions and was acquitted. According to Dr. Cashill, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, who has now become Secretary of Health and Human Services, used her political power to defeat Attorney General Phill Kline and protect Dr. Tiller.

Dr. Paul McHugh [watch the video], who served as the Chair of the School of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University for 25 years, explains that Dr. Tiller, who is not a psychiatrist, aborted babies for trivial, not serious, medical/psychiatric reasons. Maybe if a prospective mom has a mental illness, she should have a psychiatrist, not an abortion.

In the former USSR, political dissidents used to be committed to mental hospitals for political reasons, but the authorities used psychiatrists who collaborated with the KGB to disguise this persecution as a non-existant mental illness called "sluggish schizophrenia." Maybe some American politicians are doing something similar when they allow an abortionist to make a psychiatric diagnosis of his own patients.

In the former USSR, political dissidents who fell afoul of the regime were sometimes hospitalized with a fake psychiatric diagnosis in order to discredit them. The dissidents were medically abused and "treated" with psychotropic drugs that sometimes left them with neurologial disorders and ruined health. Most Soviet psychiatrists didn't want to get involved in this dirty business, so the KGB had to rely on just a few collaborating psychiatrists. Finally, the world's psychiatrists censured Soviet psychiatry for medical abuse. Perhaps American psychiatrists should insist that psychiatric diagnoses used to justify abortion be made by independent psychiatrists, not by wealthy abortionists who contribute money to powerful politicians. When we abuse psychiatry to get rid of inconvenient babies, we are not so different than the KGB who abused psychiatry to get rid of inconvenient people.

Attorney Mark Lane and the Poisoned Cheese Sandwiches

"[Jonestown lawyer Mark Lane] accompanied [Congressman] Ryan, Speier and the rest of us to Jonestown. By his own account, he managed to escape just in time, after Ryan had been killed and the carnage in Jonestown had begun. A few days after the killings, Lane asked me if I had eaten the cheese sandwiches served to us that day before we left for the airstrip where I was wounded and Ryan was murdered. When I said yes, I had eaten the sandwiches, Lane said he had not – because he’d been told they were poisoned. Why hadn’t he told Ryan and the rest of us, I asked. There was no response."--Charles A. Krause in the Washington Post (11-19-08)

Over 900 Americans were murdered by poison at Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. Mark Lane was their lawyer. A few years earlier, Mark Lane had been the lawyer for the American Indian Movement (AIM) during their destructive and murderous 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee, an Indian community in South Dakota.

Todd Leventhal, who "has a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard Business School, a Masters in Russian Area Studies from Georgetown University, and a Bachelors degree in finance from the University of Colorado," writes about the conspiracy lawyer-writer Mark Lane for America.gov (11-24-08).

Mr. Leventhal should read American Indian Mafia by Joe and John Trimbach, because he seems unaware of the role that Mark Lane played in 1973 when the South Dakota Indian village of Wounded Knee was taken over by his clients, violent killers.

Mr. Leventhal writes:

On November 19, Washington Post reporter Charles Krause wrote an account of what happened when he was shot and wounded while accompanying U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan to Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. Ryan’s visit prompted Jonestown leader Jim Jones to murder Ryan and others in his party as well as 909 Jonestown residents, who died in a revolutionary “mass suicide.”

Krause recalls his encounter at that time with Mark Lane, a lawyer for Jonestown and author of one of the most influential conspiracy theory books on the Kennedy assassination, Rush to Judgment. Lane had accompanied Ryan, Krause and others in their visit to Jonestown, but escaped the carnage.

Krause writes:

A few days after the killings, Lane asked me if I had eaten the cheese sandwiches served to us that day before we left for the airstrip where I was wounded and Ryan was murdered. When I said yes, I had eaten the sandwiches, Lane said he had not – because he’d been told they were poisoned. Why hadn’t he told Ryan and the rest of us, I asked. There was no response.

Lane’s ethical lapses are also evident in Rush to Judgment. Vincent Bugliosi writes, in Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, “if the reader checks Lane’s assertions against the evidence produced by the [Warren] Commission … he or she will find that Lane’s contentions are either distortions or outright fabrications.”

Bugliosi notes that Lane says that none of the doctors who treated Kennedy in Dallas observed a bullet entry wound in the back of his head. This would seem to indicate that Oswald, who was behind Kennedy, could not have been the assassin. But Bugliosi says the reason the doctors saw no entry wound is that they did not turn over Kennedy’s body to look at the back of his head. Their concern was treating his visible injuries to try to save his life.

It sounds like it’s not wise to trust either a cheese sandwich served by Lane’s employers or a book produced by him.

In a related historical footnote, when Vasili Mitrokhin, senior archivist for the KGB’s First Chief Directorate, defected to the United Kingdom in 1992 with thousands of transcribed summaries of KGB documents, he revealed the KGB had sent Lane, through an intermediary, $2000 to support his work on Rush to Judgment. Lane says he did not know these funds had come from the KGB, although the KGB suspected he might have guessed.

PBS Ombusdman Michael Getler Responds to WKVAVA

"The [PBS] series ["We Shall Remain"] was reviewed by 'a group of prominent scholars of Native American history' and by 'several program advisors who are expert in this particular chapter of Native history.' Having said that, it seems to me that PBS ought to present Trimbach's complaints [about the May 11 episode titled "Wounded Knee"] to these scholars or, even better, a small group of scholars not connected to the program, for some kind of more detailed reply. This might take a while but it seems worth it, especially since there are a lot of teaching materials associated with the series."--PBS Ombusdman Michael Getler

The Ombusdman for PBS, Michael Getler, writes (5-20-09) that PBS should give scholars a chance to respond to Mr. Trimbach's concerns, but Mr. Getler doesn't suggest that the Indian members of the WKVAVA, such as the eyewitness to AIM violence Mr. Two Elk, also have access to these scholars.

PBS claims that their series is told "from the Native American perspective," so it seems to me that the Indian members of The Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAVA) should also have access to the scholars PBS assembles. PBS probably doesn't realize that the so-called "Indian perspective" on Wounded Knee is often propaganda spread by white radicals like the ex-professor Ward Churchill, or by AIMsters trying to cover-up their crimes by maquerading as human rights activists, or by communist AIM lawyers such as Mark Lane, who maintained a relationship with the KGB journalist/political operative Genrikh Borovik, according to documentation provided by the defector Mitrokhin. Borovik is the brother-in-law of the KGB chief Kryuchkov, who was part of the coup that overthrew Gorbachev. Mark Lane was also the lawyer for the people at Jonestown, but he managed to escape when over 900 people were murdered with poison.

Much of the documentation in the Trimbachs' book American Indian Mafia is based on the eyewitness testimony and investigations of Indian WKVAVA researchers. A lot of the book tells the story of how the WKVAVA members and other Indians came forward with or developed their evidence. The book may have been written by a white FBI agent, but his sources are often Indians.

The title of the Trimbachs' book American Indian Mafia was taken from Congressional testimony about the violence and criminal leadership of the AIM. Mr. Getler seems to think that the title was the Trimbachs mocking the AIM. Mr. Getler hasn't acquainted himself with the Congressional testimony about AIM's criminal activities such as drug-dealing and gun-running, or he would know that the leaders of AIM literally were a mafia.

Mr. Getler doesn't mention that AIM vandalized or stole valuable Indian artifacts from the Gildersleeve's small Indian museum at Wounded Knee and reportedly sold the stolen loot to white collectors. Would real Indians rights activists destroy and steal Indian artifacts?

Mr. Getler doesn't even mention that AIM reportedly murdered Ray Robinson and others inside Wounded Knee during the occupation and buried their bodies near the village.

Still, Mr. Getler has posted the letter from the WKVAVA below his essay.

I have posted Mr. Getler's Ombudsman Column and the WKVAVA letter he appends to his essay below, but see the WKVAVA letter and especially the letter from Cheryl Buswell-Robinson, whose husband was one of the people murdered by the AIM and buried near the village of Wounded Knee, here.

The Ombudsman Column

Burying Some Questions at Wounded Knee
By Michael Getler
May 20, 2009

An ambitious and, I thought, powerful and illuminating five-part series on the relentlessly tragic yet often stirring history of the American Indian unfolded on PBS stations for 90 minutes on consecutive Monday evenings from April 13 through May 11.

This unusual documentary — combining re-enactments with archival photos and films, and loaded with mostly Native American historians and talking heads, and a narrator who carried the theme of valiant yet ultimately fruitless resistance to the encroachment of the white man — took viewers from the time in 1621 when the Native Americans first encountered the Pilgrims who came aboard the Mayflower to the still-controversial siege at the historic village of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, in 1973.

The mini-series, titled "We Shall Remain," is part of the broader "American Experience" documentary series produced by WGBH in Boston. In promoting the films, PBS described the series as one that focuses on pivotal, historic moments "from the Native American perspective" spanning more than 300 years of American history. It "shows how Native peoples valiantly resisted expulsion from their lands and fought the extinction of their culture" and it represents "an unprecedented collaboration between Native and non-Native filmmakers and involves Native advisors and scholars at all levels of the project."

Scholarship and Criticism

That invocation of scholarship has become an issue for me because a group calling itself "The Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association" has issued a lengthy and detailed challenge to numerous aspects of the final 90-minute episode that aired last week.

The letter, dated May 10, containing that challenge is signed by nine people, seven of them Native Americans. But the lead writers are the now retired former FBI special agent in charge during the 1973 episode, Joseph H. Trimbach, and his son, John M. Trimbach. The father and son have also co-authored a book, "American Indian Mafia," which offers a sharply different and critical view of events at Wounded Knee and especially of the activities of the American Indian Movement (AIM) members who took over and occupied the village and confronted Federal agents during the 71-day siege. The title of the book mocks the name of the AIM.

The letter from the Trimbachs and their colleagues was addressed to PBS President and Chief Executive Officer Paula Kerger, and it is a detailed, non-stop, frontal attack on the program.

Here's the first paragraph:

"We wish to express our concerns about the PBS-backed production of 'Wounded Knee,' the final installment of the 'American Experience — We Shall Remain' series. We believe that the producer, Stanley Nelson of Firelight Media, violates PBS's own guidelines for editorial integrity, honesty, and fairness. PBS guidelines state: 'When editing, producers of informational content must not sensationalize events or create a misleading or unfair version of what actually occurred' and that '(p)roducers must assure that edited material remains faithful in tone . . .' and is presented '. . . in a manner that fairly portrays reality.' Wounded Knee fails on all counts. This production employs distorted editing, deceptive statements, audience manipulation, and a propagandistic narrative that rationalizes the terror, violence, and murders perpetrated by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the 1973 occupation of the historic Indian village of Wounded Knee."

The letter (which is printed at the end of this column) goes on for six full pages, with challenges to several specific statements and scenes in the segment. I'll come back to the body of that letter, but on May 15, Kerger wrote to John Trimbach and included a response from Mark Samels, the executive producer of American Experience, "describing the steps the producers took to help ensure the integrity of the referenced program."

Here's How Samels Responded:

"The film 'Wounded Knee' was reviewed at various stages in its production, from script treatment to final cut, by a group of prominent scholars of Native American history, who served as advisors to We Shall Remain, the ground-breaking series on Native history of which 'Wounded Knee' is a part. In addition, 'Wounded Knee' was reviewed by several program advisors who are expert in this particular chapter of Native history.

"Our film was not intended to be a comprehensive history of either the American Indian Movement or the village of Wounded Knee. Instead, it was designed to focus on what happened at Wounded Knee during the 1973 occupation, and what role the siege played in the larger story of Native Americans in the 20th century. We were particularly concerned with the events preceding the siege that contributed to a sense of dislocation and desperation in many Native communities across the country. And we were interested in what effect the occupation, and its widespread media coverage, had on Indians far removed from Wounded Knee.

"We believe there is ample evidence in the film of AIM's controversial use of armed confrontation and violence, from the preceding events in nearby Custer — where AIM members attacked and laid waste to the courthouse — to the sacking of a family-owned store in Wounded Knee. Archival footage featured in the film clearly shows devastation in the village during the siege, as Mayor Dick Wilson characterizes AIM members as 'hoodlums' and 'clowns.' As one of the interviewees states in the film, 'Where AIM goes, chaos often follows.'

"Our producers took great pains to be even-handed in the portrayal of the siege at Wounded Knee. This is a difficult piece of American history and we believe our film presents it with the care and complexity it deserves."

My Thoughts

First, a logistical note. The critique presented by the Trimbachs and their co-signers is, as I said earlier, very long. As far as I know, no one else has written about this other than a news story on rapidcityjournal.com on May 13 reporting on the Victims and Veterans Association's accusation that PBS had slanted the telling of the Wounded Knee story to glorify AIM and disregard the real victims of Wounded Knee, the villagers who lived there. The story did not post the letter online. Trimbach wrote and asked that it be posted on my site and I have done that for those who wish to pursue this in greater detail.

My reaction as a lay viewer to the series, including the final segment, was one of feeling grateful for the production. The history of Native Americans in this country is so extraordinary, so important to understanding who we are and how we got here, so revealing of diversity among tribes, of suffering by all of them, and of the emergence of extraordinary natural leaders from within that suffering population, that all serious reminders of this story should be welcomed. And this was a serious production.

The reviews I read about the series in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and The Washington Post were all generally positive and did not focus or mention the kind of challenge to the history of Wounded Knee that is contained in the protest letter. As I checked various impartial online reference sources about the siege that began on Feb. 27, 1973 and ended on May 8, including, for example, a lengthy report by former Sen. James G. Abourezk there was also little mention of, or material to resolve, the kind of challenges raised by the Trimbachs and their co-signers.

On the other hand, there is no question but that there were, and are, continuing disputes about exactly what happened inside Wounded Knee during that period. There were deep divisions, pitting AIM and some of its generally impoverished tribal allies against other Indians of mixed-blood, like the authorities within the reservation who were reviled and portrayed as corrupt by AIM and many more traditional Indians. AIM was a militant, activist group with a long string of protests and demonstrations, some of which had turned violent, that had grabbed public attention. They sought to take advantage of the growing civil rights movement in the country at that time. And, as dramatic as the siege of Wounded Knee was, and for all the press coverage it attracted, the Nixon administration that would try to deal with the armed stand-off was also distracted by something else that was unfolding at the same time — Watergate.

The confrontation at Wounded Knee in 1973 — which had also been the scene of a historic massacre of Indians in 1890 — was dramatic and confusing. Some of the history and events will undoubtedly always be disputed. In the end, it looked like a defeat for AIM and its supporters among the local Oglala Sioux. But the episode remains one of those formative events that focused the attention of a nation that traditionally looks forward on something that happened in its past that hasn't quite been fixed.

Provide a More Detailed Response

As a viewer, the film left no doubt with me that it was indeed recorded from a Native American perspective. Yet I think Samels' response, although brief, is correct in that the violent and radical actions of AIM were at least there to be seen in the film. In Trimbach's assessment, however, and that of his co-signers, although seemingly a minority view, the role of AIM and others — particularly the government forces, the local authorities, and the "victims" inside the village who lost everything because of the take-over and siege — was inaccurately presented and unfairly represented.

In my research, I did find some support for that view in two relatively recent articles by Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota Indian and founder of the Native American Journalists Association.

In his response, Samels mentions twice that the series was reviewed by "a group of prominent scholars of Native American history" and by "several program advisors who are expert in this particular chapter of Native history." Having said that, it seems to me that PBS ought to present Trimbach's complaints to these scholars or, even better, a small group of scholars not connected to the program, for some kind of more detailed reply. This might take a while but it seems worth it, especially since there are a lot of teaching materials associated with the series.

Samels is also almost certainly correct that this film "was not intended to be a comprehensive history of either the American Indian Movement or the village of Wounded Knee." Nevertheless, this is PBS, where people, and students, look for authenticity, and the segment on Wounded Knee is likely to be at the forefront of material on the subject for a long time. So going back and taking a second look at these challenges, responding more fully, and making changes, at least online, if warranted, seems worthwhile to me.

Here Is the Protest Letter:

"This film attempts to explain away the destruction of the village by invoking historical issues (broken treaties, Indian boarding schools, government-sponsored relocation, etc.) and by rationalizing the criminality of the perpetrators. One of the film's worst transgressions is its contemptible disregard for the real victims of Wounded Knee, the villagers who lived there. Aside from a brief statement from one of the Indian hostages, Agnes Gildersleeve, the villagers' stories are virtually absent from this film. 'Wounded Knee' does not even show how AIM systematically tore the village apart and reduced it to complete devastation. The film does not mention that AIM looted the town, stole people's personal possessions, slaughtered cattle in their bedrooms, fire-bombed their homes and vehicles, and desecrated their churches. AIM occupiers stole or destroyed a collection of priceless Indian artifacts when they pillaged the Wounded Knee museum. Rather than condemn AIM violence, 'Wounded Knee' serves as a mouthpiece for the perpetrators who spew their distortions and lies without challenge. To glorify AIM in this way is not only deceitful, it is offensive. This film cheapens genuine Indian valor and heroism.

"For a documentary that purports to be about the armed takeover of a community and its consequences, these are serious shortcomings that demand a response. From a philosophical point of view, the argument that the terror, violence, theft, and loss of life associated with the razing of an Indian village were somehow justified is an argument that is fundamentally flawed and must be exposed.

"Producer Nelson went to great lengths to tell only the perpetrators' side of the story. He misled interviewees, such as Wounded Knee resident Walter Littlemoon, about what would be in the film. Nelson reneged on his agreement to interview Wounded Knee veteran Richard Two Elk, a condition agreed to in exchange for Joe Trimbach's participation. Nelson used Trimbach's interview anyway. Nelson or his surrogates omitted American Indian Mafia from the PBS bibliography. This book, which is supported by thorough documentation, is arguably the most complete and factual account of Wounded Knee's destruction. After Joe Trimbach registered a complaint with your legal department, Mafia was added to the PBS list. One wonders if Mafia was initially excluded simply because it exposes several of the books in the same list as falsified and fraudulent accounts of AIM history and of Wounded Knee. Nelson relies on these falsified books to support his distorted version of what happened in the village. To reference only the falsified accounts is inexcusable. To use this tainted information to construct leading questions for the PBS-endorsed school curriculum is equally scandalous and must also be exposed. There is not one question, for example, that asks how the villagers lost everything they owned.

"We believe that Nelson's failure to interview Two Elk was partly due to the fact that he witnessed the Wounded Knee murder of Perry Ray Robinson, a topic Nelson shows no interest in pursuing. Robinson, the only black man seen inside the village during that period, was a civil rights activist and a colleague of Martin Luther King. Robinson was shot by an AIM leader during a heated argument. His death and burial near the village ruins is one of many AIM secrets that Nelson's production has now helped cover up. A letter from Robinson's widow, Cheryl Buswell-Robinson, is attached.

"Another example of deception is the conspicuous absence of any footage showing Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a prominent and highly visible AIM member at Wounded Knee. Aquash was murdered by AIM leaders in 1975 because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. Ironically, Wounded Knee warrior Madonna Thunder Hawk, featured throughout the film, is also implicated in Aquash's murder and its subsequent cover-up. Carter Camp, another featured AIM leader, has been repeatedly caught in a lie about knowing Ray Robinson. Today, Camp denies ever meeting him. On camera, Camp has nothing to say about Anna Mae either. In fact, most of the AIM leaders interviewed for this film have been implicated in the Aquash and Robinson murders. Anna Mae likely knew about the Robinson shooting and her leaders' attempts to keep his death a secret, and now it appears Nelson has joined the effort to write her out of existence as well. AIM leaders must surely approve.

"Attached are specific examples of the distortions and outright falsehoods in this film. We believe these examples prove that 'Wounded Knee' falls well outside what might be allowable under artistic license or interpretation of historical events. Instead of documenting Indian history, this film denigrates genuine Indian sacrifice and makes a mockery of true Indian heroism shown in previous segments. We intend to pursue every means available to expose this film for its dishonesty, its revisionist agenda, and its abject failure to tell a fact-based and fair-minded story of Wounded Knee. This production abuses the public trust by recycling and legitimizing what can only be described as vintage AIM propaganda. A PBS-sanctioned curriculum that indoctrinates our children must also be challenged. We therefore demand redress. We want equal time for rebuttal, balance, and clarification. The American public deserves better from our publicly-funded programming. We ask for your immediate response to our concerns.

The Signers

JoAnn Gildersleeve Feraca (Chippewa) daughter of Agnes and Clive Gildersleeve, Wounded Knee Trading Post

Romona and Saunie Wilson (Lakota)daughters of Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson

Richard Two Elk (Lakota) Wounded Knee Veteran and former member, American Indian Movement

Joseph H. Trimbach FBI Special Agent in Charge (Retired)

Professor Patrick LeBeau, (Cheyenne River Sioux, Chippewa) Professor of Indian Studies, Michigan State University

Paul DeMain (Oneida-Ojibwe), Editor, News from Indian Country

Shawn White Wolf (Northern Cheyenne) CEO, White Wolf Media Group

John M. Trimbach Co-author, American Indian Mafia

The Letter Continues with 'Examples of Distortions and Falsehoods'

'Distortions'

"'Wounded Knee' constantly cites historical events of the 1800s, the boarding schools of the 1900s, and the government-sponsored Indian relocation plans as a means of rationalizing the terror and violence visited upon Wounded Knee, a village where most of the residents were Indians. Destroying the village had nothing to do with what AIM's Russell Means called 'dignity and self-pride' and must not be used to glorify AIM leaders.

"Film narrative: 'For the next 71 days, Indian protestors at Wounded Knee would hold off the federal government at gun-point.' This statement misreports the facts: government roadblocks were set up to contain the violence and minimize casualties, not to engage the militants in gunfights. This false allegation plays right into the perpetrators' hands and is characteristic of the falsehoods that AIM leaders have so often hoodwinked the media into reporting. It would be more correct to say that Federal Agents and Marshals, in the face of almost nightly, unprovoked gun fire from the militants, tried to protect surrounding villages and towns from violent attacks that could easily have spread across the reservation."The film shows several views of Indians donning war paint but does not mention that they were gearing up for the firefight of March 8, 1973, when several carloads of militants attacked a handful of FBI Agents and U.S. Marshals at Roadblock 3. At the beginning stages of this unprovoked attack, AIM gunmen armed with long-range rifles nearly shot to death one of the FBI's first female Agents, who was armed with only her pistol. The group's distress calls were answered by other Agents who rushed to the scene and repelled the attack. Featured warriors Milo Goings and Webster Poor Bear were injured when FBI Agents returned fire. 'Wounded Knee' neglects to mention that this incident and dozens of shooting incidents were initiated by the militants.

"The APCs: 'Wounded Knee' leaves the false impression that the armored personnel carriers were brought in as offensive weaponry. No one from law enforcement is shown explaining that the APCs were moved into position at the roadblocks to protect FBI Agents and U.S. Marshals from almost daily gunfire attacks. At night, the militants would venture out of the village, move towards the roadblocks, and open fire. Law enforcement personnel, showing incredible patience and restraint, often opted to take cover rather than return fire and risk shooting misguided militants. At times, however, there was no other choice but to repel attacks with return fire. The APCs saved lives on both sides of the barriers at Wounded Knee, a fact never mentioned in the film. Another point not mentioned is that government riflemen could have picked off dozens of militants on numerous occasions. The two official deaths occurred in the late, desperate days of the occupation, during the most intensive gunfights. Had it not been for the professionalism of the FBI and the U.S. Marshal Service, the casualties at Wounded Knee would have been much higher.

"The hostages: 'Wounded Knee' leaves the false impression that the hostages were free to leave once Senators McGovern and Abourezk arrived. This is akin to people breaking into your house and holding you against your will until the authorities arrive and declare that you are now free to leave and turn over all your worldly possessions to the invaders. The truth is, the hostages were never really free, and the media presence may have been the only reason they were not further brutalized. The film fails to report Agnes Gildersleeve's statement that she would give up her home ' . . . only over my dead body. If you're going to burn my home, I'll go with it.' Nor does the film report Dennis Banks's reply, 'That can be arranged.' Agnes's only mention of her status as a hostage is relayed via her captor Russell Means. She is not shown speaking candidly about her predicament. This technique of having the criminal speak on behalf of his victim is patently biased and propagandistic.

"Film narrative: 'On April 26, Wounded Knee sustained the heaviest gunfire of the siege. When the shooting subsided, Buddy Lamont, a thirty-one-year-old Oglala from Pine Ridge, came out to investigate.' This glib distortion fails to report the events that preceded Lamont's death. Lamont was shot and killed during the fiercest gun battle of the occupation, after sustained fire from the militants was aimed at all roadblocks following an illegal weapons and ammunition re-supply. Lamont did not 'come out' as he was already engaged in the firefight. Heavy firing from the village continued from the late hours of April 26 until past noon the next day. The militants had posted one or more snipers at the left flank after which the supervisor on the scene authorized return fire. At 12:20 pm, the militants refused a ceasefire offered by the U.S. Marshals. Lamont was shot during the ensuing firefight, but it is unclear who shot him. Reports show that Lamont was shot in the back. AIM commanders Carter Camp and Stan Holder chose to leave Lamont's body where it lay in a field for two hours before calling for a ceasefire. How did they know if Lamont was even dead? None of these facts are mentioned in the film."

'Half-truths'

"FBI Agent Trimbach's statement that he immediately proceeded to the main entrance to Wounded Knee is juxtaposed with a daytime reenactment of two cars driving by. Trimbach actually approached Wounded Knee at night, soon after the militants had taken over the village. This distortion minimizes the dangers faced by Trimbach and the handful of poorly-armed Agents left exposed at the emergency roadblock on Big Foot Trail.

"Trimbach's explanation of what it was like to initially approach the militants the first morning of the takeover, unarmed, is juxtaposed with Trimbach's fourth meeting with the militants, once the media had arrived to film it. This distortion minimizes the danger Trimbach faced, since the militants had already fired at FBI Agents, responding Indian firemen, and Indian policemen the night of the takeover. Footage of the fourth encounter does not reflect the reality of the first; it does not show the small group of angry riflemen, all aiming their weapons at Trimbach at close range, as he alone walked up to the barricade. The militants were much better behaved when the cameras were rolling. 'Wounded Knee' constantly showcases the staged, on-camera behavior of the militants to distort the reality of what was happening.

"Film narrative: 'After stripping bare the Wounded Knee Trading Post, the village's only store, the protesters took over a local church, holding the minister and other white residents hostage.' In fact, the majority of hostages were enrolled members of various tribes. The film fails to mention that the militants later burned the Trading Post to the ground and that the hostages were threatened and intimidated into making complimentary statements about their captors when the media was present and the cameras were filming. 'Wounded Knee' completely papers over the fact that the captives were always under duress.

"Film narrative: 'When traditional Oglalas challenged corruption in the tribal government, Dick Wilson responded with force.' 'Wounded Knee' repeatedly demonizes Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson with charges of corruption and strong-arm tactics but fails to report that Wilson initially supported AIM until they looted the BIA building in Washington, D.C. After that incident, during which Indian land deeds were lost and destroyed, Wilson warned Means not to bring the violence back home. 'Wounded Knee' also fails to report that Wilson and his family, under death threats from AIM, were placed under protective custody on February 23, 1973, four days before the takeover of the village. The record shows that much of the violence that engulfed the reservation following the occupation of Wounded Knee was in fact instigated by AIM members, not the Wilson administration. The U.S. Justice Department investigated over 50 allegations of civil rights violations against the tribal chairman and found evidence of possible wrongdoing in only a few cases. Some of those incidents were likely instigated by AIM members. The film does not mention that the Wilson administration was audited by the accounting firm of Touche, Ross, & Company and that no serious wrongdoing of any kind was found. Additionally, Wilson's 'Goons' [Guardians of the Oglala Nation], much maligned in the film, were in fact a legally sanctioned group created for the express purpose of protecting tribal buildings from AIM violence. It is fair to say that Wilson's Goons came into existence to oppose Russell Means's AIM goons.

"Film narrative: 'Prompted by the dissidents, the tribal council held impeachment hearings in February, 1973. But Wilson intimidated witnesses, strong-armed council members and managed to survive.' This statement is read while showing a newspaper article that contradicts this statement. The narrative also fails to mention that Russell Means and his AIM recruits intimidated and terrorized people far more than Wilson and his deputized 'Goons.'

"Film narrative: 'Just weeks before the occupation of Wounded Knee, a white man killed an Indian near Custer, South Dakota, fifty miles from Pine Ridge.' This statement leaves the impression that the Indian was an innocent victim. In fact, the Indian involved was beating another man to death with a tire chain outside a bar in Buffalo Gap. The third man intervened with a pocket knife and inadvertently nicked the assailant's aorta. This incident led to the Custer riot. By failing to mention the details of this death, PBS plays right into the hands of AIM propagandists."

'Falsehoods'

"Film narrative: 'Not only was Dick Wilson still firmly in charge, he would exact revenge on his opponents as the federal government looked the other way . . . In the three years following the siege, two FBI Agents and more than 60 AIM supporters were killed, giving Pine Ridge the highest per capita murder rate in the country.' Even when juxtaposed with Dick Wilson's bravado, these statements are false and inflammatory. The FBI investigated all murders that fell within their jurisdiction. The myth that 60 AIM supporters were killed is nothing but off-the-shelf AIM disinformation. This falsehood has been repeatedly exposed as such and has been rebutted in an FBI report. Some of the listed victims were children who died from abuse or adults who died from exposure after intoxication. Some of the genuine AIM victims were likely murdered by AIM members. Repeating this lie about 60 murders is a despicable attempt to excuse AIM violence and exonerate the guilty. Furthermore, a U.S. District Court found that there was no evidence that the FBI failed to investigate alleged abuses of non-AIM members. Upon examining these cases, the Court stated that the case files did not ' . . . reveal a lack of investigatory effort on the part of the FBI towards non-AIM members, nor do they indicate a failure to prosecute once meaningful evidence had been discovered . . . the evidence simply does not show that the efforts of the government to limit criminal conduct and to bring the perpetrators of it to justice have been discriminatorily directed at the AIM faction.' Parroting the lie that the federal government 'looked the other way' serves no purpose other than to deceive the viewing audience, promote disrespect for law enforcement, and further the lies of AIM leaders.

"Film narrative: 'The Oglalas had exhausted all legal options' in response to 'Wilson's harassment and intimidation.' This statement, offered as fact, is specious. AIM had committed dozens of illegal acts in the run-up to Wounded Knee. It is dishonest to suggest that the Oglalas had tried all legal options before inviting AIM violence onto the reservation, and it is incorrect to characterize the tension between Russell Means and Dick Wilson as only Wilson's doing. The statement also ignores the dozens of tribal programs initiated by Wilson to improve living conditions on the reservation. The film ignores the views of the vast majority of Pine Ridge residents, who resented AIM's intimidation and violence. 'Wounded Knee' also fails to mention that Wilson, who was largely supported by a sometimes contentious tribal council, later defeated his opponent Russell Means in the tribal chairman election.

"Film narrative: 'Government negotiators were uncompromising. They rejected demands to uphold treaty rights and insisted that they were powerless to remove Dick Wilson, regardless of the charges against him, as he was chairman of the sovereign Indian nation.' This statement is false and misleading because treaties require Congressional action: government negotiators are powerless to either uphold or reject treaty rights. Furthermore, the Oglala Sioux tribe had a constitution which governed the rules of impeachment. It is misleading to suggest that government representatives would not allow Wilson to be investigated. In fact, the Wilson administration was investigated by the U.S. Justice Department which later cleared him of the charges alleged by AIM members and supporters.

"Film narrative: 'In the frigid winter of 1890, Chief Big Foot was leading a group of Lakota, mainly women and children, to shelter on the Pine Ridge Reservation. On the morning of December 29, they were attacked by the U.S. Army on the banks of Wounded Knee Creek.' This statement is blatantly false and misleading. On December 28, Chief Big Foot surrendered under a white flag to Major Whitside and his troops. Whitside elected to lead Big Foot and his people to a site near Wounded Knee Creek. The gun battle erupted the next morning after the Indians refused to give up their weapons. There were casualties on both sides. There is ample factual material in the Congressional record which tells the story of what really happened at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890. There is no justification for inventing details of this historic event."

Posted by Michael Getler on May 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Profiles of Two Accused Domestic Terrorists

UPDATE:
The pro-life advocate Jack Cashill (6-4-09) writes:

In 1997, Kansas toughened its laws to close the loopholes that [the murdered late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller] had forced open. The new law stated that a late-term abortion could be performed only if two doctors found that the mother would otherwise suffer death or “a severe and irreversible impairment to a major bodily function.”

The murdered Kansas abortionist Dr. George Tiller had been tried for violating a Kansas law that limited late-term abortions. Jack Cashill, a Kansas City writer, tells about the politics that influenced this trial. According to Dr. Cashill, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, who has now become Secretary of Health and Human Services, used her political power to protect Dr. Tiller.

Dr. Paul McHugh, who served as the Chair of the School of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University for 25 years, explains that Dr. Tiller aborted babies for trivial, not serious, medical/psychiatric reasons. In Russia people used to be committed to mental hospitals for political reasons, but the authorities used cooperating psychiatrists to mask this persecution as a non-existant mental illness called "sluggish schizophrenia." Maybe some American politicians are doing something similar when they allow an abortionist to make a psychiatric diagnosis of his own patients.

In the former USSR, political dissidents who fell afoul of the KGB were sometimes hospitalized with a fake psychiatric diagnosis. They were medically abused and given psychotrophic drugs that often ruined their health. Finally, the world's psychiatrists censured Soviet psychiatry for medical abuse. Perhaps American psychiatrists should insist that psychiatric diagnoses by made by psychiatrists, not abortionists who stand to make a lot of money.
END OF UPDATE

An anti-government extremist named Scott Roeder is in custody in connection with the Sunday, May 31, 2009 murder of George Tiller, a controversial Kansas City abortionist. Roeder reportedly had been arrested in the past with bomb-making materials and was associated with extremist militia movements.

USA Today (undated) reports:

The man accused of shooting abortion doctor George Tiller had a history of anti-government activity and was known as a militant opponent of abortion, according to a portrait emerging in interviews and statements by family and law enforcement officials.

Scott Roeder called himself a citizen of the Republic of Kansas who didn't want to pay income or Social Security taxes or register his car. In the 1990s, he belonged to a group that said its members were not subject to federal or state laws.

...Roeder remained in police custody in Wichita, a day after Tiller, one of the few physicians in the country to provide late-term abortions, was shot to death Sunday at his church. The district attorney has until today to charge anyone in custody. Police said the gunman acted alone.

..."He wanted to talk about abortion a lot and wanted to get people to see how awful it was," said Morris Wilson, a friend of Roeder who was commander of the Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia, an anti-government group, in the 1990s.

Roeder also belonged to a group called One Supreme Court that said its members were "sovereign citizens" not subject to federal and state laws, said Suzanne James, former director of victims' services in Shawnee County, who tracked militia groups.

"He was intense," James said.

Roeder was arrested in Topeka in 1996 for having an improper license plate that declared his vehicle sovereign private property. Police found bomb-making materials during a search of his car.

He was sentenced to 24 months in prison for criminal use of explosives and ordered to end contact with anti-government groups. An appeals court overturned the conviction, calling the search illegal.

Haters like Roeder are nothing but terrorists who discredit the pro-life movement. If you are against abortion, you should be against murder, too. I don't know what kind of abortions Dr. Tiller performed. Perhaps they were justified by health reasons, or perhaps they weren't. Some have said that this doctor was a millionaire. I don't know about that, either.

Very few doctors will perform late-term abortions. I would have thought that women with the sort of medical problems that necessitated a late-term abortion would have had this proceedure done in a hospital. In any case, taking the law into your own hands and killing abortionists is not being pro-life. The way to prevent abortions is to educate girls and to help expectant mothers. I doubt that Roeder ever helped out any expectant mothers.

On Monday, June 1, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American convert to Islam who used to be named Carlos Leon Bledsoe, was arrested for shooting two young soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army-Navy Career Center. William Long, 23, was killed. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, was wounded and is in stable condition.

Muhammad is being investigated by the FBI because he was arrested for using a Somali passport in Yemen.

ABC News (6-1-09) reports:

The suspect arrested in the fatal shooting of one soldier and the critical injury of another at a Little Rock, Ark., Army recruiting booth today was under investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force since his return from Yemen, ABC News has learned.

The investigation was in its preliminary stages, authorities said, and was based on the suspect's travel to Yemen and his arrest there for using a Somali passport.

Russian Actor Vyacheslav Nevinny Dies at 75

The famous Russian actor and People's Artist of the USSR (1986) Vyacheslav Nevinny/Вячеслав Михайлович Невинный died of diabetes in Moscow on Sunday, May 31, 2009. He was 75 years old. The time and place of his funeral will be announced on June 1.

Various Russian press accounts at Rambler.ru (5-31-09) report that Vyacheslav Mikailovich Nevinny had been in declining health. Doctors had amputated his left leg in 2005 due to gangrene. His right leg was amputated in 2006. He was living on a small pension and died at his apartment at #8 Tver Street.

Vyacheslav Mikailovich [Google search] acted in more than 60 Russian movies and in the theater. He also did the voices for Russian cartoons. His distinctive voice was known to every Russian. Vyacheslav Mikailovich worked for many years at Moscow's Small Theater/Maly Theater.

Vyacheslav Mikailovich, who was born on November 30, 1934, began his acting career at a pioneer palace in his hometown of Tula while he was still a secondary school student. He later studied acting at Moscow's MXAT, a drama school affiliated with Moscow's MXT, Moscow Artists' Theater. He was not accepted the first time he tried out, but he was accepted the following year in 1955.

Vyacheslav Mikailovich's wife, the actress Nina Gulyaeva was with him in his final minutes.

Watch clips from Vyacheslav Nevinny's films and news accounts about his life here. Nevinny narrates the part of the bear cub in the famous cartoon The Hedgehog in the Fog.

Nevinny appears in the role of Sobakevich, a "strong, silent, economical man, square and bearlike," in the 1984 television series [described] based on Nikolai Gogol's famous novel Dead Souls/Мертвые души [Text of the novel].

West Germany Probes Stasi Infiltration

"Former West German policeman and Stasi agent Karl-Heinz Kurras in Berlin on May 27, 2009"---Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (5-29-09)

See also "Spy Fired Shot That Changed West Germany," NYT (5-26-09)

Bernd Volkert of RFE/RL (5-29-09) writes:

Twenty years after the fall of the Third Reich, a single event led many living in 1960s West Germany to conclude their country had yet to outgrow the tactics of its National Socialist past.

On June 2, 1967, a visit to West Berlin by the leader of Iran, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, sparked large street protests against German involvement in the brutalities of Tehran's authoritarian regime.

German police and members of the shah's secret service responded with force, beating protesters and attempting to break up the demonstration.

In the course of the fracas, a German police officer drew his gun and shot an unarmed protester, 26-year-old Benno Ohnesorg, in the back of the head, killing him instantly and burning an indelible image in the public psyche.

Radicalized Witnesses

German historian Gerd Koenen says the nature of the crackdown was controversial from the start. "The setting was a police operation titled Hunting Foxes, headed by a commanding officer with experience in antiguerrilla warfare in the German Wehrmacht during World War II," Koenen says. "This was the lineup."

"Ohnesorg's killing sparked a radicalization of the German protest movement of the 1960s, with some activists founding armed guerrilla groups that engaged in the kidnapping and murder of politicians and other representatives of what they called "fascist Germany."

One such group even dubbed itself the June 2 Movement, establishing the day of Ohnesorg's killing as a turning point in Germany's postwar history.

The stark shift in the protest movement is now credited with helping to banish the remaining traces of national socialism and create the liberal social system that marks contemporary, post-unification Germany.

But now, more than 40 years since the shooting, Germans have reason to examine their postwar history once again.

Upending Long-Held Notions

Researchers have discovered that Karl-Heinz Kurras, the West German police officer who shot Ohnesorg, was in fact a paid agent for East Germany's Stasi secret police, and had been a member of SED, the East German socialist state party, since 1955.

The revelation has stunned detractors and supporters of Kurras alike. Koenen, who as a student activist in the 1960s was trailed by Stasi agents, suggests the story is even more complicated.

"It's a fact that it was not only the West German police, as we know now, who were deeply infiltrated from the East by the Stasi, but also the student movement," Koenen says. "The Stasi watched us professionally, and took advantage of both our student radicals and our state security bodies."

German commentators across the political spectrum have seized on the peculiar irony of the latest discovery -- the incident long seen as responsible for radicalizing the protest movement and liberalizing German society was sparked by the gunshot of a communist agent working within the ranks of the anticommunist West German police.

Reinhard Mueller, writing in "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung," asks: "Are we in need of another rewriting of German history?"

Germans, he suggests, may be forced to abandon past notions about the entwined histories of the German Democratic Republic in the East and the Federal Republic of Germany in the West.

Probing Deeper...

Many accepted truths, Mueller writes, were in fact "co-molded by the GDR and its intelligence services, without many of the people in the West suspecting it."

Mueller is among the Germans now demanding a more thorough investigation into the East's infiltration of politics and events in the West. [Full text]

Judge Naves to Rule on Ward Churchill Reinstatement on July 1

"[Judge Larry] Naves will decide whether [ex-professor Ward] Churchill, 61, gets his job back at CU or whether he should be paid a lump sum of money instead. The judge could also choose to award the former professor nothing."---Daily Camera (5-27-09)

See Ward Churchill's Motion for Reinstatement.

See The University of Colorado's Brief in Opposition to Motion for Reinstatement.

Boulder Colorado's Daily Camera (5-27-09) reports:

Former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill will make his case for getting his job back during a one-day hearing to be held July 1, a Denver District Court clerk said Wednesday.

Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves will preside over the hearing, during which both Churchill and the University of Colorado will argue for and against reinstatement of the former controversial ethnic studies professor.

Churchill was fired nearly two years ago by the CU regents after the school claimed he had committed widespread and systematic academic fraud.

He sued CU in civil court and won his case during a jury trial earlier this year after he argued that the university had unlawfully terminated him for expressing his political beliefs in a controversial essay he wrote concerning the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

The Denver jury awarded him $1 in damages.

Naves will decide whether Churchill, 61, gets his job back at CU or whether he should be paid a lump sum of money instead. The judge could also choose to award the former professor nothing.

"Rethink Before You Reset" by Daniel Kimmage

In March 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a "reset button" to represent the new administration's desire for improved relations. Ironically, the word "reset" was mistranslated as "overcharge."

"The Obama administration thinks it can work more productively with Russia on the countries' mutual interests. Unfortunately, these interests don't exist."--Daniel Kimmage

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (5-26-09) notes:

This article is adapted from a longer essay to appear in "Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians," a special report to be published in June by Freedom House, RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia.

Rethink Before You Reset - By Daniel Kimmage

For almost a century, American conventional wisdom on Russia has been consistently, and sometimes catastrophically, wrong.

You can look back to as far as 1920, when Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz of The New Republic picked through the New York Times' coverage of the Russian Revolution and found articles riddled with ludicrous predictions of the Bolshevik regime's imminent collapse. "The news about Russia is a case of seeing not what was, but what men wished to see," they concluded.

As the century wore on, the wishful thinking got worse. For a time, even mass murderer Joseph Stalin improbably morphed into the jovial, pipe-smoking Uncle Joe. When the American establishment finally reversed course and accepted that the Bolsheviks were there to stay, it clung to that belief so adamantly that the collapse of the Soviet Union took the CIA by surprise. In the 1990s, foreign-policy hands were celebrating Russia's "transition" to free market democracy under the buffoonish but supposedly well-meaning Boris Yeltsin and his merry band of "reformers."

The latest Washington consensus holds that Vladimir Putin has presided over a period of Russian restoration amid flowing oil and ebbing civil liberties. In a July 8, 2008 op-ed in the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger hailed "one of the most promising periods in Russian history" and described Russia's foreign policy under Vladimir Putin as "driven by a quest for a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice." A March 2009 report by the blue-ribbon Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia developed this thinking further, concluding that "both countries' strategic interests require making a genuine effort at putting the U.S.-Russia relationship on a new high ground of cooperation, based on today's geopolitical, economic, and security realities and our many common goals." In other words, Russia is back, a force to be reckoned with, and intent on reclaiming its lost share of import and influence among nations. We might not like everything we see in Moscow, but the United States should try to engage the Kremlin, build trust, and work together.

This new conventional wisdom is as muddled as its predecessors, and the policies it inspires are just as flawed. To see why, we need a Russian reality check. We need to critically examine our notions about Russia's recent history so that we understand exactly who we are dealing with in Moscow.

A transition did take place in Russia in the 1990s, but it was not toward liberal democracy, a free-market economy, and the rule of law. Instead, the doddering bureaucratic authoritarianism of the late-Soviet period evolved into a flashier, more sophisticated authoritarianism whose defining characteristic I call "selectively capitalist kleptocracy." Russia today has a market economy subject to the whims of an elite that would be ripe for criminal prosecution in a free-market society with a functioning legal system and genuinely independent judiciary. Embezzlement of budgetary funds, graft and kickbacks, tax-evasion schemes, and grossly unfair business practices are not aberrations. They are the essence of the system.

This system began to take shape under Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, matured under Vladimir Putin in the 2000s, and went on steroids as oil prices soared. But despite its muscle-bound exterior, the system lacks a coherent model of governance and is loath to acknowledge that it stands on feet of clay...[See full text.]

Bill Ayers Has Normal Hearing!

"Have you drunk the Kool-Aid or do you actually have a mind of your own?"--Dr. Billy Ayers [See also here]

When he is interviewed, the Weather Underground terrorist Dr. Billy Ayers sometimes acts as if setting off all those bombs has affected his hearing. During a recent interview at a Baltimore book-signing, Dr. Billy repeated a Washington Times online editor's questions as if he were not sure he had heard them correctly. The foggy old fogie repeatedly asked the editor if she had a mind of her own and chuckled at his own joke. I thought Ayers' question was funny, because the young Billy never had a mind of his own. I think he chose the psychopathic mass-murderer Mao as his spiritual father because they share the same December 26 birthday.

But when Washington Times online editor Kerry Picket suggested that Dr. Billy might have collaborated with President Obama on Dreams from My Father, the old goat heard well enough and didn't repeat the question. His whole demeanor changed. The condescending smirk vanished from his face. He looked scared and answered immediately. According to Dr. Billy, the theory that he had a hand in the President's book Dreams from My Father is a "myth." Ayers said, "I never had a collaboration...no. That's a myth."

Watch the Washington Times video on FOX (5-19-09) or Youtube.

The writer Dr. Jack Cashill has written a series of articles that make the case that William Ayers had a hand in writing President Obama's book Dreams from My Father. Dr. Cashill writes about Dr. Ayers' run-in with the intrepid Ms. Picket at World Net Daily (5-28-09). [See the article and video on Cashill's own site, too.] At first I thought Dr. Cashill's theory was nonsense, but then I read Dreams and Bill Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days.

Ohio State University Professor Bruce Heiden has also questioned Obama's authorship of Dreams:

[President Obama] doesn't say how these memories turned into the book Dreams from My Father. In particular, he doesn't say he wrote the book. He says that Dreams 'found its way onto these pages'[xvi]...Obama's whole Introduction to Dreams has the odd rhetorical project of persuading the reader that Barack Obama, the author of Dreams from My Father, actually had nothing to do with writing his book and couldn't have written it.---Dr. Bruce Heiden describing the Introduction of President Obama's Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, 2004 paperback edition.

Maybe next time, Ms. Picket of the Washington Times should ask Dr. Ayers if he knows who killed Brian V. McDonnell.

Readers can scroll through my posts about the authorship of President Obama's autobiography by searching Cashill on this blog.

Affidavit of John LaVelle

"By injecting deliberate falsehoods and distortions into the stream of scholarship that feeds the increasingly interrelated fields of Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy, Churchill’s writings compromise the work of genuine scholars within these disciplines who unwittingly rely on Churchill’s fabrications and falsifications."---Dr. John LaVelle

University of New Mexico Law Professor Dr. John P. LaVelle, a Sioux Indian, has demonstrated in professional literature published in 1996 and 1999 that Ward Churchill is a very dishonest scholar.

Dr. LaVelle's Affidavit [Hat/Tip Mr. Paine of PirateBallerina] is included in the University of Colorado's Brief in Opposition to Motion for Reinstatement of Ward Churchill as a professor of Ethnic Studies. The Brief was submitted to Denver District Court on May 20, 2009.

The Affiant, John P. LaVelle, deposes and states:

1. I am over 18 years of age and understand the obligations of oath when I provide a sworn affidavit.

2. I have personal knowledge of the matters I will describe in this affidavit. Patrick T. O’Rourke of the Office of University Counsel assisted me in preparing the form of the affidavit, but it expresses my opinions, not the University of Colorado’s opinions. I have not been compensated in any way for providing my affidavit.

3. I am a professor of law and director of the Indian Law Program at the University of New Mexico School of Law. I am personally familiar with the field of Indian law and policy, and have taught and published in the field. I am a member of the executive editorial board for the current edition of Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, the preeminent legal treatise in the field of Indian law. I occasionally have taught adjunct college courses, including tribal community college courses, in the area of Indian studies, and have published in academic journals in Indian studies. My publications have addressed the sovereign rights of Indian nations and the impact of federal law on Indian tribes and Indian people. I am deeply motivated to maintain the integrity of scholarship related to indigenous people.

4. In 1996 and 1999, I published a review essay and an article, respectively, in prominent Indian studies academic journals exhibiting numerous instances of serious research misconduct in the writings of Ward Churchill, including instances of plagiarism and the fabrication and falsification of provisions of important acts of Congress and federal regulations impacting the sovereign rights and property interests of Indian tribes. Both my 1996 review essay and my 1999 article were examined and consulted by the University of Colorado investigative committee in the course of its inquiry into allegations of research misconduct against Ward Churchill, an inquiry that resulted in unanimous determinations by the investigative committee, the standing committee on research misconduct, and the privilege and tenure committee that Churchill had engaged in patterns of serious research misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

5. The instances and patterns of plagiarism, fabrications, and falsifications in Churchill’s writings have inflicted serious harm on the fields of Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy. One of the most important developments in these academic fields has been a steady rise in contributions by American Indian scholars in recent times, scholars whose uniquely situated sensitivity to the sovereign rights of Indian nations and the particular, often oppressive historic experiences of Native people has challenged, balanced, and augmented conventional narratives, thereby benefiting all students and scholars within these disciplines. By injecting deliberate falsehoods and distortions into the stream of scholarship that feeds the increasingly interrelated fields of Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy, Churchill’s writings compromise the work of genuine scholars within these disciplines who unwittingly rely on Churchill’s fabrications and falsifications. Moreover, as Churchill’s falsehoods and distortions become more widely known and recognized as such, they collaterally discredit and undermine the entire fields within which Churchill writes, and they burden the innovative contributions of Native scholars, in particular, by fomenting public suspicion about the integrity of those contributions.

6. The harm Churchill’s plagiarism, fabrications, and falsifications pose to Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy is not merely theoretical. In my 1999 article in Wicazo Sa Review, for example, I list numerous books and law review articles wherein scholars unsuspectingly rely on an especially damaging fabrication of Churchill’s, namely, that Indian blood quantum requirements in tribes’ enrollment criteria are modeled after a federally imposed eligibility standard of “one-half or more degree of Indian blood” for tribal members seeking land parcels under the General Allotment Act of 1887. In truth, the General Allotment Act did not limit eligibility for allotments to tribal members who were “one-half or more degree of Indian blood”; rather, Churchill fabricated that standard, initially deploying it in a controversial essay he wrote that strategically concealed his own misconduct by falsely attributing the essay’s authorship to M. Annette Jaimes, Churchill’s then-wife. Scholars who rely on Churchill’s General Allotment Act eligibility fabrication thus are effectively deceived into propagating false information that casts aspersions on Indian tribes’ sovereign enrollment criteria.

7. The problem of scholars’ unsuspecting reliance on Churchill’s fabrications and falsifications has continued and can be expected to continue in the future. A recent example came to light during the course of the University of Colorado’s disciplinary proceedings in the Churchill affair, when a small group of Churchill supporters led by Professor Eric Cheyfitz publicly denounced the CU investigative committee’s report for (among other proffered reasons) failing to note that Churchill’s assertion of an eligibility standard of “one-half or more degree of Indian blood” in the General Allotment Act had been corroborated by an independent third-party scholar, Professor Circe Sturm, noted author of the 2002 book Blood Politics. What the Cheyfitz group did not disclose, however, is that Sturm in fact had relied solely on fabrications about the General Allotment Act planted by Churchill in the essay he authored under the name of M. Annette Jaimes, a concealment of authorship Sturm could not have known about when she wrote Blood Politics. When interviewed by news reporters, Sturm expressed dismay at having been misled into relying on false information about the General Allotment Act, exclaiming, “What a tangled web. I wish I wasn’t in it.” Sadly, Churchill’s web of deception likely will ensnare more scholars of Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy in the future, through unsuspecting reliance on Churchill’s fabrications and falsifications like that of Sturm, and through deliberate, strategic use of Churchill’s deceit like that of the Cheyfitz group.

Because Churchill continues to defy the University of Colorado’s multiple findings of plagiarism, fabrications, and falsifications in his scholarly writings, he can be expected to continue engaging in research misconduct in the future, to the continuing detriment of the fields of Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy. If he is reinstated to his former teaching position, the additional harm Churchill will do to these academic disciplines will be magnified, since his misconduct will appear to have CU’s endorsement by virtue of Churchill’s continuing official affiliation with the University, an affiliation Churchill can be expected to emphasize. Moreover, Churchill’s attacks on Native scholarship through falsehoods and distortions that disparage Indian tribes will continue to tarnish the reputation of CU and its community of affiliated scholars. Because Churchill’s reinstatement would further jeopardize the fields of Indian studies, Indian history, and Indian law and policy, and because it would further undermine CU’s reputation for scholarly integrity, Churchill’s motion for reinstatement should be denied.

Coal Miner's Daughter Susan Boyle Sings "I Dreamed a Dream"

Scottish phenomenon Susan Boyle sings "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Misérables.

Susan told the host of Britain's Got Talent that she wants to be like the famous singer Elaine Page. Even though Susan was born with brain damage and struggled in school, she has managed to achieve her dream and has rocked the world with her remarkable talent.

In the semi-final round, Susan sang "Memory" from the musical Cats. If Susan wins the final round in the Britain's Got Talent competition, she will be invited to sing for Queen Elizabeth.

The Examiner (4-20-09) writes:

Britain’s Got Talent’s Susan Boyle, who has stunned viewers with her performance and her story is a phenomenon around the world, thanks to You Tube and stars like Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher who have posted on Twitter how moved they are by her performance and story. SEE VIDEO>>>

Susan Boyle was brain damaged at birth

The 48 year old never-married Susan Boyle who lives alone with her cat Pebbles and would practice for Britain's Got Talent by holding a hairbrush in front of the mirror in the room she has lived in since childhood, spent the last 2 years grieving after spending her adult life caring for her aged Mother. Boyle, who was born with minor brain damage from being starved of oxygen at birth, suffered with learning difficulties and bullying as a child (they called her Susie Simple), has admitted that she has never been kissed. And has only one dream – to sing- and now it seems her dream has been realized.

Dr. Robert Canfield writes in his piece called Susan Boyle And The Power Of The Moral Imagination:

"It was easy to regard this woman as tragically unaware of her own limitations, with aspirations that surpassed her ability...Here was a disaster in the making. This would be difficult to watch....Her first note changed everything. The audience was electrified. As she sang they began to cheer. One of the judges, a gorgeous blond, folded her hands and held them up to her face, as if hoping desperately, praying, for this woman not to stumble...Some people wept."

If only we could only be like Susan Boyle in our best moments

A coal-miner’s daughter, Susan Boyle has lived in the same village in Scotland her entire life is an inspiration to us all. Let us not be the cynical, all-knowing and judgmental lot we often are but give others and more importantly ourselves a chance at success, at happiness. Sure, there is a lot to be depressed about, but when you listen to this woman, one Susan Boyle, sing her heart out and put herself on the line, it is like the weight is instantly lifted and we suddenly remember what it is like to have a dream and see that dream come true.

Here are the lyrics of “I Dream a Dream” from Les Misérables (AKA Les Mis or Les Miz):

There was a time when men were kind
When their voices were soft
And their words inviting
There was a time when love was blind
And the world was a song
And the song was exciting
There was a time
Then it all went wrong.
I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living.

I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving
Then I was young and unafraid
When dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted.
But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hopes apart
And they turn your dream to shame.

He slept a summer by my side
He filled my days with endless wonder
He took my childhood in his stride
But he was gone when autumn came.
And still I dream he’ll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms we cannot weather.

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I’m living
So different now from what it seems
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.

Dr. Robert Canfield writes:

"Always it is something outside ourselves that touches us, somehow, where we feel most deeply. At such moments we remember that we are humans - not merely creatures, but human beings, profoundly and deeply shaped by a moral sensibility so powerful that it breaks through our inhibitors; it can burst out, explode into public view, to our own astonishment."

Simon Cowell is reportedly offering her a BMG deal, according to the Daily Mail. We are all thrilled for Susan and some of us are happy to be living vicariously through this unexpected hero.

Affidavit of Thomas Brown

"[Ward] Churchill fabricated all of the central details of his [Mandan Indian] genocide story. Churchill also falsified the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them. Moreover, we must conclude that falsification and fabrication are habitual with Churchill. This essay has analyzed not much more than three cumulative pages of Churchill’s writing, drawn from across six different essays. (Since Churchill published his second version at least twice, this adds up to at least seven different publications.) Within those few pages, Churchill has committed multiple counts of research misconduct—specifically, fabrication and falsification."---Professor Thomas Brown

Professor Thomas Brown, who is currently a professor of sociology at Northeast Lakeview College in Live Oak, Texas, exposed the former University of Colorado (Boulder) professor Ward Churchill in a 2006 article published in Plagiary titled "Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide Rhetoric."

Professor Brown observes in a recent article titled "Truthiness v. Scholarship: Ward Churchill’s Day in Court" (4-6-09):

Churchill has since abandoned all of the fabricated aspects of his [Mandan genocide] story, while simultaneously claming that he did not fabricate it, because he still feels in his gut that the story is correct.

Now Professor Brown's affidavit about Ward Churchill's dishonest scholarship accompanies the University of Colorado's May 20, 2009 Brief in opposition to Ward Churchill's Motion for Reinstatement [Hat/Tip Mr. Paine of PirateBallerina]:

The Affiant, Thomas Brown, deposes and states:

1. I am over 18 years of age and understand the obligations of oath. I have personal knowledge of the matters I will describe in this affidavit.

2. I was assisted by Patrick O’Rourke of the Office of University Counsel in preparing the form only of this affidavit. The statements it contains, however, are my own; and I have given them voluntarily. I have not been pressured by the University to state any opinions that I do not honestly hold.

3. Reinstating Ward Churchill to his position at CU would have a “chilling effect” on academic freedom of speech. I know from personal experience that Mr. Churchill is a staunch opponent of other people’s free speech rights.

4. Mr. Churchill has a long history of aggressive, anti-collegial behavior towards academics who dare disagree with his opinions. Mr. Churchill has repeatedly attacked scholars who dare disagree with him by filing spurious misconduct complaints, by labeling them as “Nazis”, and by other types of ad hominem attacks, threats and intimidation.

5. If you decide to reinstate Churchill to his former position at CU, many people will mistakenly assume that your court has exonerated Churchill on the charges of research misconduct. This will give Churchill increased stature in the research community. Based on Churchill’s past habits, the results are predictable -- Churchill will use the bully pulpit you give him to intimidate and silence scholars who disagree with him.

6. After I posted a brief expose of Churchill’s fabrications surrounding the 1837 smallpox epidemic on my web page, he filed a spurious research misconduct complaint with my university. He concluded his complaint by demanding that my university formally reprimand me, require me to retract my research and apologize to Churchill, and remove my essay from my faculty web page. Thus Churchill launched an unabashed assault on my academic freedom of speech, and attempted to exercise prior restraint on my unpublished research.

7. Should you decide to return Mr. Churchill to his former position, CU will be restrained from sanctioning him for future misconduct, given Mr. Lane’s promise to file a retaliation lawsuit. In reinstating Churchill, you will give him free rein to continue his habits of fabricating and falsifying the scholarly record, and of attacking the free speech rights of junior scholars.

Vice President Cheney Tells It Like It Is!

"This week, President Obama decided to line himself up against former vice president Dick Cheney, who had been invited to speak on counterterrorism at the American Enterprise Institute.

Obama spoke first Thursday (at the National Archives), outlining his decisions--closing the prison at Guantanamo, banning enhanced interrogations, releasing "torture memos." He said that Gitmo has "weakened American national security" by diminishing our "moral authority," and that prisoners released into the U.S. could be secured in maximum security prisons.

The speech--long and defensive--lingered on the burdens of decision-making and the morality of our nation. But it presented few solutions: Where are those Gitmo prisoners going? Why were reports on detainee recidivism suppressed? Why do enemy combatants have constitutional rights?

In contrast, Cheney laid out a spirited defense of leadership in time of war, and within the constraints of the Constitution. Cheney said lives have been saved by enhanced interrogation. If not, he asked, why not declassify the results of those interrogations? Americans will not be protected by a decision to relabel "war" and "terrorism," or to relegate our nation's defense to the crime lab and the jury."

Mr. President, war is hell. Presidents and prime ministers have bombed Dresden, dropped nuclear weapons and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Ultimately, as Cheney made clear: "No moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things."---Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute

On May 21, 2009, Vice President Cheney defended the Bush Administration's policies in the War on Terror in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.

William Kristol posted an advance copy of Cheney's speech at the Weekly Standard (5-21-09). Here is an excerpt:

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.

...The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

...To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

...For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted. [Full text]

Affidavit of Rhonda Lynne Kelly

"Churchill strongly insinuates that my father sexually abused [my late sister] Leah, an outrageous allegation that is completely and utterly false. My father did not abuse Leah, me, or any of my siblings, either sexually or physically."--Rhonda Lynne Kelly

UPDATE: The Affidavit of Rhonda Lynne Kelly has been added to the end of this post. [H/T Mr. Paine of PirateBallerina.]

This is a picture of the Canadian Indian Leah Kelly. She was married to the dishonest scholar Ward Churchill. Leah died on June 1, 2000, when she was run over by a motorist late at night as she lay in the middle of Arapahoe Road.

According to the Denver Post (2-13-05):

Churchill's third wife, 25-year-old Leah Kelly, was killed May 31, 2000, when hit by a car outside Boulder, and Churchill's biography of her continues to stir bad feelings with her family. Kelly had a blood-alcohol content of 0.35 percent when a motorist came upon her outside of town. He said she was lying in the road and he had no time to stop.

Leah's big sister Rhonda [scroll through these posts for more information] has written that Ward Churchill exploited Leah's memory and defamed the reputation of her family and Indian community.

Rhonda's heartbreaking story appears in an Affidavit at the end of a 131-page legal brief dated May 20, 2009 and filed by the University of Colorado in Denver District Court.

Ward Churchill published a book after Leah was killed called In My Own Voice. According to Rhonda, this book contains many essays that Ward Churchill falsely attributes to Leah. According to Rhonda, the defamatory "Preface" denigrates Leah and her late father John Kelly. Rhonda writes that Ward Churchill even falsely insinutes that Leah was sexually abused by her father.

I think that some day what Rhonda wrote will be a famous historical document of Indian history. Read Rhonda's words at the end of the brief or below [H/T Mr. Paine at Pirate Ballerina]:

The Affiant, Rhonda Lynne Kelly, deposes and states:

1. I am over 18 years of age and understand the obligations of oath when I provide a sworn affidavit.

2. I have personal knowledge of the matters I will describe in this affidavit. Patrick T. O’Rourke of the Office of University Counsel assisted me in preparing the form of the affidavit, but it expresses my opinions, not the University of Colorado’s opinions. I have not been compensated in any way for providing my affidavit.

3. I am a member of the Ojibways of Onegaming First Nation in Canada. I have a Bachelor of Social Work Degree and a Bachelor of Laws Degree from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. I serve as a justice coordinator and policy analyst for Grand Council Treaty #3, a First Nations political organization representing 28 First Nations of the Treaty #3 nation located in Northwestern Ontario. My responsibilities with the Grand Council Treaty #3 organization pertain to human rights, policing, and justice-related issues that impact the Treaty #3 members. I am deeply motivated to maintain the integrity of scholarship related to indigenous people.

4. I strongly oppose the reinstatement of Ward Churchill as a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder. My opposition stems from painful personal knowledge I have of the harm Churchill’s published writings have done, and will continue to do, to Native communities and families. In particular, I testify about the hurtful ways Churchill has exploited the death of my sister, the late Leah Renae Kelly (“Leah”), who died tragically and unexpectedly on June 1, 2000, after being struck by a vehicle near the house in Boulder, Colorado, she shared with Churchill, her husband at the time of her death.

5. More than a year after Leah’s death, Churchill published a book entitled In My Own Voice. This book, which contains numerous essays Churchill falsely attributes to Leah, has caused enormous grief to my family, not only for its misrepresentations of the details of Leah’s life and death, of my family’s history, and of our Ojibway culture, but especially for the false and defamatory allegations and depictions Churchill fabricates in the book’s “Preface,” denigrating Leah and my father, the late John Kelly.

6. After Leah’s death, Churchill informed my parents that he was writing a biography about Leah, but did not ask my parents any questions about their histories or Leah’s life. Around November 2001, Churchill provided copies of In My Own Voice to my parents. My father was devastated when he read the book and would not speak about what was troubling him.

7. I read the book In My Own Voice and felt angry toward Churchill for the inaccuracies and false information he wrote about Leah and my father. In particular, Churchill strongly insinuates that my father sexually abused Leah, an outrageous allegation that is completely and utterly false. My father did not abuse Leah, me, or any of my siblings, either sexually or physically.

8. In his book In My Own Voice, Churchill speaks to the pain and suffering First Nation children suffered in the Canadian residential schools. Yet Churchill’s outrageous fabrications in In My Own Voice inflicted the same pain and suffering upon my father, making false and cruel allegations that my father could not defend himself against. Leah was deceased when In My Own Voice was published, and could not counter Churchill’s false accusations against my father. In the book, Churchill acknowledges that Leah never disclosed to him she had been sexually abused; yet Churchill makes these allegations anyway.

9. In July 2004, the Assembly of First Nations, the political organization representing more than a half million First Nation people across Canada, issued a resolution denouncing Churchill’s book In My Own Voice for its “false allegations and insinuations” against Leah and my family. The resolution further explains that an attempt to inform the publisher that there were many inaccuracies in the book was “met with threats” by Churchill. While my family and I are grateful for the Assembly’s courageous resolution denouncing Churchill’s book In My Own Voice (and a related screenplay Churchill was planning), we continue to suffer emotional harm and reputational injury as a result of the book’s continuing publication and circulation.

10. I shudder when I think about my children, and my children’s children, being victimized over and over, far into the future, when they read the defamatory fabrications and falsehoods about Leah, our family, and our First Nation history and culture in Churchill’s book In My Own Voice. I implore the Denver District Court not to allow Churchill to regain a position on the faculty of the University of Colorado, where he will continue to use his prestigious academic appointment to inflict cruel pain on Native families and communities by publishing his hurtful and damaging lies.

University of Colorado Says Not to Reinstate or Compensate Ward Churchill

Peter Schmidt at The Chronicle of Higher Education and John Aguilar of The Daily Camera (5-21-09) report that the University of Colorado has filed a strongly-worded 131-page Brief in Opposition to Motion for Reinstatement in Denver District Court on May 20, 2009, that argues that the dishonest scholar Ward Churchill should not be reinstated as a professor or given financial compensation.

At the end of the brief is the Affidavit of Rhonda Lynne Kelly, the big sister of Ward Churchill's late wife Leah Kelly, who was the topic of my second post. To me, Rhonda's testimony is the best part of the brief.

Aguilar reports:

Former ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill not only shouldn't get his job back but doesn't deserves any financial compensation as a result of his termination by the school two years ago, the University of Colorado contends in a legal brief filed in Denver District Court.

In the 31-page document opposing Churchill's motion for reinstatement, which was made available Thursday, CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke argued that a Denver jury's decision last month to award the former professor $1 was a clear indication it felt Churchill had not suffered damages despite its ruling he was removed unlawfully from his teaching post.

"The jury determined that Professor Churchill's constitutional injury was nominal, and a nominal injury should not serve as a basis for reinstatement or any other equitable relief," O'Rourke wrote. "The Court should not contravene the jury's implied finding that Professor Churchill suffered no actual damages."

...A jury of six decided on April 2 that Churchill was wrongly fired for exercising his First Amendment rights but awarded him only $1 in damages.

Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves will decide whether Churchill gets his job back at CU, receives a monetary settlement, or gets nothing at all.

A date for a reinstatement hearing will likely be announced next week.

...Churchill has 10 days to reply to CU's filing.

In the university's brief, O'Rourke wrote that the jury's verdict in no way absolved Churchill of academic fraud charges.

If it believed that Churchill had not engaged in misconduct, the attorney wrote, the jury would have compensated him for damage to his reputation.

"Instead, the jury did not award Professor Churchill a single penny for reputational injury or emotional distress, which can only be read as the jurors' unanimous conclusion that Professor Churchill destroyed his own reputation through his academic misconduct," O'Rourke said in the brief.

And Churchill's claim that he never asked for money is belied by the fact that his attorney, David Lane, repeatedly told the jury during closing arguments that the best way to send CU a message and provide justice was to award his client monetary damages, O'Rourke wrote.

He warned the court that reinstating Churchill on the Boulder campus would invite future litigation and ill will between both parties, especially given the fact that many of Churchill's former colleagues believe he engaged in academic fraud.

He also wrote that allowing Churchill back into a CU classroom would mean he could operate without fear of being held accountable for his behavior and scholarship.

"Reinstatement under these circumstances places the university in the no-win position of either facing another lawsuit or effectively immunizing Professor Churchill from complying with the standards of professional scholarship," he stated. [See full text.]

Update on Anna Mae Aquash Murder Trial

Murder Suspect John Graham

Murder Suspect Richard Marshall

KTIV News (5-20-09) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota reports:

Two appeals pending over the 1975 killing of a Canadian woman on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will move forward as a combined case.

John Graham and Richard Marshall were set to stand trial last week in Rapid City on charges they committed or aided and abetted the murder of Annie Mae Aquash (AH'-kwash).

But the judge delayed it until the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on whether 1 of the counts against Graham should have been dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley [U.S. Department of Justice, District of South Dakota] appealed the dismissal of that charge that is similar to a count that was thrown out from an earlier indictment, which he also appealed.

Instead of handling both appeals separately, the 8th Circuit filed an order Tuesday granting a request to consolidate them.

President Flip-Flop

Karl Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal (5-21-09):

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good...[Full Text]

Feds Foil Muslim Terrorists

The New York Daily News (5-21-09) reports:

The FBI and NYPD busted a four-man homegrown terror cell Wednesday night that was plotting to blow up two Bronx synagogues while simultaneously shooting a plane out of the sky, sources told the Daily News.

The idea was to create a "fireball that would make the country gasp," one law enforcement said.

Little did they know the plastic explosives packed into their car bombs and the plane-downing Stinger missile in their backseat were all phony - supplied by undercover agents posing as Pakistani militants linked to Al Qaeda...

The suspects - three U.S.-born citizens and one Haitian immigrant - at least three of whom were said to be jailhouse converts to Islam, were angry about the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan, sources told The News.

"They wanted to make a statement," a law enforcement source said. "They were filled with rage and wanted to take it out on what they considered the source of all problems in America - the Jews."

The group's alleged ringleader, James Cromitie, according to the complaint, discussed targets with an undercover agent. "The best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already," he allegedly told the agent. Later, he rejoiced in a terrorist attack on a synagogue.

"I hate those motherf-----s, those f---ing Jewish bastards. . . . I would like to get [destroy] a synagogue."

The men allegedly parked car bombs wired to cell phones outside the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center. They were also heading to Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, Orange County, when the law swooped in on them.

Sources said their plan was to shoot down a cargo plane headed to Iraq or Afghanistan with a surface-to-air guided missile while simultaneously calling the cell phones and blowing up the Riverdale synagogues.

Sources said the four men were arrested after a year-long investigation that began when an informant connected to a mosque in Newburgh said he knew men who wanted to buy explosives.

FBI agents supplied them with what they billed as C-4 plastic explosives and a Stinger missile.

The weaponry was all phony.

"The bombs had been made by FBI technicians," said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. "They were totally inert."

Witnesses said an NYPD 18-wheeler blocked a black SUV on Independence Ave. in Riverdale and then officers broke in the darkened windows and yanked out the four men from inside the car. [See full text]

Forty Years Ago Today: The Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR Was Founded

"In 1969, [Sergei Kovalov] founded the first Soviet human rights association, the Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR, and later became the principal link to the dissident movement in Lithuania. Kovalev actively participated in publication of samizdat periodicals such as Moscow-based Chronicle of Current Events and The Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania...In 2002, he organized a public commission to investigate the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings (the Kovalev Commission[2]), which was effectively paralyzed after one of its members, Sergei Yushenkov, was assassinated,[3][4] another member, Yuri Shchekochikhin, poisoned with thallium,[5][6] and its legal counsel and investigator, Mikhail Trepashkin, arrested.[7][8]"---Wikipedia

[Watch They Chose Freedom (in Russian: Они выбирали свободу), a four-part TV documentary on the history of political dissent in the USSR from the 1950s to the 1990s.]

Robert Coalson, who writes a column called "Power Vertical" for Radio Free Europe/Radio liberty, remembers this historic day in Russian history (5-20-09):

Forty years ago today, on May 20, 1969, the human rights movement in the Soviet Union took a bold step forward. A group of 15 brave individuals – scholars, writers, historians – announced the formation of the Initiative Group for Human Rights in the USSR and sent an open letter to the UN Human Rights Commission. Eleven of the 15 were eventually arrested and imprisoned.

RFE/RL’s Russian Service attended a commemorative event at the Moscow headquarters of Memorial and spoke to some of the original members of the initiative group. Veteran activist Aleksandr Lavut, who worked for years on the dissident journal “The Chronicle of Current Events,” described the persecution he endured: “They hunted us, and viciously. We were constantly being watched and listened to. In later years, they followed us constantly, walked behind us, sometimes hiding and sometimes purposely not hiding. My apartment was only searched twice – the second time was when they came for me.”

Lavut was asked how his fellow Soviet citizens viewed his quixotic efforts and he said: “The people we knew, of course, sympathized. But we also heard reproaches like, ‘why are you beating your head against a wall? You should think about your family.’”

This attitude, Lavut says, has only changed a little. “People treat us with a certain respect and sympathy, but far from all. A lot of people think we aren’t needed and are even harmful. But for the most part, people approve of this work.”

Lavut says the social and political rights of Russians are constantly violated. “You might as well say that elections have almost disappeared,” he said.

Sergei Kovalyov, a tireless rights advocate who was also one of the original 15 members of the initiative group, is pleased that many more people (he says the Russian branch of Memorial has up to 10,000 members) are involved in rights work. But he says the obstacles presented by the government remain chillingly the same.

“It boils down to the right to have your own point of view, to be respected and not persecuted,” he said. “For example, it has been reported that President Medvedev has created a commission that is supposed to fight against falsifications of history that harm Russia’s prestige. It is clear that this is just another censorship organ. And a law is being prepared and will not doubt be passed by this Duma (which can in no sense be called a parliament) about the criminalization of such falsifications of history. This is tantamount to a ban on critical statements about World War II. For example, it will be forbidden to compare Stalin to Hitler, although I would say that Hitler is just a pale imitator of Lenin and Stalin. In short, today we are seeing an organized, systematic assault on freedom of thought.”

President Obama to Speak at Notre Dame

Mother and Child: Single 60s Mom Stanley Ann Dunham with her young son Barack Obama

"Greer Hannan...said she and others plan to attend the commencement but to protest Obama's presence by putting a yellow cross with yellow baby's feet on either side atop her mortarboard."---CNS News (5-14-09)

UPDATE: "The Pope's Stand in Obama's Notre Dame Controversy." Time (5-16-09)

President Obama has described his mother Stanley Ann Dunham as "the dominant figure in my formative years...The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." Yet in spite of the example of his own mother, who became pregnant with the future President before she was married, President Obama has said that he doesn't want his young daughters "punished with a baby" if they make a "mistake" and get pregnant.

Some people plan to disrupt the Notre Dame graduation because the University has invited the pro-choice President Obama to speak, but CNS News (5-14-09) reports that some students plan a respectful, non-disruptive, silent witness:

University of Notre Dame students who plan to protest the school's awarding of an honorary degree to President Barack Obama on campus during commencement Sunday are calling for a peaceful, prayerful approach.

"We believe a lot more can be accomplished through prayerful, respectful witness than can be accomplished in angry protest," said Michele Sagala, a graduating senior and member of ND Response, a coalition of student groups who oppose the school's decision to award an honorary degree to Obama because of his support of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.

...Greer Hannan, another ND Response member who also is graduating, said she and others plan to attend the commencement but to protest Obama's presence by putting a yellow cross with yellow baby's feet on either side atop her mortarboard.

"To express our extreme disappointment with the university for inviting Obama to be the commencement speaker but also to call on President Obama to reconsider his positions on life issues," she said. [Full text]